Orphnus (Phornus) valeriae, Frolov & Akhmetova, 2016

Frolov, Andrey V. & Akhmetova, Lilia A., 2016, Revision of the subgenus Orphnus (Phornus) (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Orphninae), European Journal of Taxonomy 241, pp. 1-20 : 9-11

Orphnus (Phornus) valeriae sp. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:CEA9A6A5-5027-4559-971F-1D6309B92121

Figs 1P , 3 , 6

Diagnosis

Orphnus valeriae sp. nov. is most similar to O. ferrierei sp. nov., but can be separated from it in having pronotum larger and more densely punctate with somewhat elongated punctures, no distinct median longitudinal stria basally on pronotum, frontoclypeal process horn-shaped, and more strongly sclerotized parameres with acute apices (in lateral view).

Etymology

We named this species after our daughter Valeria.

Material examined

Holotype

TANZANIA: ♂, “ TANZANIA 200m Zaraninge Coastal Forest . Saadani N.P. 10 xi. 1994 Pitfall Trap University of DSM coll. / BMNH (E) 2010-91 / BMNH(E) #1031110 / Orphnus sp. S. Pokorný det 2011” ( BMNH).

Paratypes

TANZANIA: 8 ♂♂ with the same locality label as the holotype; 4 ♂♂, “ TANZANIA 200m Zaraninge Coastal Forest, Saadani N.P. , S.Pools x-xi.1994 Pitfall Trap UDSM coll. / BMNH ( E) 2012-92 / Orphnus sp. 2 S. Pokorný det. 2014” ( BMNH); 7 ♂♂ “ TANZANIA, Mbwebwe, Zaraninge , Saadani N.P. , ix.-xi.1995, UDSM coll./ BMNH ( E) 2013-71 / Orphnus sp. 1 S. Pokorný det. 2015” ( BMNH);

5 ♂♂, “ TANZANIA 2005 Udzungwa Mts. UDSM coll.” ( BMNH); 1 ♂, “Mkatta Steppe [ Tanzania] III.12 ” ( ZMHUB).

Description

Holotype ( Fig. 3A )

Body length 11.6 mm. Colour uniformly blackish brown.

Anterior margin of frontoclypeus slightly convex in the middle, slightly sinuate aside the medial convexity, rounded laterally, with a narrow border ( Fig. 3B ). Frontoclypeus with a trapezoidal transverse process medially approximately on the line connecting anterior margins canthi ( Fig. 3C ). Frontoclypeus finely punctate anteriad of the process and coarsely punctate with elongated punctures posteriad of the process.

Eyes relatively large: width about 1/5 the distance between eyes in dorsal view. Antennae 10-segmented, without malformed segments.

Pronotum widely rounded laterally, almost as wide as elytra, 1.4 times wider than length, 0.75 length of elytra ( Fig. 1P ). Anterior border wide, with smooth posterior margin. Basal border narrow, keel-shaped, separated from pronotal disc by a smooth groove. Pronotal disc anteromedially distinctly flattened and slightly concave. Surface of pronotum covered with dense, coarse, rounded to elongated punctures except for a V-shaped almost smooth and slightly convex area in the centre.

Scutellum subtriangular, narrowly rounded apically, about 1/13 the length of elytra. Elytra 1.07 times wider than long, without humeral humps. Elytra widest in basal ¼, with widely rounded lateral margins. First five striae faintly visible as very shallow grooves, without rows of punctures. Elytra covered with rather sparse punctures becoming denser towards the base; sculpture of the base is rasp-shaped.

Brachypterous. Wings vestigial, narrow, about ¾ the length of elytra.

Stridulatory field: carinae separated by 1/30 length of the field in central ¼ rd ( Fig. 3H ).

Abdominal sternite 8 medially longer than sternites 6 and 7 combined; sternites 6 and 7 approximately of the same length. Pygidium feebly visible from above. Plectrum trapezoidal, elongated ( Fig. 3G ). Lateral plate of the second abdominal sternite relatively small, shorter than plectrum, with acute apex.

Aedeagus with relatively long parameres (0.58 length of phallobase). Apices of the parameres widely rounded in dorsal view and acute, slightly curved downwards in lateral view, without excavations ( Fig. 3 D–E).

Female

Unknown.

Variation

Body length of paratypes varies from 11.0– 12.5 mm. In one specimen, antennomeres 5 and 6 are partly fused. The variation in body size, shape and size of the frontoclypeal process and in the sculpture of the pronotum is notably small among the reasonably large type series.

Distribution

The species is known from three localities, two in the foothills of the Eastern Arc Mountains and one in coastal forest some 40 km inland ( Fig. 6 ).

Figures

Fig. 1. — A–M. Orphnus giganteus Paulian, 1948. A–B. Habitus. C–D. Head in dorsal and apical view. E–G. Antennae. H. Aedeagus in lateral view. I. Parameres in dorsal view. J. Abdomen in dorsal view. K–L. Stridulatory field. M. Habitus. — N. O. renaudi sp. nov., holotype, habitus. — O. O. ferrierei sp. nov., holotype, habitus. — P. O. valeriae sp. nov., holotype, habitus. — Q. O. parastrangulatus sp. nov., holotype, habitus. — R. O. strangulatus Paulian, 1948, habitus. M–R = not to scale.

Fig. 3. Orphnus valeriae sp. nov. A. Habitus. B–C. Head in dorsal and apical view. D. Aedeagus in lateral view. E. Parameres in dorsal view. F. Labels of holotype. G. Abdomen in dorsal view. H. Stridulatory field. A–F. Holotype. G–H. Paratypes.

Fig. 6. Orphnus (Phornus) spp. Locality map. Orphnus parastrangulatus sp. nov. is not mapped, because there are no more or less precise locality data available for this species.