Ammoecius mimus ( PÉRINGUEY, 1901 ) DellacaSa & DellacaSa, 2002

DellacaSa, M. & DellacaSa, G., 2002, Systematic Redefinition Of Taxa Belonging To The Genera Ahermodontus Báguena, 1930 And Ammoecius Mulsant, 1842, With Description Of The New Genus Vladimirellus (Coleoptera: Aphodiidae), Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 48 (4), pp. 269-316 : 306-307

Ammoecius mimus ( PÉRINGUEY, 1901) , comb. n.

( Figs 98 , 100–102 )

Aphodius (Ammoecius) mimus PÉRINGUEY, 1901: 409 ; SCHMIDT 1922: 71; PETROVITZ 1964: 188;

ENDRŐDI 1978: 179; ENDRŐDI & RAKOVIČ 1981: 42; DELLACASA M. 1988: 162. Aphodius (Ammoecius) kochi PETROVITZ, 1961: 348 ; DELLACASA M. 1988: 149, syn. n. Aphodius (Ammoecius) dukei ENDRŐDI, 1964: 105 ; DELLACASA M. 1988: 231, syn. n.

Type locality restricted: Hope Town . [Cape Town, South Africa.]

Type depository: South African Museum, Cape Town .

Description – Length 4.0–5.0 mm. Oblong, strongly convex, shiny, glabrous ( Fig. 98 ). Piceous, clypeal margin, sides of pronotum and elytra more or less widely reddish; legs brown-reddish; antennal club dark testaceous. Head with cupuliform epistoma coarsely, densely and regularly punctured to the pliciform, rather elongate and slightly raised anterior carina in front of which punctation rather dense, coarse and somewhat irregular subrugose; clypeus distinctly sinuate at middle, widely rounded at sides, latter nearly straight, rather thickly bordered, border upturned; genae obtuse, elongately ciliate, distinctly protruding more than eyes; frontal suture deeply impressed; frons slightly depressed at middle, rather sparsely punctured; epipharynx: Fig. 100 . Pronotum transverse, convex, simply, regularly and almost coarsely punctured, punctation somewhat denser on sides; latter distinctly bordered, feebly incurvate, maximum width near base; hind angles subtruncate, truncation feebly sinuate; base not bisinuate, distinctly bordered. Scutellum regularly triangular, at base as wide as first two elytral interstices, feebly convex and sparsely punctured on basal half. Elytra elongate, feebly broadened backward, almost imperceptibly denticulate at shoulder; striae fine, faintly crenulate on disc, progressively wider, faintly punctured and not crenulate at all toward apex; interstices feebly convex on disc, more convex on preapical declivity, finely and sparsely punctured.Hindtibiaewithsuperiorapicalspuraslongasfirsttwotarsalsegments;firstsegmentdistinctly shorter than following three combined. Male: inferior apical spur of middle tibiae shortened, abruptly inwardly curved apically; aedeagus: Figs 101–102 . Female: inferior apical spur of middle tibiae elongate and regularly acuminate toward apex.

Distribution: South Africa (Cape Province)

Remarks – In the original diagnosis, PÉRINGUEY (1901: 409) noted: “clypeus […] with the sides of emargination angular” and later “elytra […] with the intervals a little costate in the anterior part, but much more distinctly so from the middle to the apex, where they are carinate and impunctate”. These characters cannot be verified by the syntypes preserved in the South African Museum.

SCHMIDT (1922: 71) apparently did not see this taxon and dealt with it on the basis of the original description only. PETROVITZ (1961) described A. kochi and ENDRŐDI (1964) A. dukei but they did not give any distinguishing character from the other Afrotropical Ammoecius .

Later, PETROVITZ (1964: 188) stated that A. mimus is insufficiently described, though in his key he distinguished A. dukei , A. mimus , and A. kochi on the basis of morphological characters mentioned in their original descriptions. ENDRŐDI and RAKOVIČ (1981: 31) dealt with these taxa in the same manner, stating that they had difficulties in tracing the type material.

A study of a paratype of A. kochi PETROVITZ preserved in the Geneva Museum, as well as a paratype of A. dukei ENDRŐDI preserved in the Hungarian Natural History Museum (Budapest), allowed P. BORDAT to determine that these taxa are identical. In addition, the study of six syntypes of Ammoecius mimus from “Hope Town” (one “brochette” of 2× 3 specimens) bearing a handwritten label by PÉRINGUEY: “ Aphodius mimus Typ. PY ”, allows us to state that A. mimus , A. dukei and A. kochi represent the same taxon because no distinguishing characters exist in the specimens. Finally, examination of a specimen identified as Aphodius mimus PÉRINGUEY , labelled “ Colonie du Cap, Steynsburg, R. Ellenberg 1915; compared with type by B.-O. Landin”, preserved in the Paris Museum, confirmed the correct interpretation of PÉRINGUEY’ s species by this author.

Figures

Figs 96–99. Habitus of: 96 = Ammoecius incultus (PETROVITZ, 1961) (male, length 3.0 mm, South Africa: S. W. Cape, Gansbaa 10 km NE), 97 = A. terminatus HAROLD, 1869 (male, length 3.5 mm, South Africa: S. W. Cape, Brackfontein farm), 98 = A. mimus (PÉRINGUEY, 1901) (male, length 4.5 mm, South Africa: Cape, Karroo, Olifantsulei farm), 99 = A. lugubris BOHEMAN, 1857 (male, length

Figs 100–108. Epipharynx (100, 103, 106) and aedeagus (dorsal and lateral view) (101–102, 104–105, 107–108) of: 100–102 = Ammoecius mimus (PÉRINGUEY, 1901), 103–105 = A. lugubris BOHEMAN, 1857, 106–108 = A. terminatus HAROLD, 1869