Harpalus australasiae Dejean, 1829

Kataev, Boris M., 2021, On some Afrotropical Harpalus, with description of two new species, and remarks on Hypharpax australis (Coleoptera: Carabidae): misidentification, mislabeling and introduction to the Australian region, Zootaxa 5020 (1), pp. 31-56 : 45-46

Harpalus australasiae Dejean, 1829

( Fig. 32 )

Harpalus australasiae Dejean, 1829: 386 .

Type material examined. Holotype of H. australasiae : ♀, labeled “ ♀ ”, “australasiae m. in Nov. Holland ” [ Dejean’s handwriting], “TYPE”, and “ Hypharpax australasiae Dej. examined 26.IX.1978 P.M. Tohus ” ( MNHN).

Remarks. The description of H. australasiae is based on one female from Australia (“ Nouvelle-Hollande ”). The systematic position of this species has been changed repeatedly. Bates (1874) referred it to the genus Hypharpax MacLeay, 1825 of the subtribe Anisodactylina and the subsequent authors also treated this species as a member of this subtribe but belonging to differing genera: Diaphoromerus Chaudoir, 1843 ( Chaudoir 1878, Csiki 1932), Notiobia Perty, 1830 ( Noonan 1973) , and Hypharpax ( Broun 1880, Thomson 1922, Hudson 1923, Pilgrim 1963, Moore in Moore et al. 1987, Townsend 1994, Larochelle & Larivière 2001), until Larochelle & Larivière (2005) incorporated it again in the genus Harpalus based mainly on the biseriate vestiture of male pro- and mesotarsi and the aedeagus with apical orifice strongly shifted to the left.

I examined the holotype of H. australasiae at MNHN ( Fig. 32 ), which well corresponds to Dejean’s (1829) original description. It is indeed a female of Harpalus — like all Harpalus , its paraglossae are setose as opposed to the glabrous paraglossae of Hypharpax and other Australian members of Anisodactylina . The characters of this female, however, contradict the re-description and illustrations by Larochelle & Larivière (2005). In the examined holotype, the pronotum is more or less equally narrowed apically and basally, with basal angles clearly obtusangular, rounded at apex, and the elytra are more oval; the proportions: HWmax/PWmax 0.63 HWmin/PWmax 0.52; HWmax/HWmin 1.22; PWmax/PL 1.43; PWmax/PWmin 1.24; EL/EW 1.44; EL/PL 2.58; EW/PWmax 1.26; the body length 6.2 mm. In these and other characters, including coloration and metafemur with three setae along posterior margin, this female is very similar to specimens of H. fuscoaeneus and H. asemus . Such elytral features of H. australasiae as comparatively long parascutellar striole and absence of discal pore on interval 3 occasionally occur in both H. fuscoaeneus and H. asemus . The status of H. australasiae needs further study, but it is quite possible that this taxon is conspecific with one of these two species and its holotype was either mislabeled or brought to Australia from Africa. Unfortunately, the more accurate determination based only on one female is now impossible. As for H. australasiae sensu Larochelle & Larivière (2005) , I think that their interpretation is actually based on specimens of H. parvulus Dejean, 1829 (see below). My work with the museum collections revealed that some of the former records of H. australasiae from Australia and New Zealand should apparently be referred to Hypharpax australis (Dejean, 1929) and some other species of this genus. The revision of Hypharpax is much needed.

Figures

FIGURES 29–32. Harpalus spp., habitus. 29–31, H. fuscoaeneus Dejean, 1929 (29, S Africa; 30, lectotype; 31, holotype of H. nanus Dejean, 1829); 32, H. australasiae Dejean, 1829 (holotype). Scale bars = 1.0 mm.