Lepanomidius ruthmuellerae, Wanat, 2021
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5035.1.1 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:95CC79A1-8A2D-4532-8E59-A3DA1A437A62 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A40A5638-E86A-CD75-FF6B-2B26FD546BE9 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Lepanomidius ruthmuellerae |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Lepanomidius ruthmuellerae sp. n.
( Figs. 229–267 View FIGURES 229–244 View FIGURES 245–262 View FIGURES 263–279 , 295 View FIGURES 289–296 )
Type material. Holotype ♂: a) S.Afr.; Gauteng /Ezemvelo Nat. Res/ 25.42 S – 29.00 E, b) 25– 27.2.2009 /leg. Mac- Fadyen, Müller ( TMSA) [-25.70/29.00, actually Telperion Res. in Mpumalanga; abdominal ventrites glued near specimen, hind wing glued to separate card below, genitalia in glycerol—microvial pinned under specimen] GoogleMaps . Paratypes (2 ♂♂): Mpumalanga: a) S. Afr.; Tvl. Nelspruit / Nat. Res, rivulet val./ 25.29 S – 30.55 E, b) 9.2.1987, E-Y: 2433/beating/leg. Endrödy-Younga [-25.4833 / 30.9167] (1 ♂, TMSA) GoogleMaps ; a) South Africa: KZN/ Vryheid Hill Nature Res. / Ntinginono Eco Centre / 27°45’14”S 30°47’11”E /c. 1259m 30.i-02.ii.2007 GoogleMaps / E. Grobbelaar, b) Collecting technique/ Collected at light trap, c) Collecting technique/Collected by/beating and sweeping [-27.7539 / 30.7864] (1 ♂, GoogleMaps SANC).
Additional material. The female labelled a) S. Africa./ R. E.Turner./Brit. Mus./1923–332, b) Port St. John,/Pondoland/May 15-31.1923. [Eastern Cape] ( BMNH).
Remarks. The female, collected alone far to the south from the localities of the males, is intentionally not included among the paratypes. Its fore, and to a lesser extent also middle tarsi have two basal segments flattened and distinctly broader than in the male, which is an unusual situation in the weevils (although known in the apionine Antliarhis zamiae (Thunberg) and A. signatus (Gyllenhal) , in which the expanded adhesive protarsomere 1 is apparently serving females by helping to stabilise their position while drilling a hole for oviposition with their extremely long rostra). It is accompanied by some less evident differences in the structure of the rostrum, antennae, pronotum and legs, thus raising doubts if this female is conspecific with the holotype and other male paratypes, despite the great overall similarity in external morphology. Moreover, the female is mysteriously devoid of an ovipositor (possibly the specimen was collected during oviposition), thus the characters of the gonocoxites and styli remain unknown. Regardless, it is provisionally included in the species description below, with all the differences from the males listed, and all the measurements given separately, even if falling into the male variation ranges.
Diagnosis. Body length 4.1–4.6 mm. Elytra dark brown or black, as rest of body. Erect setae absent from recumbently pilose femora. Rostrum 2.2–2.6 × as long as wide, in dorsal view with parallel-sided apical part distinctly narrower than cylindrical basal part, in profile distinctly narrowing apicad. Head narrow and weakly transverse; eyes large; epifrons markedly narrower than rostrum base, with V-like fovea; gular sector between eyes coarsely punctate laterally, glabrous in middle. Antennae 0.6–0.7 × as long as elytra, thick. Pronotum not trilobate, with subapical constriction close to anterior margin and sub-basal constriction missing; basal corners acutely projecting outwards. Scutellar shield prominent. Elytral intervals markedly convex and heavily sculptured, with transverse scratches and furrows separating flattened tubercles; host punctures of erect setae large and, specifically in basal part of elytra, slightly declivitous posterad due to settlement on hind slope of a tubercle. Tarsi broad; protarsus with tarsomeres 1 and 2 emarginate, tarsomere 3 strongly transverse and barely broader than tarsomere 2.
Description. Erect setae predominantly brownish, on elytra with admixed whitish setae, dominating outside of elytral disc; on two marginal intervals erect setae missing, replaced with sparse semi-recumbent light ones; femora with fully recumbent and relatively dense thin light setae parallel to long femoral axis. Integument dull black (holotype) or dark brown (remaining males and the female).
