Amara (Curtonotus) hyperborea Dejean, 1831

Li, Yihang, Li, Haoyuan & Shi, Hongliang, 2024, Revision of the macropterous subgenus Curtonotus from east China, with the description of a new species (Carabidae, Zabrini, Amara), ZooKeys 1190, pp. 39-73 : 39

Amara (Curtonotus) hyperborea Dejean, 1831

Amara hyperborea Dejean, 1831: 800 (type locality: “Labrador” [= Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada]; holotype in MNHN); Putzeys 1865: 338; Putzeys 1866: 257; Jakobson 1906: 262; Lindroth 1953: 18; Lindroth 1954: 134, 135; Lindroth 1955: 98; Hieke 1990: 252; Hieke 1993: 147.

Curtonotus elongatus LeConte, 1850: 207 (type locality: "Lake Superior" [Probably in USA]; holotype in CUMZ); synonymized by Lindroth 1954: 134.

Leirus ovipennis Motschulsky, 1859: 156 (type locality: “Californie” [actually in western Alaska]; syntypes in ZMUM); synonymized by Hieke 1993: 147.

Leirus longicollis Motschulsky, 1860: 95 (type locality: "Daourie orientale" [in Kamchatka, Russia]; syntypes in ZMUM); Tschitschérine 1894: 389; synonymized by Putzeys 1865: 338.

Amara (Leirus) peregrina Morawitz, 1862: 258 (type locality: “Kulussutai” [in southeastern Siberia]; syntypes in ZRAS); synonymized by Lindroth 1953: 18.

Curtonotus canadensis Putzeys, 1866: 256 (type locality: "Canada boréal.” [= northern Canada]; holotype in MNHN); synonymized by Lindroth 1968: 678.

Curtonotus dejeani Putzeys, 1866: 258 (type locality: “Kamchatka”; holotype in MNHN); synonymized to A. longicollis by Tschitschérine 1894: 389.

Curtonotus pedestris Putzeys, 1866: 254 (type locality: "Udskoe Okhotsk" [= Udskoye, Region Chabarowsk, Russia; holotype in MNHN); synonymized to A. (C.) hyperborea Dejean by Hieke 1990: 252.

Curtonotus tristis Putzeys, 1866: 255 (type locality: “Oowho-Bay” [= Hudson Bay, Canada]; holotype in MNHN); synonymized to A. (C.) hyperborea by Lindroth 1968: 253.

Harpalus simulans Sahlberg, 1880: 44 (type locality: "Tschornaja ostrow" [= Yenisey range, Russia]; syntypes in NHRS); synonymized to A. (C.) hyperborea by Jakobson 1906: 262.

Curtonotus imperfectus Brown, 1930: 232 (type locality: "Bradore Bay" [in Quebec, Canada]; holotype in CMNC); synonymized to A. (C.) hyperborea by Lindroth 1954: 135.

Amara (Curtonotus) coreana Baliani, 1937: 182 (type locality: “Ompo” [= Onbo, North Hamgyeong Province, North Korea]; holotype in MSNG); synonymized to A. (C.) hyperborea by Hieke 1990: 255.

Chinese common name.

极北暗步甲.

Diagnosis.

Small- to medium-sized species, BL = 9.0-13.0 mm; dorsum brown, legs reddish brown; head small, ~ 1/2 of the pronotum maximum width; head with one supraorbital seta. Pronotum cordate, punctate at base, sporadically punctate at mid-anterior region; lateral margins nearly straight before posterior angles; posterior angles nearly rectangular, slightly laterally protruded. Elytra long, widest after middle; lateral sides of abdominal sternites smooth. Male mesotibiae projection composed of two denticles; proximal denticle acutely pointed beyond middle; distal denticle smaller, present between the proximal one and tibiae apex. Male genitalia with short apical lamella, slightly declined toward right, narrowed to apex; gonocoxite 2 of ovipositor elongated, length ~ 1.7-2.0 × as greatest width, narrowed to apex.

Comparison.

this species can be distinguished by having relatively elongated body, impunctate sides of abdominal sternites, nearly smooth pronotum anterior portion, and nearly straight pronotum lateral edge before posterior angle.

Distribution.

China (Heilongjiang, Jilin, Xinjiang), Russia (Far East, east Siberia, west Siberia), Mongolia, North Korea, Europe, North America.

Remarks.

This species, as well as the following two species ( A. (C.) tumida , A. (C.) shinanensis ), was recorded from the provinces of northeastern China ( Habu 1953; Hieke 1990). However, we did not find any specimens collected from eastern China that accord with these three species although several specimens of Amara Curtonotus were examined from northeastern China. Considering many species of this subgenus are superficially similar externally, we suspect that these three species records from China could be based on misidentifications of similar species. We hope future research can corroborate their precise distribution in China.