Charopus multicaudis Kiesenwetter, 1866a

Franzini, Gabriele, 2022, Taxonomic notes on some species of Charopus Erichson, 1840 in the Mediterranean Region (Coleoptera: Cleroidea, Melyridae, Malachiinae), Fragmenta entomologica (Frag. Entomol., Roma) 54 (1), pp. 105-118 : 110-111

Charopus multicaudis Kiesenwetter, 1866a stat. rest.

( Figs 2c , 6, 7 )

Charopus multicaudis Kiesenwetter, 1866a: 383 . Type locality: Andalusia (Sierra de Jaen, Cordoba, Granada); Peyron 1877: 212; Uhagón 1879: 213; Abeille de Perrin 1885a: 153 [synonymy with C. rotundatus proposed].

Charopus nitidus : Escalera 1914: 233 (not Küster); Pic & Lindberg, 1932: 13.

Charopus nitidus var. macroderus Abeille de Perrin, 1890a: 253 . Type locality: Badajoz ( Spain) [syn. nov.] Charopus rotundatus : Uhagón 1901: 54; Plata-Negrache 1987: 558; Plata-Negrache & Santiago Hernández 1990: 449 (not Erichson).

Charopus rotundatus var. nitidus Evers 1962: 167 (not Küster); [syn. nov.].

Types: It has not been possible to locate specimens labelled as per Kiesenwetter’s description in his collection at ZSM. However, all the Charopus with apex of elytra pale studied from the Iberian Peninsula, including Andalusia, were found to belong to a single species, so its identification with C. multicaudis seems solid enough to continue using this name even in the absence of a type.

Notes. Kiesenwetter stated that his C. multicaudis was “easy to separate from all known species because of the peculiar structure of the male elytral apex” (1866b). Despite the optimism of the Author, C. multicaudis held out as a valid species only until Uhagón (1879). In later works, since Abeille de Perrin (1885a) and Uhagón himself (1901), C. multicaudis has been treated as a synonym of either C. rotundatus or C. nitidus , depending on each Author’s view about those taxa.

The Iberian material previously referred to Charopus rotundatus ( Figs 2c , 7 , 8 ) and to Charopus multicaudis does show constant differences from both rotundatus Erichson, 1840 and nitidus Küster, 1849 . It is closer in habitus to C. nitidus , but the following differences can be observed in apex of elytra of males: the distal margin lacks large setae, the appendage is longer and darker, the apical lobe ( Fig. 2c ) is less distinct, and the spines on its inner margin are much smaller. The shiny aspect and the longer and sparser pubescence set it apart from C. rotundatus . The antennae and legs of both sexes are also proportionally longer than in either of the above species. Therefore C. multicaudis must be reconsidered as a third valid species in this group. C. nitidus var. macroderus Abeille de Perrin (1890a) has been described from Badajoz (Estremadura, Spain), on the basis of its pronotum being longer than in nitidus , at that time still considered a valid species, but Uhagón (1901) lumped it together with C. rotundatus . This synonymy was stated again by Mayor (2007). Specimens examined from Badajoz do not display differences in length of pronotum from those of other Iberian localities, so the new subjective synonymy Charopus multicaudis Kiesenwetter, 1866 = Charopus nitidus var. macroderus Abeille de Perrin, 1890 is proposed here.

The confirmed distribution of C. multicaudis is of W Mediterranean type: it includes most of the Iberian Peninsula, Balearic Islands, Algeria and Morocco. For the latter country it has been cited by Evers (1962) as C. rotundatus var. nitidus , but all the specimens examined from Morocco belong to C. multicaudis . The new subjective synonymy Charopus multicaudis Kiesenwetter, 1866 = Charopus rotundatus var. nitidus Evers, 1962 is proposed here.

Figures

Fig. 2 – Apex of left elytra ♂: a, Charopus rotundatus Erichson 1840; b, Charopus nitidus Küster, 1849; c, Charopus multicaudis Kiesenwetter, 1866; d, Charopus concolor (Fabricius, 1801).

Fig. 7 – Charopus multicaudis Kiesenwetter, 1866: ♀ habitus (Palencia, Baltanas, CGL).

Fig. 8 – Charopus varipes Baudi di Selve, 1872: ♂ habitus (Castel d’Aiano, Bologna, CGF).