Tentyria peiroleri ssp. incerta Solier, 1835

Bujalance, José L., Ferrer, Julio & Cárdenas, Ana M., 2023, A taxonomic revision of the genus Tentyria Latreille, 1802 in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Zootaxa 5320 (1), pp. 1-88 : 34-36

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5320.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:3528C88E-8802-416D-8C47-1FEE65CEF751
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8211704
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/8F6B0B50-FFAD-5E62-F9A3-FA75D416FA29
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Tentyria peiroleri ssp. incerta Solier, 1835
status	stat. nov.

Treatment

Tentyria peiroleri ssp. incerta Solier, 1835 stat. nov. ( Figs. 18 View FIGURES 1–35 , 86 View FIGURES 70–87 , 123 View FIGURES 106–140 , 152 View FIGURES 141–153 , 204 View FIGURES 204–209 , 239, 240 View FIGURES 236–240 )

Tentyria incerta Solier, 1835: 359 .

Tentyria incerta ssp. pseudolaevis Koch, 1944a: 231 syn. nov. (Types from Almería).

Tentyria levis Solier, 1835: 358 syn. nov.

Types examined: Syntype (♁) ( Fig. 239 View FIGURES 236–240 ), bearing the following labels: T. incerta Sol., Barb ? (old rectangular label) / Incerta (Solier’s typical label from) / Tentyria incerta Sol., Barba. T., Du 64 (rounded label) / TYPE (red letter) / MUSEUM PARIS, COLL. DE MARSEUL, 2842-90 / TYPE (red label) / Tentyria incerta , Type Solier / label with the aedeagus (MNHN). In the MNHN there are other two specimens labelled as Types which really are not syntypes of Solier. Contrarily, there are two specimens of the misinterpreted Tentyria prolixa Rosenhauer. These two false syntypes bear the following labels: incerta Kr. , Type / Kraatz, 866 (small, square label) / TYPE (red label) / MUSÉUM PARIS ( Fig. 252 View FIGURES 252–257 ); Tentyria incerta Sol., Andal. “Titf 86” (?) (rounded label) / MUSEUM PARIS, Coll. Solier, COLL. DE MARSEUL, 2842-90 / Tentyria incerta Solier , Type? /? SYNTYPE (red label).

Tentyria incerta ssp. pseudolaevis Koch, 1944 : Almería: Sierra Gádor, Prov. Almería, G. Frey, C. Koch, V. 1943 (two syntypes, NHMB); Umg. Almería, Hisp. m. V. 1943, G. Frey, C. Koc (two syntypes, NHMB); ALMERÍA, Roquetta (Roquetas), Hisp. m. V. 1943, leg. G. Frey, C. Koch (one syntype, NHMB). Málaga (one syntype, in NHMB): Tentyria incerta ssp. pseudolaevis, C. Koch, 1944 , TYPUS / Málaga, J. Ardois / Winkler / laevis / Sammlung Adr. Schuster (NHMB).

Tentyria levis Solier 1835 : The type described by Solier (1835) has not been found in the MNHN, but we found a specimen labelled as type having the following tags: rounded label, “ Tentyria laevis Sol., Espan. T, Du 64” (Dupont 64) / rectangular label “ Laevis ” / “MUSEUM PARIS, Coll. Solier, COLL DE MARSEUL, 2842-90” / modern red label “TYPE”. However, this and other specimens determined as T. laevis Sol. , cannot be considered syntypes since it does not match with the Solier’s description (1835). On the other hand, in the MNHUB we have located a possible syntype, or “type comparavit”, of T. laevis Solier , with the following labels ( Fig. 254 View FIGURES 252–257 ): Tentyria laevis Sol., Carthag. Dej. (old label) / 45575 (old label) / Hist.-Coll. ( Coleoptera ), Nr. 45575, Tentyria laevis ..., Carthagena, Dej. Zool. Mus. Berlin.

