Mecynotarsus amabilis Lea, 1895

Kejval, Zbyněk & Cz, Domažlice, 2013, Taxonomic revision of the Australian Notoxinae (Coleoptera: Anthicidae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae (suppl.) 53, pp. 1-98: 17-18

publication ID

publication LSID


persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Mecynotarsus amabilis Lea, 1895


Mecynotarsus amabilis Lea, 1895  

( Figs 10–12 View Figs 7–14. 7–9 , 122 View Figs 119–125. 119–124 , 143 View Figs 141–149 , 168 View Figs 168–176 , 187 View Figs 186–193 )

Mecynotarsus amabilis Lea, 1895: 608   .

Mecynotarsus amabilis: PIC (1911)   : 13 (catalogue); LEA (1922): 473 (catalogue, record); UHMANN (2000): 146 (records); UHMANN (2007): 22 (redescription, record).

Type locality. New South Wales, Windsor, Hawkesbury River.

Type material. LECTOTYPE (hereby designated, Fig. 122 View Figs 119–125. 119–124 ): ♂, ‘ amabilis Lea   TYPES Windsor [h] // 19017 Mecynotarsus amabilis Lea N. S.   Wales TYPE [h] // SAMA Database No. 25-028554 [p]’ ( SAMA). PARALECTOTYPES: 2 ♀♀, same data as holotype [mounted on the same card, see Remarks]’ ( SAMA).

Additional material: AUSTRALIA: NEW SOUTH WALES: 1 ♂ 1 ♀, Bungonia State Park, Shoalhaven River Gorge, 5.–7.x.1985, C. Reid leg. ( ANIC)   ; 2♀♀, 15 km NW of Moruya, Moruya River , 3.x.1982, J. & E. Doyen leg.( ANIC)   ; QUEENSLAND: 1 ♂ 1 ♀, Helidon, 1890, C. J. Wild leg. ( QMBA)   .

Redescription (male, Shoalhaven River Gorge, ANIC). Body, legs and antennae reddish brown.

Antero-lateral margins of frons simple. Gular rugules rather distinct, anteriorly larger and ordered in row as in Fig. 138 View Figs 133–140. 133 . Setation of head rather evenly short and appressed, very dense and finer on vertex, coarser near ventral margins of eyes, with some inconspicuous, longer, erect setae dorsally at base. Antennae moderately long; antennomeres III–V about twice, X 1.4 times as long as wide; setation mostly rather short and fine, inconspicuous, distinctly coarser on basal 1–2 antennomeres.

Pronotum 1.6 times as long as wide, its lateral margins unevenly shaped, slightly convex anteriorly, somewhat angled at widest point, and then nearly straight in narrowing towards base in dorsal view; posterior collar narrow but distinct, somewhat concealed by scaly setation. Pronotal horn rather robust, moderately long and wide, its posterior angles obsolete in dorsal view ( Fig. 143 View Figs 141–149 ); horn margins armed with 5 rounded lobules on each side; horn crest distinct, long and rather wide, with coarse rugules on margins, evenly lowering towards apex; submarginal rugules minute, rather ordered in long, dense row laterally; 12 distinct median rugules of different sizes, some of them contiguous to fused, and several minute granules posteriorly. Setation whitish laterally, goldish to cupreous shiny dorsally, largely appressed to subdecumbent and scaly, finer on pronotal horn dorsally, but even here dense and rather distinct; scales on pronotal disc of two sizes, all elongate and distinctly truncate apically, those longer more raised (subdecumbent); antebasal paired setae long and distinct laterally and absent medially, additional tactile setae absent.

Elytra 1.7 times as long as wide; omoplates and postbasal impression absent. Setation scaly, multi-coloured, whitish, brown, cupreous and goldish, somewhat shiny, forming dark markings ( Fig. 168 View Figs 168–176 ), evenly developed / ordered; scales linear, bluntly rounded to truncate apically, very densely spaced but distinct; erect tactile setae absent.

Male characters (lectotype). Sternum VII subtruncate and moderately angled posterolaterally ( Fig. 10 View Figs 7–14. 7–9 ), its surface shallowly impressed medially. Tergum VIII and aedeagus as in Figs 11, 12 View Figs 7–14. 7–9 .

Variation. Body length (♂ ♀) 2.7–3.0 mm. Horn margin with 5–6 lobules on each side, 6–12 median rugules.

Differential diagnosis. Mecynotarsus amabilis   is undoubtedly close to M. albellus   , M. ziczac   , and other externally similar species that have a narrower pronotum (unevenly shaped laterally in dorsal view), a distinctly setose dorsal surface of the pronotal horn, and the colour pattern of elytra as in Figs 187 View Figs 186–193 , 209 View Figs 202–209 (if well-developed). It may resemble especially M. canthariphilus   sp. nov. by the partly goldish to cupreous shiny colouration of the scales and the finer setation of the pronotal horn, however, it differs clearly by the male characters (cf. Figs 10–11 View Figs 7–14. 7–9 versus 35–37).

Distribution. Australia: New South Wales ( LEA 1895; UHMANN 2007), Queensland ( LEA 1922).

The records from New South Wales and Queensland by UHMANN (2000) are based on misidentified specimens of M. phanophilus Lea, 1922   , M. setulosus   sp. nov., and M. ziczac King, 1869   . The record from Queensland (Gayndah) by LEA (1922) needs verification as the type series of M. amabilis   contains two different species (see below), and some identifications of M. amabilis   by Lea were found to be erroneous (see the material of M. albellus   and M. ziczac   ).

Remarks. LEA (1895) described Mecynotarsus amabilis   from three specimens collected from flood debris along the Hawkesbury river near Windsor. The syntypes examined are mounted on the same card. Two of them are seriously damaged, both lacking heads and pronota. The third one (female) is in perfect condition, however it belongs to a different species (probably M. kingii MacLeay, 1872   , judging from rather shortly oval elytral scales). For this reason, a lectotype is designated for the male syntype mounted near handwritten ‘TY’, and redescription of external characters is based on a male specimen from Shoalhaven River Gorge, that is quite identical with the lectotype in male characters.


South Australia Museum


Australian National Insect Collection














Mecynotarsus amabilis Lea, 1895

Kejval, Zbyněk & Cz, Domažlice 2013

Mecynotarsus amabilis:

UHMANN G. 2007: 22
UHMANN G. 2000: 146
LEA A. M. 1922: 473
PIC M. 1911: 13

Mecynotarsus amabilis

LEA A. M. 1895: 608