Eurynotus asperatus Mulsant and Rey

Lumen, Ryan & Kamdńskd, Marcdn J., 2024, evdsdon of the darkldng beetle genus Eurynotus (Blaptdnae: Platynotdnd % and new records of ovovdvdpary dn ºenebrdonddae, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 201 (201), pp. 358-386 : 380-381

2. Eurynotus asperatus Mulsant and Rey

( Figs 3B, C , 6B , 7G , 8I )

Eurynotus ( Eurynotus) asperatus Mulsant and Rey, 1854a: 23 . Mulsant and Rey 1854b: 167; Lacordaire 1859: 239; Gebien 1938: 414; Koch 1954a: 283; 1954b: 2; Kamiński 2016: 236.

= Eurynotus ( Eurynotus) rudebecki Koch 1955: 423 syn. nov. – Kamiński 2016: 237.

Note: The description provided below supplements Koch’s (1954a, 1955) description of E. rudebecki to include new charac - ters and variation observed in this revision.

Diagnosis: One of the most commonly collected and identified species in collections observed in this study (alongside Eurynotus capensis ). Can be separated from E. capensis based on size ( E. capensis : length 14–20mm, width 7–10mm; E. asperatus length 9–13.25mm, width 4.5–6.5mm), and characteristics of the males (modified hind tibiae in E. capensis ) and females ( E. asperatus bursa copulatrix with sclerites; E. capensis with characteristic

Revision of Eurynotus • 381

spermatheca and constricted, bilobed bursa copulatrix). From other Eurynotus , E. asperatus can also be separated by size: E. graniderma and E. barbosai are smaller (length 8–9.5 mm; width 4.75–5.5 mm); however, E. thermarum (while generally smaller) specimens may be similar in size in large specimens (which can then be differentiated based on the width of the epipleura and presence of microtuberculation on the pronotum and elytra). The presence of additional, larger setigerous punctures on ab - dominal ventrite V (absent in E. asperatus ) can also be diag - nostic. Eurynotus privisolum , while similar at first glance, can be differentiated based on the sculpture of the pronotum and head (close, coarse punctation; versus E. asperatus with finer, more widely separated punctation). Additional separation of species is possible using the lustre of the cuticle (dull or opaque in E. asperatus versus the shinier E. privisolum , E. sulcimargo , and E. barbosai ).

Description (to supplement Koch 1954a, 1955): Dorsal surface dull with microgranulation. Head: Punctures spaced by ≥1 puncture diameter. Mentum without apical notch. Eye with im - pressed sulcus around margin. Prothorax: Pronotum finely punc - tate, punctures separated by>1 puncture diameter. Hypomeron nearly smooth, at most with fine and shallow punctation and light wrinkling. Pterothorax: Elytral interval X terminating between hind coxae and apex of elytra. Epipleuron subequal to width of elytral intervals 9 + 10. Elytral intervals obscured by epipleuron in ventral view. Abdomen: Punctate. Abdominal ventrite V finely

punctate, punctures separated by ≥1 puncture diameter without larger, setigerous punctures intermixed. Females without me - dian apical notch. Legs: Male and female legs unmodified. Tarsi with black or dark setae. Males: pro/meso tarsi greatly expanded, with large, ventral, tomentose pads. Male terminalia: Parameres rounded and slightly tapering apically, rounded at apex. Female terminalia: Bursa copulatrix sac -like and with paired sclerites, spermatheca thick and coiled, accessory pouch absent.

Material examined: Eurynotus asperatus : Lectotype, here desig - nated ( MNHN): Blue circle label ‘ Eurynotus asperatus Cap. B. Sp.?; type Mulsant; asperatus’ red label with handwritten ‘Type’. Note: As the original descriptions lack information defining the number or specificity of specimens used, a representative from the presumed syntype series is here designated as lectotype to fix the taxonomic status of the species and genus.

Eurynotus rudebecki Lectotype, here designated (TMNH): SwedishSouthAfricaExpedition 1950–1951 Brunck - Rudebeck / S. Afr. Cape Prov Mosselbaai. 8–9.1.51. No. 127/ Holotype No: 123? Eurynotus rudebecki KOCH / rudebecki koch.

(See Supporting Information, Appendix S1 for additional ma - terial examined.)

Note: As the original descriptions specify the number of speci - mens used to over 100, a representative from the syntype series is here designated as lectotype to fix the taxonomic status of the species and genus.

Figures

Figure 3. Eurynotus sens.nov.species. A, Eurynotus alticola Koch Lectotype; B, E.asperatus Mulsant and Rey Lectotype; C, E. rudebecki Koch syn. nov.of E. asperatus Holotype; D, E.barbosai Koch Holotype; E, E. capensis (Fabricius) Lectotype; F, E.constrictus Koch Lectotype; G, E. graniderma Koch Holotype; H, E. privisolum sp.nov.Holotype; I, E. sulcimargo Koch Lectotype; J, E. thermarum Koch Holotype.

Figure 6. Characters used in the cladistic analysis.Arrows indicate particular states of given characters from the morphological matrix [e.g.

Figure 7. Phylogeny of morphology, ovovivipary, and female reproductive structures of Eurynotina.A, Eurynotus barbosai, 1st instar larva dissected from bursa copulatrix. B, Biolus omeri, genital tubes. C, B. brunoi, spermatheca and ovipositor.D, E. capensis, genital tubes of two individuals.E, B.analisetosus, sclerite and egg dissected from bursa copulatrix. F, B. granulatus, sclerite from bursa copulatrix.G, E. asperatus, paired sclerites on distal part of bursa copulatrix. H, Oncotus cedrimontis, bursa copulatrix. Abbreviations: c1–c4, lobes of coxities. Numbers in parentheses represent characters and states used in analysis.

Figure 8. Aedeagal morphology of Eurynotina species.A, Biolus analisetosus; B, B.asperipennis; C, B. brunoi sp. nov.; D, B. denticosta; E, B. graafi; F, B. granulatus; G, B. omeri; H, B. sauroides; I, Eurynotus asperatus; J, E.barbosai; K, E. capensis; L, E. graniderma; M, Capidium tuberculatum; N, Oncotus cedrimontis; O, Heteropsectropus amaroides; P, Schyzoschelus africanus. Parameres highlighted red. Scale = 1mm.