Chrysobothris femorata ( Olivier, 1790 )

Wellso, Stanley G. & Manley, Gary V., 2007, A revision of the Chrysobothris femorata (Olivier, 1790) species group from North America, north of Mexico (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), Zootaxa 1652, pp. 1-26 : 10-12

Chrysobothris femorata ( Olivier, 1790)

( Figs 8 , 20 , 32 )

Buprestis femorata Olivier 1790: 47

Chrysobothris femorata Dejean 1833: 80 ; Fisher 1942: 133 –136; Franklin & Lund 1956: 32; Dominguez 1969: 8 –11; Wellso et al. 1976: 11; Bright 1987: 190; MacRae 1991: 112; Westcott 2005: 13

Chrysobothris nigritula Gory & Laporte 1837: 54

Chrysobothris obscura LeConte 1860: 232

Chrysobothris horni Kerremans 1903: 186

Description. Neotype [see below] male: Size, 11.2 mm x 4.6 mm. Broadly elongate, rather strongly flattened above, shinning dark bronze with a reddish tinge most apparent on the apex of the antennae, elytra, and abdomen, ventrally more shining than above. Head: frons nearly flat, greenish with surface slightly obscured by rather long dense white setae, indistinctly reticulate, pores larger near antennae, indistinct purple-copper chevron above the middle of the frons, clypeus acutely notched at the middle, semicircularly rounded on each side of middle, border black with adjacent area bronze area extending to antennae, longitudinal grooved black carina on occiput. Antennomeres 1st – 4th bronze-green, 1st longest, 2nd small, 3rd nearly as long as the as the next two, antennomeres becoming slightly smaller toward the apex, 9 – 11 shining reddish-cupreous, 11 oblong, narrower than 10. Eyes closer together near occiput. Pronotum: 1.8 times wider than long, widest about 1/6 before anterior margin, sides gradually converging to base, anterior margin slightly sinuate, basal margin strongly sinuate and broadly rounded before scutellum; setal pores shining, disc with a medium longitudinal depression not reaching either margin, with somewhat parallel short transverse ridges, some irregular indistinct smooth areas on disc, anterior lateral margin greenish-blue. Scutellum: small, triangular. Elytra surface with numerous punctures and indistinct smooth areas, distinctly wider than pronotum, sides diverging from humeral angle to behind middle, then arcuately converging to narrowly rounded apex, lateral margins coarsely serrate, larger toward apex, a deep basal depression located closer to central suture than margin of each elytron, humeral depressions broad and shallow, surface glabrous, coarsely, densely, irregularly punctate. Four indistinct shallow foveae on each elytron: 1st near sutural margin, located 1/3 distance from base, 2nd near elytron lateral and posterior to the 1st fovea, 3rd and 4th 2/3 distance from base and adjacent to each other. Four longitudinal costae on each elytron: 1st parallel to sutural margin and extending from apex to sutural fovea, 2nd parallel to 1st originating behind anterior fovea extending between 3rd and 4th foveae, 3rd small and short, originating behind humeral carina and terminating before elytron middle, and 4th short and indistinct, parallel to posterior diagonal elytron margin. Ventrally: sparsely, irregularly punctate with short white hairs and indistinct darker lateral callosities; prosternum with long white setae, terminal sternite semicircularly emarginate at apex, with a serrate submarginal ridge, lateral margin coarsely serrate, last tergite, thickened, with a deep medium notch. Profemur with large obtuse tooth, dentate on outer edge, anterior meso- and metatibia reddish with elongate adjacent greenish area, pro- and mesotibia strongly arcuate with a row of small teeth, metatibia straight bronze without teeth, tarsi dark greenish.

Neotype here designated, male, labeled: GEORGIA, Fort Valley, April, 1905. (Light green label, deposited in USNM). This is the same specimen used by Fisher (1942) when he redescribed the species.

Female (same specimen described by Fisher (1942)). Size, 12.2 mm x 5.3 mm. Shape similar to male, frons entirely brown, with interrupted elevated transverse areas dorsal to antennal bases, chevron more distinct, antennae reddish bronze, more reddish at apex. Dorsally brassy. Ventrally more shinning than dorsally, brighter reddish on last abdominal sternite that is broadly arcuately emarginate and tridentate at apex, medium tooth, long, lateral teeth on each side rounded, posterior tergite with strong elevated medium and lateral carinae, tibiae less reddish than male, all tibiae without teeth, tarsi blackish green.

Specimen examined, female, labeled: GEORGIA: Fort Valley, April, 1905 (Deposited in USNM). This is the same female reported by Fischer (1942) when redescribing the species.

