Urometopus Formánek, 1904

Colonnelli, Enzo, 2011, Notes on the taxonomy of Urometopus with description of a new species from northern Turkey (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 51 (2), pp. 675-686 : 676-677

Urometopus Formánek, 1904

Omias (Urometopus) Formánek, 1904a: 17 . Type species: Omias imereticus Reitter, 1888 , here designated.

Phyllobioides Formánek, 1923: 109 , syn. nov. Type species: Phyllobioides crassirostris Formánek, 1923 , by monotypy.

Taxonomy. The genus Urometopus was established by FORMÁNEK (1904a) as a subgenus of Omias Germar sensu SEIDLITZ (1868) not GERMAR (1817), currently Omiamima Silfverberg, 1977 . Urometopus originally included 8 species ( FORMÁNEK 1904a): U. circassicus ( Reitter, 1888) , U. georgicus ( Reitter, 1888) , U. imereticus ( Reitter, 1888) , U. inflatus ( Kolenati, 1858) , U. mingrelicus ( Reitter, 1888) , U. longicollis ( Reitter, 1897) , U. longicornis ( Stierlin, 1893) and U. swaneticus ( Reitter, 1897) . Soon afterwards it was raised to genus by REITTER (1913). However, thus far its type species has never been designated; therefore, Omias imereticus Reitter, 1888 is here designated as the type species of Urometopus Formánek, 1904 .

ARNOLDI et al. (1965) transferred the Ukrainian species Omias rugifrons Hochhuth, 1851 to Phyllobioides Formánek, 1923 and recognised the synonymy of Phyllobioides crassicornis Formánek, 1923 with Omias rugifrons , a taxon considered a ‘variety’ of O. strigifrons Gyllenhal, 1834 by SEIDLITZ (1868) and its synonym by LONA (1938).

BIAŁOOKI (2007) transferred Urometopus korgei Smreczyński, 1970 , too, to Phyllobioides ; he rightly moved this genus from Phyllobiini , where it was placed by LONA (1938) and ALONSO- ZARAZAGA & LYAL (1999), to Omiini . It is worthy to remark that BIAŁOOKI too (2007: 144) used the name of Phyllobioides rugifrons and wrongly stated that this species was assigned to Phyllobioides by FORMÁNEK (1923). The same Polish author ( BIAŁOOKI 2007) drew attention to the few characters peculiar to these two species versus other Urometopus and speculated that Phyllobioides could be considered a subgenus of Urometopus , but the size of the funicular segments 4 and 6, larger than that of 3, 5 and 7, is more or less evident in all Urometopus ( Figs. 9, 10 ), and the type of clothing of U. korgei differs in no way from that of several other species of the genus.

The key trait which should separate Phyllobioides crassicornis Formánek, 1923 , the type species of Phyllobioides , from all known Urometopus is its single tarsal claw ( FORMÁNEK 1923), but the type actually has two claws. Roman Borovec examined the specimen preserved in NMPC, and wrote to me: ‘The holotype of Phyllobioides crassicornis is a teneral specimen, most likely female with soft yellowish body but clearly visible characters, and is labelled as follows: ‘Crim 913 Gursuf IV’ (handwritten) / ‘crassirostris Type’ (handwritten by Formánek) / ‘ Holotypus!’ (red, printed, subsequently added) / ‘ Phyllobioides rugifrons Hochh. L. Arnoldi det.’ (partly printed and partly handwritten) / ‘ Urometopus rugifrons Fremuth det.’ (partly printed and partly handwritten). The specimen is 3.3 mm long without rostrum, has two equally long claws and not conspicuously prominent shoulders. All the characters, and namely the longitudinally multistriate rostrum, are those of the genus Urometopus ’. In consequence, the new synonymy: Urometopus Formánek, 1904 = Phyllobioides Formánek, 1923 , syn. nov., is here established.

Discussion. The systematic position of this genus among Omiini Shuckard, 1840 was discussed by BOROVEC (2006) who drew up a checklist of all the known genera and species of the tribe. Just one week before that, YUNAKOV & NADEIN (2006) had described several new taxa of small soil-dwelling entimines from the Balkans, Caucasus and central Asia similar to Rhinomias Reitter, 1894 . This genus, very close to Urometopus , had been included in the Omiini by ALONSO- ZARAZAGA & LYAL (1999) and by BOROVEC (2006). As rightly pointed out by YUNAKOV & NADEIN (2006) and later by BOROVEC (2010), features separating Omiini from Holcorhinini Desbrochers, 1898 , Sciaphilini Sharp, 1891 , and Phyllobiini Schoenherr, 1826 , are of so little phylogenetic importance that the new genera ( Solarhinomias Yunakov & Nadein, 2006 , Turanomias Yunakov & Nadein, 2006 , and Eurosphalmus Yunakov & Nadein, 2006 ) described by the two Russian authors were deliberately not assigned by them to any tribe. However, the studied specimens of all the above three genera have the features of the Omiini as listed by BOROVEC (2006); also Amicromias Reitter, 1913 , included by ALONSO- ZARAZAGA & LYAL (1999) in Sciaphilini , has the whole of the same characters. In consequence, Solarhinomias , Turanomias , Eurosphalmus and Amicromias are here moved to Omiini , the first three genera being transferred from Entiminae incertae sedis, and the last one from Sciaphilini (all new placements).

Figures

Figs. 5–14. 5–8 – Urometopus angelinii sp. nov. (5 – male holotype, lateral view; 6 – female paratype, lateral wiew; 7 – head and rostrum, dorsal view; 8 – same, lateral view). 9–10 – antennal funicle (9 – U. anatolicus Smreczyński, 1977 from Akkuş, Ordu province, Turkey; 10 – U. korgei Smreczyński, 1970 from, Hatip, Sinop province, Turkey). 11–12 – U. angelinii sp. nov., aedeagus, holotype (11 – dorsal view, 12 – lateral view). 13–14 – U. anatolicus from Ladik-Kiliçarsian pass, Samsung province, Turkey, aedeagus (13 – dorsal view; 14 – lateral view).Scale bar: 1.8 mm (Figs. 5–6), 0.48 mm (Figs. 7–8); 0.42 mm (Figs. 9–10); 0.55 mm (Figs. 11–14).