Additional Material: Almería: El Playazo, Valle de Rodalquilar, Níjar, 30S0588539 4079456, 3.V.2006, A. Castro Tovar leg. (2♁♁ and 1♀, CACT); Cabo de Gata , VII.2000, A. Castro Tovar leg. (1 ex, CACT) ; Coto de Vera, Pto. Rey , 24.IV.2011, J.C. Martínez leg. (2♁♁ and 2♀♀, CJF) ; idem, 23.IV.2011 (15 exx, CJLB) ; Cuevas de Almanzora , 12.II.2011, J.C. Martínez leg. (18 exx, CJLB) ; Mata Gorda , El Ejido, 23.IV.2011, J.C. Martínez leg. (17 exx, CJLB) ; El Palmar, Aguadulce , 27.XII.1955, F. Español leg. (1♁, CJF) ; Playa de Almerimar , V.1981, B. Lassalle leg. (3 exx, CJF) ; Tabernas , 1230m, 8.II.1987, Bastazo & Vela leg. (2 exx, CB &V) ; Níjar , 26.X.1991, Bastazo & Vela leg. (7 exx, CB &V) ; El Alquián , 9.I.2011, J.C. Martínez et al leg. (4♁♁ and 1♀, CJLB) ; Punta del Sabinar, Roquetas, 1989, M.A. Alonso Z. leg. (1♀, MNCN _ Ent Nº Cat. 70872) ; Salinas de Cabo de Gata , 14- 16.IV.2006, Pérez de Gregorio and M. Bravo leg. ( MCNB) .

Diagnosis: The description of Tentyria incerta Solier fully fits the syntype preserved in Paris (MNHN). This species differs from T. peiroleri f.t. in the somewhat smaller average size, narrower head and usually more angled or subtriangular epistome ( Fig. 18 View FIGURES 1–35 ); less transverse but more convex pronotum ( Fig. 86 View FIGURES 70–87 ), at least in males, frequently sub-orbicular; narrower and elongated prosternal apophysis ( Fig. 123 View FIGURES 106–140 ), often more acute at the end and surpassing the procoxae; proportionally shorter and sub-cylindrical elytra ( Fig. 204 View FIGURES 204–209 ), the last urosternite usually not sinuous at the apex ( Fig. 152 View FIGURES 141–153 ). Aedeagus like that of T. peiroleri f.t., but of smaller average size.

Comments: T. incerta Solier , described from “Barbarie” really is an Andalusian species, common in the coast of Almeria. It was unknown by Rosenhauer (1856) and misinterpreted by all authors after Kraatz (1865), who confused it with T. frigida Rambur in litt. ( Fig. 253 View FIGURES 252–257 ), identical to T. prolixa Rosenhauer , species unknown by Kraatz (1865). Proof of this is that in the MNHN there is a type of T. incerta designated by Kraatz (= T. prolixa Rosenhauer ) ( Fig. 252 View FIGURES 252–257 ).

Reitter (1900) recorded this species from “Hispania” and Koch (1944a), following the Kraatz’s (1865) criterium, cited it from Sierra Nevada, typical locality of T. prolixa Rosenhauer , and which this author confused with T. platyceps Steven ( Koch 1944a) . Hence, he did not detect the Kraatz’s error and described T. incerta ssp. pseudolaevis Koch with specimens from Almeria ( Koch 1944a), true provenance of T. incerta Solier. Español (1960) followed Koch’s criterium, and finally, Viñolas (1986) established the synonymy between T. incerta sensu Kraatz (non T. incerta Solier ) and T. incerta ssp. pseudolaevis Koch , and made the iconography of this taxon with a specimen identical to the specimens from Málaga of T. incerta ssp. pseudolaevis Koch (= T. kochi sp. nov.).

T. incerta ssp. pseudolaevis Koch , is in fact a synonymy of T. incerta Solier (= T. peiroleri ssp. incerta Solier , stat. nov.) since the specimens from the typical localities (Almería) are like the Solier’s type. However, the specimens later cited by Koch (1944a) from Malaga (Sierra de Ronda) and Algeciras and labelled as “Tipus” (NHMB) belong to another hitherto unpublished taxon, T. kochi sp. nov., and cannot be considered Types of T. incerta ssp. pseudolaevis Koch , since Koch (1944a) did not include them in the typical series.

On the other hand, Solier (1835) described T. levis with a specimen from “Carthagène” sent by “M. Widmann” which has not been found in the MNHN of Paris. Instead, as already indicated, there is a specimen labelled as “Type” from the Solier collection, which cannot be considered a syntype of T. levis Solier , since it does not agree with the Solier’s description (1835) because it shows a wide and deep gular groove. According to this characteristic and following the key of Solier (1835), it should be placed into the group of T. goudoti (= T. platyces ) – T. grossa – T. orbicollis , and not in that of T. peiroleri – T. levis – T. incerta .