Hosts. Reared from Betula alba L & B. occidentalis Hook. , and Carpinus caroliniana Walt. & C. japonica ( Westcott, 2005) , Acer negundo Linnaeus , Acer saccharum Marsh. , Betula papyrifera Marsh. , Carya illinoinensis C. (Wang.) K. Koch., Cercis canadensis Linnaeus , Cornus florida Linnaeus , Crataegus douglasii (R. Westcott, personal communication), Platanus occidentalis Linnaeus, P opulus deltoides Marsh., P. fremontii Wats. , Populus tremuloides Michaux , Prunus serotina Ehrh. , Pyrus malus Linnaeus , P. communis Linnaeus , and Ulmus americana Linnaeus.

Comments. This is the most widespread species in this species group both in distribution and hosts. Since this species attacks fruit trees (‘flatheaded appletree borer’, Fig. 8 ) and many other trees, it is considered economically important. It occurs in all continental states and Canada, and based on available records it appears to be more common east of the Continental Divide. Since C. quadriimpressa and some of the other species described in this paper were included by Fisher (1942) under C. femorata , some host records reported previously for C. femorata maybe incorrect. Chrysobothris femorata typically is not found on oaks. Male genitalia ( Fig. 20 ) robust, with the penis broader than width of each paramere. Female pygidium ( Fig. 32 ): rather deeply depressed on each side of median carina, impressions with rather narrow lateral margins. Males: 7.0 – 12.2 mm long, 2.9 – 5.1 mm wide; Females: 9.6 – 14.2 mm long, 4.0 – 6.1 mm wide. Chrysobothris femorata ( Olivier, 1790) was described from Georgia. According to Horn & Kahle (1935 – 1937), parts of the Olivier collection are thought to be deposited in the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN), Paris and other parts went first to L. Chevrolat, and then via C. Kerremans, and should be in The Natural History Museum (BMNH), London. The Olivier buprestid types have not been located, and thus, a neotype for C. femorata is designated herein [see above].

Considerable variation exists for beetles that key to C. femorata . Thus, this species may still include several other species. Recognition of additional new species in this species group will probably require more detailed biological studies. For example, we do not know how much variation exists within progeny from a single mating. Also, it appears that some individuals may be reproducing on hard woods (maple, apple, etc.) and others on soft woods (poplar, birch, etc.). One beetle from Lincoln, Nebraska has the clypeus shaped like C. adelpha , but the genitalia are extremely broad and different than any beetles observed. Some beetles from the Southwest looked somewhat different than C. femorata , but the male genitalia were close to C. femorata .

Figures

FIGURES 1 – 12. Dorsal view of elytra: Fig. 1, Chrysobothris mescalero Wellso & Manley; Fig. 2, Chrysobothris seminole Wellso & Manley; Fig. 3, Chrysobothris adelpha Harold; Fig. 4, Chrysobothris sloicola Manley & Wellso; Fig. 5, Chrysobothris rugosiceps Melsheimer; Fig. 6, Chrysobothris viridiceps Melsheimer; Fig. 7, Chrysobothris quadriimpressa Gory & Laporte; Fig. 8, Chrysobothris femorata (Olivier); Fig. 9, Chrysobothris wintu Wellso & Manley; Fig. 10, Chrysobothris comanche Wellso & Manley; Fig. 11, Chrysobothris caddo Wellso & Manley; Fig. 12, Chrysobothris shawnee Wellso & Manley.

FIGURES 13 – 24. Dorsal and ventral view of male genitalia: Fig. 13, Chrysobothris mescalero Wellso & Manley; Fig. 14, Chrysobothris seminole Wellso & Manley; Fig. 15, Chrysobothris adelpha Harold; Fig. 16, Chrysobothris sloicola Manley & Wellso; Fig. 17, Chrysobothris rugosiceps Melsheimer; Fig. 18, Chrysobothris viridiceps Melsheimer; Fig. 19, Chrysobothris quadriimpressa Gory & Laporte; Fig. 20, Chrysobothris femorata (Olivier); Fig. 21, Chrysobothris wintu Wellso & Manley; Fig. 22, Chrysobothris comanche Wellso & Manley; Fig. 23, Chrysobothris caddo Wellso & Manley; Fig. 24, Chrysobothris shawnee Wellso & Manley.

FIGURES 25 – 36. Dorsal view of female pygidium: Fig. 25, Chrysobothris mescalero Wellso & Manley; Fig. 26, Chrysobothris seminole Wellso & Manley; Fig. 27, Chrysobothris adelpha Harold; Fig. 28, Chrysobothris sloicola Manley & Wellso; Fig. 29, Chrysobothris rugosiceps Melsheimer; Fig. 30, Chrysobothris viridiceps Melsheimer; Fig. 31, Chrysobothris quadriimpressa Gory & Laporte; Fig. 32, Chrysobothris femorata (Olivier); Fig. 33, Chrysobothris wintu Wellso & Manley; Fig. 34, Chrysobothris comanche Wellso & Manley; Fig. 35, Chrysobothris caddo Wellso & Manley; Fig. 36, Chrysobothris shawnee Wellso & Manley.