Notiophilus semenovi Tscitscherin, 1903 stat.

Kokina, Inese, Barševskis, Arvīds, Gavarāne, Inese & Aksjuta, Kristīna, 2012, Systematics of the four Notiophilus Dumeril, 1806 (Coleoptera: Carabidae) species based on morphological and molecular data, Baltic Journal of Coleopterology 12 (1), pp. 29-38 : 31-35

Notiophilus semenovi Tscitscherin, 1903 stat.

nov.

The body is elongated, 4.75-5.55 mm long. The upper part is monochrome with metallic lustre.

Head. The head is of the same width or slightly wider than the pronotum. Its width together with eyes is 1.45-1.65 mm (n=20). The upper part of the head is black, with metallic lustre. Eyes are big and hemispheric. The forehead has 6 rather parallel frontal furrows, which in some specimens are slightly irregular or some of them are doubled in the front. The outer striae, which separate forehead furrows form the rest of the forehead, are straight, very deeply impressed and wide. The stria at the eye basis is much shallower than other outer impressed forehead striae. In the middle of the eye basis it has a small setiferous puncture in both sides. Clypeus has elongated ridges of irregular form, the greatest of which is the central one. At the basis of clypeus there are two setiferous punctures. Labrum is mat, but in the front, along the setiferous punctures it is smooth, lustrous, without micro-sculpture. The centre line is of variable length. There is a convex row of 6 setiferous punctures along its rounded front margin. The antennae are dichromatic: the 1st antennomere is darker, the segments 2-4 are russet, the 3 rd and the 4 th segments being slightly darkened in the ends, but the other segments, beginning with the fifth, are black. The last segment of maxyllary palp and labial palp is dark. Bottom of the head is rather lustrous, without punctate, there are many distinct, smoothed, transversal plications.

Thorax. Pronotum length: 0.85-1.00 mm. Width: 1.45-1.60 mm. Pronotum is black, with bronze lustre, with concave side margins before the base. In some specimens it has a distinct band of rows of dots and reticulate micro-sculpture. Its discal part is lustrous, almost smooth with smoother, slightly uneven vestiges of plications. Along the margins the pronotum has rough dots, which in some places turn into plications. The centre line is rather deeply impressed in its discal part, but it is practically not distinct at the base and in the frontal part. There are separate larger dots and more distinct plications. The hind angles of the pronotum are big, sharp, slightly projected sideward. Its basal impressions are widely impressed. Prosternum is lustrous, roughly dotted. Prothorax protuberance is lustrous, dotted, has a deep U-form striae at its margins. The coxae of fore-legs are black, their trochanters, tibiae and tarsi are russet or in some places transparent russet-brown. Tarsi have micro-sculpture. Femora are black and lustrous. In male the 3 rd basic segments of the tarsi of fore-legs are widened and have the soles of thick silvery hair from below. Mesothorax is black and lustrous. Mid-legs are of the same colour as the fore-legs but with darker tarsi. Metathorax is black, smooth in the middle, lustrous, but heavily dotted along the sides. The episterna are dotted too. The proportion between the length and the width of the episterna is 2. The hind-legs, except trochanters, are black.

Elytra. Length: 2.95-3.25 mm.Width: 1.75-2.10 mm. The surface is monochrome black with bronze lustre. The sides of the elytra are not parallel; behind the shoulders, approximately against the dorsal setiferous puncture they are slightly concave, but then – before the top – they are slightly widened. The rows of dots on the elytra have large dots, they are slightly impressed at the base, but in the top part they become thin and some do not reach the very top. The rows of dots 5 and 6 are slightly impressed not only at the base, but often also in the dorsal part. In the elytra ends there is 1 apical setiferous puncture, rarely with one on one elytron but with two apical setiferous punctures on the other. The tops of the elytra have fine micro-sculpture. The 2 nd interval of the elytra is specular, in the middle being of the same width as the following two taken together, but in the basal part in some species it is even wider that the width of the two following intervals. The dorsal setiferous puncture is situated in the 4 th space between rows and is approximated to the third row of dots. The intervals 3 and 4 are about the same width. The 4 th interval is noticeably wider than the 5 th one. In some specimens the intervals 5 and 6 have reticulate micro-sculpture at full length or only in the base or apical parts. In some specimens they are lustrous and smooth. Transitional forms also have been observed. This feature is variable in this species.

