Paulipalpina claudicans (Szymczakowski, 1980)

Gnaspini, Pedro & Peck, Stewart B., 2019, Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens, Zootaxa 4696 (1), pp. 1-62 : 52-53

Paulipalpina claudicans (Szymczakowski, 1980)

Adelopsis simoni ; Szymczakowski, 1963: 671, 1968: 14 [and Fig. 1 ] (misidentification—and identified as P. claudicans in Gnaspini, 1996: 540 [and see Notes under P. simoni , above], but probably also a misidentification—see Taxonomic Notes). Adelopsis claudicans Szymczakowski, 1980: 518 [and Figs. 12–19 ]. Paulipalpina claudicans ; Gnaspini and Peck, 1996: 434 comb.; Gnaspini, 1996: 538 [and Figs. 56–62 ]; Salgado, 2005: 971 [and Figs. 23–24 ], 2015: 36. Note: see Taxonomic Notes for erroneous/doubtfull citations of this species.

Holotype male in MHNG (not examined): “ Brésil, Santa Catarina, Nova Teutônia , 300–500 m, VII.1958, leg. F. Plaumann ” [the original description refers to 2 male and 2 female paratypes in IZSP; not examined]. Note: This species was illustrated in Gnaspini (1996: Figs. 56–62 ) based on topotypes (collected by the same collector) from FMNH, and considered the same species in comparison with the illustrations from the original description (especially the shape of the aedeagus and of the mesotibia), and because so far (and also considering our unpublished notes on the many still undescribed species in SBPC collection), there is no record of more than one species of Paulipalpina collected in the same locality (as also discussed for P. simoni , above).

Length: 2.2 mm (holotype) and 2.0– 2.1 mm (paratypes) (original description).

Material examined: A) 1 female in NHRS (“P. Gnaspini det., 1994”) (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Brasilien / Nova Teutonia / 27º11’ B. 52º23’ L. / Fritz Plaumann / x.1938 ”; additional label: “ Adelopsis sp., female, Szymczakowski det., 1961”. Length: 2.0 mm (our measurement). Note: The female examined is a topotype (collected by the same collector) and shows the same spermatheca pattern as the one illustrated in Gnaspini (1996) and we therefore consider it to belong to the same species. It has a curved mesotibia (not bent as in males).

B) 1 male (Szymczakowski det., 1963: 671, 1968: 14 [and Fig. 1 ]— Brazil: São Paulo: São Paulo) in NMPC (Gnaspini, 1996: 541), misidentified as Adelopsis simoni [ Portevin, 1903; today in Paulipalpina ] in Szymczakowski (1963: 671, 1968: 14) (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), which is correct (see Taxonomic Notes under P. simoni , above), but possibly misidentified as P. claudicans in Gnaspini (1996: 540) —see Taxonomic Notes. Labels: São Paulo / Bras. Mráz lgt / Mus. Pragense”. Length: 2.1 mm (our measurement). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.34.

Taxonomic Notes. 1) Gnaspini (1996: 540) identified the NMPC specimen misidentified as P. simoni in Szymczakowski (1963: 671, 1968: 14 ) as belonging in P. claudicans because the specimen also has a bent mesotibia and the tip of the aedeagus is similar. Szymczakowski (1980: 518) also mentioned that the specimen from Brazil that he previously recognized as ‘ Adelopsis simoni ’ could refer to ‘ Adelopsis claudicans ’. However, because the speci- men is from a different locality (and we have discussed here that identification of specimens of different localities far from the type locality may incur a misidentification—see several Notes under species of Adelopsis , above) and because we actually found some slight differences between the illustrations we made for this specimen and for the topotypes we analysed, we prefer to consider this a doubtful record, and we intend to reexamine the specimen in the future, to solve this question.

2) Salgado (1999: 45) recorded this species from Rio de Janeiro, based on only one female, and gave no figures. We reinforce the statement that, because ptomaphagines (mainly the Neotropical ones) are very similar to each other based on external characters (with some exceptions, of course), it is difficult to relate female specimens to a given species without the presence of males in the same collection, especially from a different and distant locality. We therefore prefer to consider this a doubtful record.

3) Salgado (2005: 971, 2015: 36) added several records from the type locality. However, the spermatheca illustrated in Fig. 24 in Salgado (2005) completely differs from that illustrated in Gnaspini (1996: Fig. 62 ), and also from the pattern most commonly observed in species of the genus (although some different patterns have also been illustrated). Because of this important difference, we understand that one of the two illustrated females does not belong to the species, and this should be clarified in the future.

Distribution. Brazil: Santa Catarina State: known only from type locality (original description; Gnaspini, 1996; Salgado, 2005, 2015; here).

Note: Doubtfull records (see Taxonomic Notes above): Brazil: Rio de Janeiro ( Salgado, 1999) and São Paulo (Gnaspini, 1996: 540—record missed in Salgado, 1999, 2005, 2015) States.

Figures

FIGURES 1–3. General view of aedeagus and genital segment of Adelopsis sp. 1, aedeagus, left view; 2, aedeagus, dorsal view; 3, genital segment, ventral view; a, apex; b, base.

FIGURES 4–16. Adelopsis ascutellaris (Murray, 1856). 4-15, lectotype male in BMNH, from Caracas. 4, habitus; 5–9, aedeagus, left lateral, dorsal, right lateral, and ventral views, and frontal view of aedeagus apex; 10, last ventrite; 11, genital segment; 12, head, lateral view; 13, meso and metathorax, ventro-lateral view (of left side of specimen) [as = anapleural suture; cc = coxal cavity; mc = metastemal carina; msep = mesepimeron; mset = mesepisternum; mte = metasternum; mtet = metepisternum]; 14, mesotarsus and mesotibia; 15, metatarsus and metatibia; 16, paralectotype female in BMNH (same data), spermatheca. Scale lines = 0.5 mm; a for figs. 5–11, 16; b for figs. 4, 12–15.

FIGURES 17–25. Adelopsis ovalis Jeannel, 1936, holotype male in MNHN, from ‘Venezuela’. 17–20, aedeagus, left lateral, dorsal, and right lateral views, and frontal view of aedeagus apex; 21, head, lateral view; 22, antenna, dorsal view; 23, protarsus and protibia; 24, mesotibia; 25, metatibia. Scale lines = 0.5 mm; a for figs. 17–20; b for figs. 21–25.

FIGURES 54–61. Adelopsis portevini, new species, holotype male in MNHN, from Caracas region. 54–57, aedeagus, left lateral, dorsal, and right lateral views, and frontal view of aedeagus apex; 58, genital segment; 59, meso and metathorax, ventrolateral view (of left side of specimen); 60, mesotarsus and mesotibia; 61, metatibia. Scale lines = 0.5 mm; a for figs. 54–58; b for figs. 59–61.

FIGURES 62–75. Adelopsis orcina Szymczakowski, 1975 new status. 62–67, (probable) holotype male in CBCV, from Cueva de Camburales. 62, head, lateral view; 63, antenna, dorsal view; 64, meso and metathorax, ventro-lateral view (of left side of specimen); 65, protarsus and protibia; 66, mesotarsus and mesotibia; 67, metatarsus and metatibia; 68–69, additional male (same data). 68, last ventrite; 69, genital segment; 70–74, additional male (same data), aedeagus, left lateral, dorsal, right lateral, and ventral views, and frontal view of aedeagus apex; 75, female (same data), spermatheca. Scale lines = 0.5 mm; a for figs. 68–75; b for figs. 62–67.