Morphological indices (n=4): rl/pl: ♂ 0.79–0.88 ( M 0.82), ♀ 0.91; rl/mxrw: ♂ 2.17–2.37 ( M 2.24 ), ♀ 2.58; scl/msrw: ♂ 0.56–0.69 ( M 0.62), ♀ 0.55; msrw/mtrw: ♂ 1.05–1.08, ♀ 1.04; msrw/arw: ♂ 1.45–1.50, ♀ 1.45; msrw/minrw: ♂ 1.45–1.50, ♀ 1.45; msrw/eyl: ♂ 0.97–1.00, ♀ 1.09; brl/eyl: ♂ 0.66–0.70, ♀ 0.91; eyl/hl: ♂ 0.69–0.76 ( M 0.72), ♀ 0.66; frw/mtrw: ♂ 0.54–0.60 ( M 0.57), ♀ 0.71; hl/hw: ♂ 0.79–0.85, ♀ 0.77; mpw/hw: ♂ 1.38–1.57, ♀ 1.54; bpw/apw: ♂ 1.13–1.23, ♀ 1.15; pl/mpw: ♂ 1.09–1.11, ♀ 1.10; mew/mpw: ♂ 1.54–1.62, ♀ 1.56; el/pl: ♂ 2.45–2.56, ♀ 2.45; el/mew: ♂ 1.70–1.77, ♀ 1.73; mew/bew: ♂ 1.09–1.14, ♀ 1.16; bew/mpw: ♂ 1.37–1.49 ( M 1.43 ), ♀ 1.34; pft/msrw: ♂ 0.84–0.91, ♀ 1.00; ptbl/pl: ♂ 1.07–1.08, ♀ 0.95; ptbl/ptbmw: ♂ 6.36–6.71 ( M 6.50 ), ♀ 5.68.
Rostrum in dorsal outline parallel-sided but with distinctly narrowed and flattened apical part ( Fig. 230 View FIGURES 229–244 ), in profile distinctly narrowing from base to apex, in male chisel-shaped ( Fig. 232 View FIGURES 229–244 ), in female with short parallel-sided apex ( Fig. 259 View FIGURES 245–262 ); punctuation dense and irregular, punctures much smaller and sparser on shiny dorsum of prorostrum apex, on prorostrum sides some punctures often arranged in regular row; underside of rostrum with dense and coarse, confused setiferous punctures; scrobes shallow, not meeting on head, with sharp but irregular outer edges, convergent in male ( Fig. 231 View FIGURES 229–244 ), almost parallel in female ( Fig. 258 View FIGURES 245–262 ).
Head narrow, weakly transverse; epifrons between eyes punctate as vertex and rostrum base, with V-like fovea; vertex flat, densely punctate over a distance equal to about one-third of eye length; recumbent setae on head fine, not longer than 2 ommatidia, all more or less forward-directed, only few on metarostrum longer and semi-erect; temples weakly divergent, with confused double row of small setiferous punctures along eye margin, lacking protruding setae; head venter weakly convex; genae and sides of gular sector with small punctures and completely appressed small whitish setae directed antero-inwardly; triangular middle area of gular sector impunctate and shiny, with fine transverse wrinkles ( Figs. 230–232 View FIGURES 229–244 ).
Antennae as in Figs. 240 View FIGURES 229–244 & 263 View FIGURES 263–279 , their insertion ♂: 0.28–0.31, ♀: 0.30; funicle with weakly protruding dark setae; length/width ratio: scape ♂ 2.1–2.2 ♀ 2.6, fun 1 ♂ 1.85–2.15 ♀ 2.25, fun 2 ♂ 2.2–2.4 ♀ 2.9, fun 3 ♂ 1.70–1.85 ♀ 2.45, fun 6 ♂ 1.3 ♀ 1.4, fun 7 ♂ 1.0–1.1 ♀ 1.3, club ♂ 4.10–4.15 ♀ 4.45; length of scape/fun 1 ♂ 1.2–1.4 ♀ 1.3, fun1/fun 2 ♂ 0.85–0.95 ♀ 0.80; fun 3 in ♂ 0.8–0.9 ×, in ♀ as long as fun1; fun4 to fun7 of about same length in female, while in male fun7 discernibly shorter than preceding ones; club distinctly pseudotetramerous, fusiform, as long as 5 distal funicular segments combined, recumbently pilose with few short, protruding setae.