Abdomen. The abdomen sternites are flat, lustrous, and mostly smooth. Male’s anal sternite has two setiferous punctures, female’s – four setiferous punctures.

Male genitalia. Aedeagus is convex, slightly twisted around its axis.

Differantial diagnosis. All the four species analyzed in the article are very similar morphologically.

N. semenovi Tschitsch. ( Fig. 1 ) differs from N. aquaticus (L.) ( Fig. 2 ) with different form of the pronotum, which is much more heart-shaped and with sharp base angles that are projected sideward. The elytra have more intense punctate in the rows of dots. In N. semenovi Tschitsch. the rows of dots with large dots usually reach at least the top quarter of the elytra, but in N. aquaticus (L.) they often contain small dots already from the middle of elytra, but in the apical part they often disappear at all. The colour of legs is different, too. Legs of N. semenovi Tscitsch. usually are dichromatic, at least the trochanters and tibiae are russet, but in N. aquaticus (L.) they usually are monochrome black (except some aberration, for which the fore-legs might be at least slightly russet). Looking from above the antennomere of N. semenovi Tscitsch. Antennae are russet but in N. aquaticus (L.) they are darker, almost monochrome, but from below they are a little russet. There are differences also in the constitution of male’s aedeagus. In N. semenovi Tscitsch. aedeagus is shorter and more convex, more twisted around its axis than in N. aquaticus (L.).

N. semenovi Tschitsch. differs from N. jakovlevi Tschitsch ( Fig. 3 ) with different form of the pronotum, which is slightly heart-shaped, with base angles of the prothorax sclerite being less sharp and not so much projected sideward. The elytra at the base have less impressed rows of dots. In N. semenovi Tschitsch. the rows of dots do not reach the top as distinctly as in N. jakovlevi Tschitsch. The surface of their elytra usually is less lustrous and has more visible micro-sculpture than in N. jakovlevi Tschitsch. The basic segments of antennae, tibiae and trochanters are lighter, more russet than in N. jakovlevi Tschitsch. , whose legs in fact are black. There are differences in the constitution of male’s aedeagus, which in N. semenovi Tschitsch. is approximately of the same length, but less convex and twisted around its axis in a different way than it is in N. jakovlevi Tschitsch.

N. semenovi Tschitsch. differs from N. semistriatus Say ( Fig. 4 ) in the form of the prothorax sclerite, which is more heart-shaped, more narrowed at the base and has sharp, but smaller base angles. The rows of dots on the elytra are different, as well. In N. semenovi Tschitsch. the 3 rd and the 4 th intervals each are noticeably wider than the intervals 5 and 6. But in N. semistriatus Say all the intervals 3-6 are approximately of the same width or only slightly narrower. Both species have slightly different form of the scutellum. There are differences in the constitution of male’s aedeagus, which in N. semenovi Tschitsch. is longer, differently convex and twisted around its axis in a little different way, as well as has differently bent-down lamella than in N. jakovlevi Tschitsch.

Note. Till now this taxon has been considered to be a synonym of N. aquaticus (L.) (Kryzhanovskij et al. 1995; Lorenz 1998, 2005). A.BarƱevskis (2007) was the first to indicate that this taxon is a valid species was. Morphological features and molecular data obtained in this work support this assumption.

Figures

Fig. 1. N. semenovi Tschitsch.

Fig. 2 N. aquaticus (L.)

Fig. 3 N. jakovlevi Tschitsch.

Fig. 4. N. semistriatus Say