Platyderus vignai, Guéorguiev, Borislav, 2009

Guéorguiev, Borislav, 2009, Three new species of Platyderus from South Italy (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Sphodrini), Zootaxa 2268, pp. 41-51 : 48-49

Platyderus vignai new species

( Figs. 5–6 , 9 , 15, 18–19 , Table 1)

Platyderus dalmatinus Miller, 1880 : Binaghi in Magistretti, 1955: 23, Fig. 2 . Platyderus dalmatinus Miller, 1880 : Magistretti, 1965: 421.

Type material. HOLOTYPE: male, labelled “Monte Gargano 17.4.1907 legit M. Hilf Coll. O. Leonhard.” / “coll. Dr. J. Fodor” ( HNHM). PARATYPES, a total of 2 males and 2 females: 1 male, labelled “Monte Gargano 11.4.1907 legit M. Hilf Coll. O. Leonhard.” / “coll. Dr. J. Fodor” ( HNHM); 1 female, labelled “Monte Gargano 25.6.1907 legit M. Hilf Coll. O. Leonhard.” / “coll. Dr. J. Fodor” ( HNHM); 1 female, labelled “M. Gargano M. S. Angelo IV. 0 7. A. Kniz” / “ Pl. v. depressus ” / “Museum Leiden Platyderus . Pl. (s.str.) ruficollis Marsh. v. roitundatus Chaud. Det :” ( NNM); 1 male, labelled “Prom. Gargano Selva Umbra 23/ 31.V.1948 G. Binaghi” / “sp. n. prope minutus ” / “ dalmatinus ssp. garganicus Binaghi” ( MSNG).

Type locality. Italy, Apulia Region, Foggia Province, Gargano Mountain.

Diagnosis. This species is distinct from any other one from the Apennines by intervals of elytra with very fine punctuation, the three inner intervals of elytra with stronger lustre and reduced microsculpture (elytra of males with reduced microsculpture throughout), different structures of medial lobe of aedeagus (laterally widest in apical third, dorsally and ventrally with two prominent forward and aside laterodorsal lobes and apex not visible from above; see Figs. 5 , 9 , 15, 18 ) and the copulatory piece of endophallus.

Description. A micropterous Platyderus species ( Fig. 19), with distinct isodiametric microsculpture on labrum (in both sexes) and on outer intervals of elytra (in females). Colour reddish-brown to dark brown; antennomeres, palpomeres and legs paler. Lustre of tegument stronger in males, faint in female. Size measurements and ratios are shown in Table 1.

Head round, dorsal surface impunctate. Eyes moderately big, flat, not prominent. Labrum straight or slightly emarginate anteriorly. Mandibles shorter than half length of head (with mandibles). Antennae pubescent from article 4; article 11 and most part of one 10 exceeding posterior margin of pronotum. Disc smooth, frontal impressions shallow, foveate, shortly and obliquely ended backward. Pronotum subcordiform, widest before middle. Lateral, anterior (excluding medial part) and posterior margins beaded. Sides convex towards apex, straight or slightly convex towards base; anterior margin emarginate; posterior margin convex near angles, emarginate in middle. Basal impressions well-marked, linear or sublinear. Hind angles round but their tips more or less traceable. Disc flat, midline distinct, not reaching both anterior and posterior margin; punctuation in basal part varied (from faint to more punctate in scattered groups along lateral borders, within and around basal impression). Elytra subdepressed, widest in middle third, slightly narrower at apical third, tightly coalesced along suture. Shoulders well-marked, obtusely angulate, not denticulate. Basal bead complete; scutellar striae and scutellar SP present; elytral striae impunctate, deeper in basal part and more superficial apically, all reaching basal margin; intervals flat, with very fine punctuation. Hind wings reduced. Pro-, meso- and metasternum smooth; anterior and internal margins of metaepisternae of equal length. Abdomen smooth. Legs relatively long and slender.

Male genitalia (genitalia of 3 specimens studied): Median lobe of aedeagus in lateral view thinner basally, widest in apical third, apex slightly curved ventrally ( Figs. 5 , 9 ); same dorsally and ventrally narrow, relatively long, with two distinct prominent forward and aside laterodorsal lobes, apex dorsally not visible from above ( Figs. 15, 18 ). Parameres depicted on Fig. 6 . Copulatory piece convex laterally, ventrally without protruding lobe anteriorly ( Figs. 5 , 15 ).

Chaetotaxy: interval 3 of each elytron with three SP (first SP closer to or in stria 3, third SP closer to or lying in stria 2, situation of middle SP varies).

Sexual dimorphism. Males with strong lustre and reduced microsculpture on elytra throughout. Females with strong lustre and reduced microsculpture only on three inner intervals of elytra; all other intervals with distinct microsculpture and faint lustre (thus giving darker colour of female elytra).

Etymology. Dedicated to Prof. Dr. Augusto Vigna Taglianti for his important contributions to the faunistics and systematics of the Italian and European Carabidae .

Notes. In 1965, Magistretti cited Platyderus dalmatinus from the Gargano Mt. as listing three records: “Monte Sant’Angelo”, “Montenero”, and “Foresta Umbra” ( Magistretti 1965: 421 1). For this reason, one male and two females of the typical P. dalmatinus from Montenegro (“Radostak Paganetti”) have been compared with P. vignai sp. n. It was found out that the aedeagus, left paramere and copulatory piece of both taxa are completely different. Besides, P. vignai sp. n. possesses the pronotum superficially but very clearly punctate close to lateral and basal margins as well as within and around the basal impressions, the lustre of tegument is stronger, and the pronotum scarcely wider than long, whereas P. dalmatinus lacks punctures close to lateral and basal margins of pronotum and within and around the basal impressions, the lustre of tegument is weaker and the pronotum much wider than long. Most probably, P. dalmatinus has to be removed from the checklist of the Italian fauna.

Figures

FIGURES 1 - 6. Median lobe of aedeagus left lateral view and parameres of Italian Platyderus: Fig. 1. Platyderus casalei sp. n., holotype; Fig. 2. P. magrinii Degiovanni, “ Mte Graeco ”; Fig. 3. P. neapolitanus Chaudoir, “ Emery Napels ”; Fig. 4. P. paganettii sp. n., holotype; Fig. 5. P. vignai sp. n., holotype; Fig. 6. P. vignai sp. n., holotype, parameres.

FIGURES 7 - 10. Median lobe of aedeagus right lateral view and copulatory piece of Italian Platyderus: Fig. 7. Platyderus casalei sp. n., holotype; Fig. 8. P. paganettii sp. n., holotype; Fig. 9. P. vignai sp. n., holotype; Fig. 10. P. paganettii sp. n., holotype, dorsal and ventral shape of copulatory piece.

FIGURES 11 - 18. Median lobe of aedeagus, ventral and dorsal views of Italian Platyderus: Fig. 11. Platyderus casalei sp. n., holotype, ventral view; Fig. 12. P. magrinii Degiovanni, “ Mte Graeco ”, ventral view; Fig. 13. P. neapolitanus Chaudoir, “ Emery Napels ”, ventral view; Fig. 14. P. paganettii sp. n., holotype, ventral view; Fig. 15. P. vignai sp. n., holotype, ventral view; Fig. 16. Platyderus casalei sp. n., holotype, dorsal view; Fig. 17. P. neapolitanus Chaudoir, “ Emery Napels ”, dorsal view; Fig. 18. P. vignai sp. n., holotype, dorsal view.