Cryptophilus cf. integer (Heer, 1841)

Ruta, Rafal, Jaloszynski, Pawel, Sienkiewicz, Pawel & Konwerski, Szymon, 2011, Erotylidae (Insecta, Coleoptera) of Poland - problematic taxa, updated keys and new records, ZooKeys 134, pp. 1-13 : 1-2

Cryptophilus cf. integer (Heer, 1841) Figs 1, 2

Material examined.

Poland*, Wielkopolska-Kujawy Lowland: Włocławek (UTM: CD63), compost heap, 1 adult and 1 larva, 26 VIII 2010, leg. PJ [PJ].

In the Palearctic Region, Cryptophilinae are represented by a single species of the East Chinese genus Chinophagus Lyubarsky, and the broadly distributed Cryptophilus Reitter with nine species ( Węgrzynowicz 2007). External morphology of Cryptophilus superficially resembles that of many Cryptophagidae and for a long time members were placed in that family, despite historical work by Ganglbauer who reclassified Erotylidae and included Cryptophilus in Diphyllini , Erotylinae ( Ganglbauer 1899). However, Ganglbauer’s broad concept of Erotylidae (including Cryptophagidae and Biphyllidae ) was disputable and not followed by subsequent authors. Cryptophilus was included in Languriidae (currently Languriinae within Erotylidae ) by Sen Gupta and Crowson (1971) and Lawrence (1991); in Erotylidae , Cryptophilinae by Chûjô (1969); in Erotylidae , Xenoscelinae by Węgrzynowicz (2002); and in Erotylidae , Cryptophilinae in major modern catalogues and revisions (e.g. Leschen and Buckley 2007; Węgrzynowicz 2007).

The only Cryptophilus species reported from many European countries, including western and southern neighbours of Poland, is Cryptophilus integer (Heer, 1841). The species was originally described in Cryptophagus Herbst, and indeed can be easily misidentified by an inexperienced coleopterist as a member of the Cryptophagidae . The latter family has never been popular among Polish entomologists and species in some genera (e.g. Cryptophagus ) are difficult to identify. Therefore, the fact that Cryptophilus has been found only recently in Poland can be explained either by a possible misidentification as Cryptophagidae in institutional and private collections, or by current expansion or introduction. The major difference between cryptophagids and cryptophilines is the developement of the procoxal sockets, which are open or nearly open in Cryptophagidae and closed in Erotylidae . The larvae of Cryptophilus (Fig. 2) can be possibly misidentified as Monotoma Herbst ( Monotomidae ) or Epuraea Erichson ( Nitidulidae ); they all share a similar body shape and granulate or tuberculate dorsum, and occur in similar habitats (often together). Unambiguous determination of Central European specimens can be made based on structures of the head capsule, mouthparts and terminal abdominal segments. Among others, the shape of the mandibles is clearly different: in Cryptophilus the prostheca is very large, subtriangular, and the mandible lacks a subapical accessory tooth; in Monotoma the prostheca is inconspicuous and the subapical accessory tooth present, very long and slender; in Epuraea the prostheca is developed as an elongate brush of hairs and the accessory tooth is absent.

Cryptophilus integer is associated with decaying plant matter (e.g. compost heaps). The genusneeds a comprehensive revision before world species can be confidently identified. Due to this taxonomic problem the true identity of species recorded from Europe requires verification by specialists ( Węgrzynowicz, pers. comm.). Therefore, although presenting the first Polish finding of Cryptophilus is justified, the identification of specimens must be treated as uncertain. Therefore we treat all previously published European records of Cryptophilus as tentatively identified pending verification by comparison of type specimens.