Microhoria oedipus (Chevrolat, 1860)
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.37520/aemnp.2020.007 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7990B912-A3D4-40F7-B143-772FFDB5A119 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C8343F-AA32-1066-FC7F-8FFFC202FC36 |
treatment provided by |
Tatiana |
scientific name |
Microhoria oedipus |
status |
|
Microhoria oedipus species-group
Diagnosis. Robust species, showing usually more distinct sexual dimorphism ( Fig. 139 View Figs 138–150. 138–147 ), mostly with modified elytral setation (swirled setae, setose bands); rather stable in pronotal characters, with distinct and longer setose latero-basal impressions. Mesoventrite with partly bordered lateral margins (sulcus absent laterally), and well-developed longitudinal submedian carinae ( Figs 13, 14 View Figs 7–14 ); setose fringe of mesepimera well-developed ( Fig. 33 View Figs 31–38. 31 ); submarginal setose impressions of metaventrite and abdominal sternum III conspicuous; metatibiae more or less swollen and modified in males, with two terminal spurs; male metafemora with a row of coarser setae on inner side (at least in some species); elytral apices in males conspicuously modified, subtruncate to more or less strongly excavate and lobed, with scattered secretory pores ( Fig. 43 View Figs 39–46. 39, 40 ). Aedeagus ( Figs 76, 77 View Figs 74–77 ): tegmen hood-like, with simple pointed apex (‘cuculliform’); gonopore free.
Distribution. Northern Africa ( Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia). Species included (13 spp.). Microhoria admirabilis ( Pic, 1894), M. biauriculata (Pic, 1920), M. fortissima ( Pic, 1894), M. leprieuri ( Baudi di Selve, 1877), M. lobata (Pic, 1905), M. normandi (Pic, 1915), M. obuncata Normand, 1950, M. oedipus (Chevrolat, 1860) , M. sicardi ( Pic, 1893), M. subtruncata (Pic, 1920), M. succinta ( Chevrolat, 1877), M. tunisica ( Pic, 1893), and M. valga (Fairmaire, 1875).
Remarks. This group holds the species formerly treated as Microhoria sensu stricto. They are undoubtedly closely related to members of the M. fasciata species-group, but differ by the more conspicuous sexual dimorphism. However, it should be stated, that both modifications of metatibiae and elytral apices of males in this group are variably developed and most of the above listed species were only briefly examined or included on the basis of original descriptions.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.