Pronotum weakly elongate, markedly convex and almost regularly rounded at sides ( Figs. 233, 234 View FIGURES 229–244 ); subapical constriction in about 0.15–0.20 of pronotum length, posterior constriction almost basal, separating only prominent basal angles; disc not flattened apically and basally, with narrowly raised basal margin; setiferous punctures on disc and sides very dense and in part confluent, the interspaces between punctures much narrower than half puncture diameter, convex and uneven; postcoxal side occasionally with 1–2 fine oblique carinae along posterior margin; prosternum declining, about half as long as hypomeron; prosternellum triangular, weakly prominent; posterior rim of procoxae only lateral, obliterated in middle; hypomeron flat, with superficial median suture.
Scutellar shield isodiametric, tuberculiform, usually with transverse furrow in posterior part.
Elytra broadest in middle, with short, narrowly rounded caudal part, moderately convex ( Figs. 229, 234 View FIGURES 229–244 ); striae with well-defined margins, catenulate-punctate, with punctures and their impressed interspaces of similar length; strial setae short, separated by less than their length; apical connections of striae 4–7 variable, part of them seem to enter either 3 or 8; intervals on elytral disc twice as broad as striae, highly convex and subdivided to low angular tubercles by irregular scratches and furrows, with regular punctures hosting erect setae larger than one-third of interval’s breadth and not horizontal but declining posterad; intervals occasionally with variably disposed additional smaller punctures, specifically on sutural and outermost intervals.
Wing as in Fig. 251 View FIGURES 245–262 ; cubito-anal vein remnants paired, both distinct, the outer one with proximal flag-like expansion; subsequent anal vein (3A) forming a straight, well visible rudiment.
Mesoventrite impunctate in middle, with several punctures on each side of horizontal part uncovered by pronotum; mesepimeral sulcus not impressed, as a double confused row of setiferous punctures; intermesocoxal process long, covered with light setae. Metaventrite ca. 1.5 × as long as mesocoxal cavity, entirely punctate and setose; posteriorly with deep median pit ( Fig. 236 View FIGURES 229–244 ). Abdominal ventrites barely longer than broad; ventrites 3–4 distinctly convex, on declined posterior half in middle with single row of punctures larger from those on ventrites 1–2; ventrite 5 in both sexes broadly rounded apically and gently convex, with punctures partly confluent, much denser than on ventrites 1–2, in middle of anterior part 3–4 × larger than around apical margin, somewhat polygonal.
Legs having procoxae clothed with light recumbent setae ( Fig. 241 View FIGURES 229–244 ). Femora weakly inflated, sparsely clothed with completely appressed white setae, smooth, only on narrowed apex with several large punctures and 1–2 semi- erect setae. Tibiae with sharp outer edge partly obscured by coarse elongate punctures; protibia on inner side with multiplied row of white semi-recumbent setae extending on some 0.7–0.8 of tibia length. Tarsi broad; in the only studied female, protarsomeres 1 and 2 expanded and distinctly broader than in male; basal tarsomere elongate, third one broadly bilobed, 0.6–0.7 × as long as wide, onychium exceeding tarsomere 3 by 0.5–0.6 × length; setose sole well-developed, cream-white ( Fig. 239 View FIGURES 229–244 ); claws as in Fig. 235 View FIGURES 229–244 .