In addition, it does not correspond to the species coming from Cartagena, supposed original locality. The syntype from Paris is a specimen corresponding to the unpublished T. kochi sp. nov. (= T. incerta ssp. pseudolaevis Koch , specimens from Malaga), typical of the Costa del Sol, but not of Cartagena. As consequence of this historical confusion, all the specimens in litt. of Rambur, tagged “ T. laevis Solier, Andalus Rambur ” (MNHUB) corresponds to the previously mentioned unpublished species. Rosenhauer (1856) dragged the erroneous record of Malaga; Kraatz (1865), considering authentic the syntypes of Paris and comparing them with material from Cartagena, realized that they are different, considering the locality of T. levis Sol. wrong. Hence, he described T. sublaevis Kraatz, 1865 with specimens from Cartagena, and cited Andalusia, specifically Malaga, as the true origin of Tentyria levis Solier , making a description of this taxon ( Kraatz 1865) that does not agree with that of Solier (1835). Reitter (1900) followed the Kraatz’s criterion placing T. “ laevis ” in group 3 of his key, next to T. platyceps Stev. , which corresponds to the Tentyria species with transverse gular groove, very deep and well developed. Koch (1944a) realized that the authors who preceded him (Reitter, Kraatz, Rosenhauer, Rambur, ...) had confused T. levis Solier with an unpublished taxon, which he described as T. incerta ssp. pseudolaevis . However, Koch considering Tentyria sublaevis Kraatz synonymy of T. levis Solier , guided only by the typical locality that Solier cited, without considering that the specimens that inhabit Cartagena do not fit the description of Tentyria levis Solier. Therefore , T. sublaevis Kraatz should be considered a valid species to assign the specimens from Cartagena.

In the MNHUB, there is a specimen labelled “ T. laevis Sol., Carthag. Dej. ” which exactly matches the description of T. levis Solier (1835) , and therefore different from the specimens coming from Cartagena ( T. sublaevis Kraatz ). Probably, this is the lost type of Solier because it is very unlikely that there were two specimens from two different collectors with the same mistake in the label of locality. T. levis Solier was cited by Eschscholtz (1831) and later included in the Catalogue of the collection of Dejean (1833) “Laevis. Solier – Hisp. Orient.”, before Solier’s description (1835), which indicates that this taxon was transferred to Solier for study.

On the other hand, comparing this specimen with others belonging to T. peiroleri and T. incerta Solier from Granada and Almería, respectively, they are practically indistinguishable. The same occurs when the descriptions of T. peioleri , T. levis and T. incerta are compared. This implies that Solier (1835) described three different species with variable specimens belonging to the same specific taxon. Hence, T. levis Solier must be considered a synonym of T. peiroleri ssp. incerta Solier , and the Carthagena provenance is a labeling mistake.

Geographic distribution: Known from the Almería littoral and nearby mountains: Sª de Gádor and Sª de Alhamilla.

Designation of Lectotype of Tentyria incerta Solier, 1835 , present designation:

Given the confusion about this taxon since its description and after detecting two false syntypes next to the type described by Solier (1835) we consider necessary to designate Lectotype to the specimen that carries the following labels: T. incerta Sol., Barb ? (old rectangular label) / Incerta (typical label of Solier) / Tentyria incerta Sol., Barba. T., Du 64 (rounded label) / TYPE (red letter) / MUSEUM PARIS, COLL. DE MARSEUL, ( Fig. 239 View FIGURES 236–240 ).

Designation of Lectotype of Tentyria incerta ssp. pseudolaevis Koch, 1944 , present designation:

In the NHMB there is, at least, one specimen labelled “ Typus ” coming from Málaga (described above), which cannot be considered type, since Koch (1944a) explicitly indicated the typical series (4♁♁ and 4♀♀, Sierra Gádor), together with other specimens from other localities in the province of Almería. For this reason, we believe it necessary to designate one of the specimens bearing the following label Lectotype: Sierra Gádor, Prov. Almería, G. Frey, C. Koch, V. 1943 ( Fig. 240a View FIGURES 236–240 ). The other specimens in the typical series are designated Paralectotypes ( Fig. 240b View FIGURES 236–240 ).