Hylesinopsis Eggers

Beaver, Roger A, 2010, Taxonomic notes on the afrotropical genera Hapalogenius Hagedorn, Hylesinopsis Eggers, and Rhopalopselion Hagedorn (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Scolytinae), ZooKeys 56, pp. 157-170 : 161-162

Hylesinopsis Eggers stat. res. Fig. 2

Hylesinopsis Eggers 1920b: 40. (Type species: Hylesinopsis dubia Eggers, monobasic).

Trypographus Schedl 1950: 213. (Type species: Trypographus joveri Schedl, monobasic).

Chilodendron Schedl 1953: 74. (Type species: Chilodendron planicolle Schedl, monobasic).

These genera share the type of eye, antenna and protibia given in the key above. Trypographus and Chilodendron were synonymised with Hylesinopsis by Wood (1983). Wood and Bright (1992: 92) give Chilodendron as a synonym of Hylesinopsis , but its type species, Chilodendron planicolle , is also listed on page 118 under the genus Xylechinus Chapuis, with a note that the transfer of the species was to be published by Wood in a paper in press in 1992. However, this paper was apparently never published. Alonso-Zarazaga and Lyal (2009), apparently basing their decision on the notes in Wood and Bright (1992), synonymise Chilodendron with Xylechinus . I have examined a syntype of Chilodendron planicolle (NMW), and find that the synonymy given by Alonso-Zarazaga and Lyal (2009) appears to be excluded by the 6-segmented funicle (always 5-segmented in Xylechinus ), entire eye (always emarginate in Xylechinus ), fore tibia without socketed teeth, and plumose metepisternal setae (scalelike in Xylechinus ), even though the pronotum lacks asperities (as in some Xylechinus ) (Wood 1982, 1986). Until further detailed studies are made of the species here included in Hylesinopsis , I prefer to leave Chilodendron , and its single included species, as a synonym of that genus.

The lack of close relationship of this genus to Hapalogenius , based on morphology, seems to be corroborated by some analyses based on molecular data. In the phylogenetic tree of Farrell et al. (2001: Fig. 6), the single species of Hylesinopsis studied ( Hylesinopsis dubia ) is widely separated from the two species of Hapalogenius included ( Hylesinopsis oblonga , Hylesinopsis seriata ) (both labelled as Hylesinopsis sp. in Farrell et al. 2001). In the phylogenetic tree of McKenna et al. (2009: Fig. 2), the same species of Hylesinopsis ( Hylesinopsis dubia ) (McKenna, pers. comm. 2009) is widely separated from the two genera ( Alniphagus , Hylesinus ) currently included in the tribe Hylesinini . In both cases, Hylesinopsis seems to be more closely related to genera included in the subfamily Scolytinae sensu Wood by Wood (1986) and Wood and Bright (1992). One phylogenetic tree ( Jordal et al. 2008, Fig. 4) suggests a closer relationship between Hylesinopsis dubia , Hapalogenius seriata , and Hylesinus varius (F.), but in other analyses the relationship between these species is unresolved ( Jordal et al. 2008). The tribal classification of the Scolytinae sensu Alonso-Zarazaga and Lyal needs revision (e.g. Jordal et al. 2008, Alonso-Zarazaga and Lyal 2009), and no attempt to place Hylesinopsis in an existing tribe is made here.

In addition to the type species, Hylesinopsis dubia , and the type species of Trypographus ( Trypographus joveri ),the following nominal species must be removed from Hapalogenius to which they were transferred by Alonso-Zarazaga and Lyal (2009) and returned to Hylesinopsis in which they are listed by Wood and Bright (1992): Chilodendron saudiarabiae Schedl, Hylesinopsis angolensis Schedl, Hylesinopsis arabiae Schedl, Kissophagus alluaudi Lepesme, Kissophagus confusus Eggers*, Kissophagus fasciatus Hagedorn*, Kissophagus ficus Schedl*, Kissophagus granulatus Lepesme, Kissophagus pauliani Lepesme, Kissophagus punctatus Eggers, Trypographus ater Nunberg, Trypographus decellei Nunberg, Trypographus emarginatus Nunberg, Trypographus hirsutus Schedl*. (* - type(s) examined). In addition, the following species belongs to the genus: Cryphalus leprosulus Browne* (see below). References to all these species can be found in Wood and Bright (1992).

The species are normally associated with trees of the family Moraceae ( Ficus , Morus , Bosqueia , Treculia ). There are only three records from other families, one each from Anacardiaceae , Meliaceae and Rosaceae . This narrow host range contrasts with the wide host range of Hapalogenius and Rhopalopselion .

On the basis of the limited distributional data available, nearly 50% (8 ex 17) of the species appear to be confined to montane habitats above 1500m. This includes the following species: Hylesinopsis alluaudi , Hylesinopsis confusa , Hylesinopsis emarginata , Hylesinopsis fasciata , Hylesinopsis granulata , Hylesinopsis pauliani , Hylesinopsis punctata , Hylesinopsis saudiarabiae . Eight species appear to be more lowland species: Hylesinopsis angolensis , Hylesinopsis arabiae , Hylesinopsis atra , Hylesinopsis decellei , Hylesinopsis dubia , Hylesinopsis ficus , Hylesinopsis joveri , Hylesinopsis leprosula . Hylesinopsis planicolle was described from Mt. d’Ambre in Madagascar, but no altitude is given.