Male. Prorostrum relatively shorter and less flattened. Eyes more convex. Antennae 1.7–1.8 × as long as pronotum. Legs longer and slenderer; profemur 3.3–3.6 × as long as high; protibia longer than pronotum; protarsus 2.7–2.9 × as long as wide, first two tarsomeres subsequently 1.20–1.35 × and 0.90–0.95 × as long as wide, tarsomere 2 with straight narrowing sides ( Fig. 238 View FIGURES 229–244 ); mucrones short and stout, largely covered by apical tuft of yellowish setae; mucro on mesotibia pointed ( Fig. 242 View FIGURES 229–244 ), on metatibia widened apicad and truncate ( Fig. 243 View FIGURES 229–244 ). Abdomen as in Fig. 237 View FIGURES 229–244 , entire coarsely punctate and semi-recumbently setose; combined first two ventrites 1.65–1.70 × as long as ventrites 3+4+5; in middle of ventrites 1–2 the distance between punctures usually not exceeding their double diameter; the last ventrite 2.05–2.15 × as broad as long, with dense punctures, in middle less than half diameter apart. Tergite VII as in Fig. 255 View FIGURES 245–262 . Pygidium markedly convex, with vertical and densely setose apical wall ( Figs. 252–254 View FIGURES 245–262 ). Sternite VIII deeply emarginate, its lateral lobes connected with a narrow, sclerotized, slightly arched bar ( Fig. 250 View FIGURES 245–262 ). Spiculum gastrale with broadly open fork and straight or curved apodeme about 2.5 × as long as sternal plate, at border between fork and apodeme with small, tooth-like expansion. Tegminal apodeme longer than forked basal piece; tegminal plate connected with basal piece arms by long and thin sclerotized filaments; tegminal plate 1.7–1.8 × as long as wide, not developed latero-ventrally ( Figs. 248, 249 View FIGURES 245–262 ), with short and broad sclerotized suprafenestral sclerites and extremely shallow median notch; membranous apical lobes absent; parameral lobes with 9–10 short macrochaetae; fenestrae narrow, closed laterally, medially confluent with a larger transparent field to form jointly Tshaped transparent window, the latter in middle with minute asperities on its membrane; postfenestral plate sharply margined, in middle about twice as long as suprafenestral sclerites, laterally confluent with broadly sclerotized fenestral sector; prostegium with narrow transparent median stripe and broader sclerotized sides extended into long, tapering tails. Penile apodemes slightly longer than pedon, bent in middle and weakly expanded apicad ( Fig. 247 View FIGURES 245–262 ); tectum broad and evenly weakly sclerotized, apically broadly triangular; pedon about 3 × as long as wide, gently widening from base to the level of orifice, then abruptly rounded and extended into long and narrow median process ( Fig. 245 View FIGURES 245–262 ), in profile regularly arched and narrowed ( Fig. 247 View FIGURES 245–262 ); endophallus in repose projecting between apodemes, not exceeding beyond their apices, irregularly finely microspinose on whole length, with indefinite transfer apparatus consisting of several differently shaped and poorly sclerotized parts, including paired round small sclerotizations closest to the gonopore, subterminal large falciform sclerotization, and unshaped, densely microspinose fields close to pedon base ( Fig. 246 View FIGURES 245–262 ); inside pedon basally with a pair of longitudinal poorly sclerotized lamellae ( Fig. 245 View FIGURES 245–262 ); endophallus without typical frena and other well defined sclerites; ejaculatory duct relatively thick, entering endophallus terminally.
Female. Rostrum more elongate, its narrowed apical portion longer and more flattened. Eyes hardly protruding from dorsal head outline ( Fig. 257 View FIGURES 245–262 ). Antennae 1.6 × as long as pronotum. Pronotum stronger and somewhat irregularly convex, highest behind its mid-length ( Fig. 256 View FIGURES 245–262 ). Legs shorter; profemur 2.9 × as long as high; protibia shorter than pronotum; protarsus 2.6 × as long as wide; first protarsomere isodiametric, expanded and with rounded lateral margins, second tarsomere only 0.65 × as long as wide and almost equally as broad as bi-lobed tarsomere 3 ( Fig. 260 View FIGURES 245–262 ). Abdomen as in Fig. 264 View FIGURES 263–279 , with much finer pilosity and punctuation; ventrites 1+2 1.55 × as long as ventrites 3+4+5; in middle of ventrites 1–2 the distance between punctures mostly exceeding 3–4 combined puncture diameters; ventrite 5 slightly longer, 1.9 × as broad as long. Tergite VII trapeziform, with the sclerotized part twice as broad as long ( Fig. 265 View FIGURES 263–279 ). Tergite VIII slightly longer than broad, narrowed and rounded in apical half, with continuous apical sclerotization extended basad along lateral margins, in middle of apical part with small, circular transparent window ( Fig. 266 View FIGURES 263–279 ). Spiculum ventrale as in Fig. 267 View FIGURES 263–279 , with narrowly triangular sternal plate and long apodeme. Bursal membrane in distal part regularly covered with rows of transverse microplates ( Fig. 261 View FIGURES 245–262 ). Spermatheca shaped as in Fig. 262 View FIGURES 245–262 .
Biology. Unknown.
Distribution. North-eastern R.S.A. ( Fig. 295 View FIGURES 289–296 ).
Etymology. The new species is fondly dedicated to Ruth Müller, a great enthusiast of South African nature, experienced coleopterist, long-standing curator of entomological collections at the former Transvaal Museum of South Africa, and the collector of the holotype.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.