Quedius (Raphirus) cohaesus Eppelsheim, 1888

Salnitska, Maria & Solodovnikov, Alexey, 2022, New species and records of Quedius rove beetles (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Staphylininae) from Middle Asia, European Journal of Taxonomy 823, pp. 141-157 : 144

Quedius (Raphirus) cohaesus Eppelsheim, 1888

Material examined

KAZAKHSTAN • 3 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀; Altai , Burkhat , Tautekeli, Karakoba River ; 11–27 Aug. 2010; V.A. Kastcheev leg.; ZIN • 1 ♂; Saur Mt. Ridge , Uidene River ; 1600–1800 m a.s.l.; 15 Jun. 2011; V.A. Kastcheev leg.; ZIN • 1 ♂; Bajankol River , near Karatogan Village; 15 Sep. 1988; V.A. Kastcheev leg.; ZIN • 2 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀; Ile Mts , Batan River, Chin-Turgen; 26 Jun. 1988; V.A. Kastcheev leg.; ZIN • 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀; Kungey-Alatoo , Kul’bastau, pass; 16 Jun. 1987; V.A. Kastcheev leg.; ZIN • 2 ♂♂; Chylik River , Sarybastau; 15 Jun. 1988; V.A. Kastcheev leg.; ZIN • 2 ♂♂; Ketmen Mts , Tuyuk River; 19 Sep. 1988; V.A. Kastcheev leg.; ZIN • 1 ♂; Ketmen Mts , Bolshoi Kyrgisai; 10 Jun. 1998; V.A. Kastcheev leg.; ZIN .

KYRGYZSTAN • 2 ♂♂, 4 ♀♀; environs of Tuyp Village , 4 th farm ; 1600–1900 m a.s.l.; S.V. Saluk leg.; fir leaflitter; cRyv .

Remarks

In our revision ( Salnitska & Solodovnikov 2018a), we considered Q. cohaesus and Q. pseudonigriceps Reitter, 1909 as separate species distinguished by a subtle, hard to express, difference in the aedeagus and by the fact that in Middle Asia Q. cohaesus has the apical seam of the palisade fringe on tergite VII and normally developed elytra, while Q. pseudonigriceps was brachypterous and without the palisade fringe. Our concept implied that Q. pseudonigriceps is a species widely distributed in southern Europe and the south-western part of Asia, brachypterous in Middle Asia. For Q. cohaesus it implied that it was a fully winged species distributed only in the Middle East and Middle Asia: Iran, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Assing (2019) synonymized Q. pseudonigriceps with Q. cohaesus because he (1) considered the concept of a macropterous species ( Q. cohaesus ) replacing the macropterous form of another, wing dimorphic and very similar species ( Q. pseudonigriceps ) implausible; and (2) he did not find in his large collection the discrete differences between the two species mentioned in Salnitska & Solodovnikov (2018a). Thus, Assing (2019) assumed that Q. cohaesus is distributed both west and east of the Caspian Sea where it is wing-dimorphic in Middle Asia and wing-monomorphic everywhere else. Here, we follow Assing (2019) since we agree that it may be impossible to distinguish the two ‘species’ using the structure of the aedeagus, and that Q. cohaesus (= Q. pseudonigriceps ) could be wing-dimorphic. However, the case needs further investigation with more data and a molecular approach. It is worth mentioning that in the new material from southern Kazakhstan and northern Kyrgyzstan reported here, there are only wingless specimens that we would have formerly identified as Q. pseudonigriceps and that Assing (2019) would identify as the wingless form of Q. cohaesus (= Q. pseudonigriceps ).