Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) rufitarsis Kashcheev, 1999

Gildenkov, Mikhail Yu., 2017, New synonymies of Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Oxytelinae), Zootaxa 4306 (1), pp. 130-136 : 134-135

Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) rufitarsis Kashcheev, 1999 , syn. n.

( Figs. 6 , 13)

Coprophilus (Zonoptilus) rufitarsis Kashcheev, 1999: 149 Coprophilus rufitarsis: Herman, 2001: 1316

Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) rufitarsis: Smetana, 2004: 511 Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) rufitarsis: Schülke and Smetana, 2015: 767 Type material examined. Paratypes: 1 ♀, Kazakhstan “[in Russian] Aksu Dzhabagly 22.6.1985 V. Kashcheev” “Holotypus Coprophilus rufitarsis Kastcheev ” “ Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 | det. M. Gildenkov, 2014” “ZOOLOGICAL INSTITUTE RAS ST. PETERSBURG” (ZMAS); 1 ♀ “[in Russian] Aksu Dzhabagly 22.6.1985 V. Kashcheev” “Paratypus Coprophilus rufitarsis Kastcheev ” “ Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 | det. M. Gildenkov, 2014” “ZOOLOGICAL INSTITUTE RAS ST. PETERSBURG” (ZMAS); 5 ♀♀ “[in Russian] Aksu Dzhabagly 22.6.1985 V. Kashcheev” “Paratypus Coprophilus rufotarsis Kastcheev ” “ Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 | det. M. Gildenkov, 2014” “ZOOLOGICAL INSTITUTE RAS ST. PETERSBURG” (ZMAS).

Discussion. The body structure and coloration of the type specimens of C. rufitarsis are similar to those of the lectotype and paralectotype (female) of C. pentatoma . Thus, and the new synonymy is established: C. (Z.) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 = C. (Z.) rufitarsis Kashcheev, 1999 , syn. n.

Remarks. In the original description ( Kashcheev 1999), the holotype was stated to be a male (10 males were also designated as paratypes). The examination of the material from ZMAS revealed seven type specimens of C. rufitarsis , including one specimen labeled as “Holotypus Coprophilus rufitarsis Kastcheev ”. All type specimens, however, were found to be females. The location of males indicated in the original description ( Kashcheev 1999) is unknown. The labels of the type specimens studied were written by hand of the author and their content completely matches with the data from the original description ( Kashcheev 1999). The morphological structure of these type specimens leaves no doubt of their synonymy. This conclusion is also indirectly supported by my study of numerous specimens of C. pentatoma from Kazakhstan, from the collection of Vitaliy Kashcheev, which was recently donated to ZMAS. The figures of the aedeagus of C. pentatoma in Kashcheev (1999, fig.1: 12) contradict the structure of the aedeagus of the lectotype of C. pentatoma (figs. 2–3). I believe that the figure of the aedeagus of C. rufitarsis that differs ( Kashcheev 1999, fig.1: 13) from the illustrations of the aedeagus of C. pentatoma should unfortunately be regarded as erroneous. It is clear that Kashcheev had an incorrect understanding of C. pentatoma .

Figures

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.