Corotoca phylo Schiødte, 1853

Zilberman, Bruno, 2018, New species and synonymy in the genus Corotoca Schiødte, 1853 (Coleoptera, Aleocharinae, Corotocini), Zootaxa 4434 (3), pp. 547-560 : 556-558

Corotoca phylo Schiødte, 1853

( Figs. 39–43 )

Corotoca seeversi Fontes, 1977: 71 syn. nov.

Material examined. Corotoca phylo Schødte, 1853 . Lectotype, female: BRAZIL, Minas Gerais, Lagoa Santa ,

1852, Reinhardt, J. T. col., pinned (NHMD). Corotoca seeversi Fontes, 1977 . Holotype, female: BRAZIL, Minas Gerais, Francisco de Sá , 19.VII.1975, Araujo, R. L. col., in alcohol ( MZUSP) . PARATYPES: same location, date, collector and preservation method (2 females) ( MZUSP).

Remarks. Based on analysis of the types of C. seeversi Fontes, 1977 and the photos of the holotype of C. phylo Schiødte, 1853 was concluded that the former is a synonym of the latter. It is presented here a historical and discussion related to mistakes involving these two species and also C. fontesi sp. nov.

When Fontes (1977) described C. seeversi , he compared it with C. phylo (actually C. fontesi sp. nov.) and observed that both species have the same size, a fine punctuation on head, four long bristles in a transverse row on vertex, abdomen largely membranous at sides, sternites V–VI subquadrate, not reaching sides of abdomen and relatively short bristles on sternites VII. Related to four long bristle on vertex, it was observed that excepting C. guyanae Mann, 1923 , which has two long bristles in medial region of the vertex, and C. araujoi Seevers, 1957 which these bristles are absent, the remainder species of the genus have four bristles transversely distributed in a row ( C. melantho Schiødte, 1853 , C. phylo an d C. fontesi sp. nov.). Beyond those four bristles, I found in one specimen of C. phylo , like a setal insertion between two of them, without any visible bristle and in one specimen of C. fontesi sp. nov.. an additional bristle in more medial region of the head. Both species also share the general form of the abdomen, mostly because of the truncate aspect of sternite VII, and the absence of wings. Fontes (1977) distinguished C. seeversi (actually C. phylo ) from C. phylo (actually C. fontesi sp.nov.) by: color of pronotum, medial and posterior femur and tibia black; chaetotaxy of sternite VII noticeably sparser, and mentum with one long bristle on each lateral margin. Checking the material of actual C. phylo studied by Fontes, it was possible to confirm the distribution of bristles on mentum, although two of the three internal long bristles on material dissected are not always present among the specimens ( Fig. 45 ). In actual C. phylo , the shape of tergite II is different, with lateral margin thick and medial depression short and deep ( Figs. 46–47 ), anterior margin of labrum also differs, which is anteriorly-median tooth-like pronounced ( Figs. 48–49 ), as well the spermatheca, which capsule is bigger in size, extending the width of stem ( Figs. 50–51 ).

The presence or absence of hind wings is confusing when based on information of literature. Seevers (1957) redescribed the genus as having vestigial wings, but Jacobson et al. (1986) considered them present. In fact, C. phylo and C. fontesi sp. nov. have vestigial hind wings, and the remainder species of the genus have wings with a typical staphylinid venation. Jacobson et al. (1986) illustrated one specimen of C. phylo while characterized the genus with presence of hind wings, but actually the specimen belongs to C. melantho . The error in the identification in the illustration is corroborated by the general form of the abdomen, shape of sternites V and VI, chaetotaxy of the sternite VII and the presence of wings. Fontes, who worked on the group at seventies, realized about this problem and have sent a letter to one of the authors, warning about the taxonomical mistake, using the first three arguments enumerated here (personal communication). Although these arguments were enough to settle the question, the answer was that “a mistake wasn't committed, that even the type specimen was checked”. Then Fontes told me that he thought about the possibility of the recipients of the specimens have been accidentally changed. It turns out that the specimens are preserved in dry method and why Jacobson et al. (1986) were so convicted about the identification remains a mystery.

Figures

FIGURE 39–41. Corotoca phylo Schiødte, 1853 holotype, female. 39, lateral habitus; 40, dorsal habitus; 41, labels. Photographs of Igor Orlov.

FIGURES 42–43. Corotoca phylo Schiødte, 1853 female (C. seeversi Fontes, 1977—holotype). 42, lateral habitus. 43, dorsal habitus. Scale bars = 0.5 mm.

FIGURES 44–45. Chaetotaxy of mentum. 44, Corotoca fontesi sp. nov.; 45, Corotoca phylo Schiødte, 1853. Scale bars = 0.05 mm.

FIGURES 46–47. Tergite II. 46, Corotoca fontesi sp. nov.; 47, Corotoca phylo Schiødte, 1853. Scale bar fig. 46= 0.2 mm; fig. 47= 0,5 mm.

FIGURES 48–49. Chaetotaxy of labrum. 48 Corotoca fontesi sp. nov.; 49, Corotoca phylo Schiødte, 1853. Scale bars = 0.05 mm.

FIGURES 50–51. Spermatheca. 50, Corotoca fontesi sp. nov.; 51, Corotoca phylo Schiødte, 1853. Scale bars = 0.05 mm.