Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897

Gildenkov, Mikhail Yu., 2017, New synonymies of Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Oxytelinae), Zootaxa 4306 (1), pp. 130-136 : 131-132

Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897

( Figs. 1–3 , 7 , 8 –10)

Coprophilus pentatoma Fauvel, 1897: 227

Coprophilus (Zonoptilus) pentatoma: Bernhauer, 1908: 329 Coprophilus pentatoma: Bernhauer and Schubert, 1911: 89 Coprophilus pentatoma: Scheerpeltz, 1933: 1076

Coprophilus pentatoma: Gridelli, 1934: 72

Coprophilus pentatoma: Herman, 1970: 368

Coprophilus (Zonoptilus) pentatoma: Tóth, 1991: 94 (lectotype designation) Coprophilus (Zonoptilus) pentatoma: Tóth, 1992: 375

Coprophilus (Zonoptilus) pentatoma: Kashcheev, 1999: 149 Coprophilus pentatoma: Herman, 2001: 1315

Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma: Smetana, 2004: 511 Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma: Schülke and Smetana, 2015: 767

Type material examined. Lectotype ♂ “M ts Alai Turkestan” “Col. et det. A. Fauvel | Coprophilus pentatoma Fvl. | R.I.Sc.N.B. 17.479” “Lectotypus ♂ 1990 C. (Zonoptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 | det. dr. Tóth L.” “ Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 | det. M. Gildenkov, 2014” (IRSNB). Paralectotypes: 1 ♀ “M t Alai Turkestan” <Col. et det. A. Fauvel | Coprophilus pentatoma Fvl. | R.I.Sc.N.B. 17.479” “Paralectotypus ♂ 1990 C. (Zonoptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 | det. dr. Tóth L.” “ Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 | det. M. Gildenkov, 2014” (IRSNB).

Additional material examined. 1 ♀ “Kebin” “Kebin Turkestan” “Col. et det. A. Fauvel | Coprophilus pentatoma Fvl. | R.I.Sc.N.B. 17.479” “Paralectotypus ♂ 1990 C. (Zonoptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 | det. dr. Tóth L.” “ Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 | det. M. Gildenkov, 2014” (IRSNB); 1 ♂, Kyrgyzstan, Talass valley “[… illegible] Talass Thal | E.Fischer” “ Zonoptilus piceus Solsky ” (ZMUM); 3 spec., Uzbekistan “Fergana. Skobelev. | 25.VIII.19. P.Archangelskij” (ZMUM; 1 spec.—cMG); 5 spec. “E KAZAKHSTAN, S Tarbagatay Mts., 4 km N Alexeevka, 1000 m, 24-25.VI.2001, leg. W. SCHAWALLER” (SMNS; 1 spec.—cMG); 5 spec. “S. Kazakhstan, Almaty reg., slp. Zailiyskyi Alatau, B. Almatinskoe Lake env. H- 2500, 15-30.VI.2002 ” (HNHM; 2 spec.—cMG); Kyrgyzstan, Talass valley 1 ♂ “Turkestan occ. Unllis Talass | Fischer” “ Coprophilus piceus Solsky | Coll. Reitter” “ Coprophilus (Zonoptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 | det. Tóth L. 1990” (HNHM); Kyrgyzstan, Talass valley 1 ♂ “Talass-Thal WestTurkestan | Fischer” “ Coprophilus piceus Solsky | Coll. Reitter” “ Coprophilus (Zonoptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 | det. Tóth L. 1990” (HNHM); 3 spec. “ 29.07.2009 | Kazakhstan, Charyn riv., Aktogai | V. Kastcheev” (ZMAS); 1 spec. “ 21.07.2005 | S-E Kazakhstan, Charyn riv., ur. Sartogai | V. Kastcheev” (ZMAS); 1 spec. “[in Russian] 15.05.1988 | Kazakhstan, hr. Ketmen, r. Dolaity | V. Kastcheev” (ZMAS); 2 spec. “ 23.08.1987 | SE Kazakhstan, Dzhungar mnts., Keskenterek riv. | V. Kastcheev” (ZMAS); 1 spec. “ 05.05.1986 | Kazakhstan, Almaty, Kamenka | V. Kastcheev” (ZMAS); 1 ♂, 1 ♀ “P Fischer | Talass Thal 15-VI-07 ” “Kastch. | Coprophilus pentatoma Fauv. ” (ZMAS).

Discussion. Type specimens and other material, including males, were examined. The aedeagus has a characteristic structure ( Figs. 2–3 ) that shows no apparent variation. The females are similar to males in coloration and body shape, but differ by the smaller pronotum. The species is distributed in Tien Shan Mt. range and probably Karakorum Mt. range (cited from Gridelli 1934: 72). In my opinion, the record of the species from Azerbaijan is erroneous. This conclusion is based on the following facts. Fauvel described the species from material in three locations “Turkestan (Monts Alaï), Baku, and Dobrudja”. Tóth revised the type material of C. pentatoma from IRSNB and designated the lectotype ( Tóth 1991: 94) from Mons Alai. In the same publication, Tóth (1991: 95) described one male (syntype of C. pentatoma ) from Cernavoda, Dobrudja as C. drugmandi Tóth, 1991 . Also two syntypes of C. pentatoma from Baku ( Tóth 1992) were later described as a separate species— C. fauveli Tóth, 1992 .

Remarks. Tóth (1991: 94) who designated the lectotype and paralectotypes indicated that the lectotype is a male, while the paralectotypes are females; the labels of the paralectotypes (figs. 9–10), however, state that they are males. The examination of these specimens confirmed that they are females. Moreover, one of the paralectotypes designated by Tóth (1 ♀ “Kebin”) cannot be considered as such, because the original description gives no indication of the locality of “Kebin”.

Figures

FIGURES 1 – 3. Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 (lectotype, male): 1 — body, dorsal view; 2 — aedeagus, lateral view; 3 — aedeagus, ventral view. Scale bar: fig. 1 — 1 mm; figs. 2, 3 — 0.25 mm.

FIGURES 6 – 7. Coprophilus spp.: 6 — C. (Z.) rufitarsis Kashcheev, 1999 (holotype?, female), body, dorsal view; 7 — C. (Z.) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 (“ Kebin ”, female), body, dorsal view. Scale bar: figs. 6, 7 — 1 mm.

FIGURES 8 – 9. Coprophilus spp., the labels: 8 — C. pentatoma (lectotype, male); 9 — C. pentatoma (paralectotype, female). FIGURES 10 – 11. Coprophilus spp., the labels: 10 — C. pentatoma (“ Kebin ”, female); 11 — C. longicornis (holotype, male). FIGURES 12 – 13. Coprophilus spp., the labels: 12 — C. bimaculatus (lectotype, male); 13 — C. rufitarsis (holotype?, female).