Chitona fucata tristis ( Faldermann, 1837 ) Švihla, 2006

Švihla, Vladimír, 2006, Revision of Chitona species (Coleoptera: Oedemeridae) from the eastern Mediterranean, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 46, pp. 107-121 : 111

Chitona fucata tristis ( Faldermann, 1837) stat. nov.

( Figs. 8 , 35 )

Nacerdes tristis Faldermann, 1837: 140 ; type locality: ‘Transcaucasus’.

Nacerda tristis: SEIDLITZ (1899) : 836.

Chitona (Dolichopyga) tristis: ŠVIHLA (1999) : 383.

Chitona sieversi Kiesenwetter, 1878 in SCHNEIDER & LEDER (1878): 257; type locality: ‘ Armenia, Etschmiadsin’ [= Ecmiadzin], syn. nov .

Type material examined. Chitona sieversi . SYNTYPE, J, ‘Kaukasus, Armenia, leg. Schneider [printed] // Paratypus [sic!], Chitona sieversi Kiesenwetter [red bordered label, red printed and black handwritten]’ ( HNHM).

Additional material examined. ARMENIA: Dzhararat, Aras river valley, 30 km SW of Yerevan, 16.vi.1988, S. Bečvář, L. Skoupý, Z. Jindra, J. Strejček & J. Morozinski lgt., 39 JJ 40 ♀♀ ; TURKEY: IĞDİR prov., 30 km E of Iğdir, 28.vi.1987, T. Osten lgt., 1 J 1 ♀ (all NMPC) .

Differential diagnosis. Chitona fucata tristis does not differ from the nominotypical subspecies in any morphological characters including the male terminalia. It differs only in the coloration and pubescence; the mouthparts and antennae are darker than in the nominotypical subspecies, chestnut brown to sooty, legs entirely sooty, elytra indigo to slate blue, and the elytral pubescence excluding that on suture is slightly shorter and sparser, so that elytra appear blue and not dark grey as in the nominotypical subspecies. On the other hand, the pubescence on the suture is slightly denser and reaching almost the apices of elytra, so that the suture is more conspicuous (see also Fig. 35 ).

Length J ♀: 5.2-7.5 mm.

Distribution. S Armenia, NE Turkey. ZAITZEV (1941) mentioned this species as Dolichopyga sieversi from Azerbaijan: Naxçivan (see also Fig. 8 ).

Comments. Given that only the coloration and pubescence differ, I regard C. tristis merely as a subspecies of C. fucata . The type material of N. tristis has not been found so far, however, FALDERMANN (1837) described N. tristis close behind N. fucata in the same publication and compared it with the latter species. Moreover, Faldermann’s description fits very well with the material at my disposal.

Figures

Fig. 8. Distribution of subspecies of Chitona fucata (Faldermann, 1837): C. fucata fucata (circles), C. fucata tristis (Faldermann, 1837) (squares). Abbreviations of countries: AB – Azerbaijan, AR – Armenia, GG – Georgia, IN – Iran, RU – Russia, TM – Turkmenistan, TR – Turkey.

Figs. 33-38. 33 – Chitona fucata fucata (Faldermann, 1837), male. 34 – ditto, female, variability. 35 – C. fucata tristis (Faldermann, 1837), male. 36 – C. ganglbaueri Reitter, 1889, male. 37 – C. macedonica sp. nov., male. 38 – ditto, female, variability.