Paulipalpina simoni ( Portevin, 1903 )

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 : 49-51

Paulipalpina simoni ( Portevin, 1903)

( Figs. 228–237 )

Catops simoni Portevin, 1903: 167 [and Fig. 8 ].

Pseudonemadus simoni ; Portevin, 1914: 193.

Adelopsis simoni ; Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and allegedly Fig. 79 —but this figure may refer to P. jeanneli sp. n. —see Note under that species] (combination not stated as taxonomic change) (type seen); Szymczakowski, 1968: 14 [and allegedly Figs. 1–4 , but none of them refer to P. simoni , but to ‘ P. claudicans ’ (according to Gnaspini, 1996: 540, but see Taxonomic Note 2, below), P. aragua sp. n., and P. coatepec sp. n. —see Taxonomic Notes].

Paulipalpina simoni ; Gnaspini, 1996: 538 (type seen).

Note: see Taxonomic Notes for erroneous/doubtfull citations of this species.

Type material examined: Holotype female [a single specimen in original description, assumed as holotype] in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels : “ Colonia Tovar / E. Simon 1.ii.88 // Jeannel vidit // C. Simoni Port. // Pseudonemadus Simoni Port ”. Specimen here illustrated.

Length: 1.9 mm (original description); 2.2–2.5 mm ( Jeannel, 1936 —he had only two specimens, one female and one male, but we are not able to identify which one refers to each value given by that author because our measurements largely differ—for us, the type female measured 2.1 mm and the male from Brazil measured 1.8 mm); 2.1 mm (our measurement).

Type locality: Colonia Tovar [as “Towar” in Jeannel, 1936], [Aragua State], Venezuela .

Additional tentative material examined (Topotypes): 1 male and 2 females in SBPC (now in CMNC). Labels: “ Venezuela / Aragua / Colonia Tovar / 5.vii–13.viii.86 / B. Gill 2000m ”. Specimens here illustrated. Length: 2.1 mm (male), 2.2 and 2.25 mm (females) (our measurement).

Additional material examined (here considered misidentification—see Taxonomic Notes, below):

- 1 male (Jeannel det., 1936: 66 [and figure(s)—see note below]— Brazil: São Paulo: Alto da Serra ) in BMNH (Gnaspini, 1996: 541)—it belongs in a different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here described as Paulipalpina jeanneli sp. n .

Note: Jeannel, 1936 Figs. 79 and 97 referred to the illustrated male as “from Venezuela ”, but he had at hand 1 female from Venezuela and 1 male from Brazil; therefore at least Fig. 97 (if not both) refers to the male from Brazil, and not from Venezuela, as already mentioned in Szymczakowski (1968: 14).

- 1 male (Szymczakowski det., 1963: 671, 1968: 14 [and Fig. 1 ]— Brazil: São Paulo: São Paulo) in NMPC (Gnaspini, 1996: 541)—it was identified as P. claudicans in Gnaspini (1996: 540) , which was possibly a misidentification [see Note under P. claudicans , below]. Labels: São Paulo / Bras. Mráz lgt / Mus. Pragense”.

- 2 males (no det. label, probably Szymczakowski det., 1968: 14 [and Figs. 2–3 ]— Venezuela: Aragua: Rancho Grande) in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541)—they belong in a different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here described as Paulipalpina aragua sp. n .

- 1 male (Szymczakowski det., 1967, 1968: 14 [and Fig. 4 ]— Mexico: Coatepec) in ZMHB (Gnaspini, 1996: 541)—it belongs in a different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here described as Paulipalpina coatepec sp. n .

Taxonomic Notes. 1) Because the type specimen is a female, it is not possible to assure assignment of other specimens to this species. We examined topotypes and we find the spermatheca of the female topotypes ( Figs. 236, 237 ) to be very similar to the spermatheca of the type specimen ( Figs. 228, 229 ), and we conclude that they belong to the same species. 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. We then accept that the male topotype here examined and illustrated ( Figs. 233–235 ) would represent the male of this species, and we consider the other patterns of aedeagus, from different localities, to represent different species (see above), namely: Jeannel (1936: 66, São Paulo = P. jeanneli sp. n.), Szymczakowski (1968: 14, Aragua = P. aragua sp. n.), Szymczakowski (1968: 14, Mexico = P. coatepec sp. n.); for the record in Szymczakowski (1963: 671, São Paulo), see Note 3, below.

We should highlight that Szymczakowski (1968: 14) also added a discussion about the high variability in P. simoni , which is due to misidentification (as discussed in Gnaspini, 1996), because this variability is actually related to his analysis of different species of what is now known as the genus Paulipalpina , which is very conservative in external morphology. A similarity in aedeagus morphology also occurs among species of Ptomaphagus (see, e.g., Peck, 1973).

2) Salgado (2014: 16 [and Figs. 14–15 ]) recorded this species from Peru. Using the same reasoning as above, we recognize this record as a new species, here described as P. consuelo .

3) Gnaspini (1996: 640) corrected the record in Szymczakowski (1963: 671, São Paulo) as belonging in P. claudicans . It indeed does not belong in P. simoni , but it possibly does not belong in P. claudicans either (see Taxonomic Note under that species).

Short Redescription. Eyes slightly reduced ( Fig. 230 ). Winged (topotype; apterous, according to Jeannel, 1936 (key couplet)). Right lobe of the aedeagus slightly longer than left lobe; both thin ( Figs. 233, 234 ). Right lobe pointy, with apex slightly curved and very shortly projected ventrad, in lateral view ( Fig. 233 ). Dorsal opening of the aedeaus round and taking about 1/6 of aedeagus length ( Fig. 234 ). Flagellum shorter (about 3/ 4 in length) than aedeagus, bearing a basal piece ( Fig. 234 ). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.33. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment short and straight ( Fig. 235 ). Spermatheca with 3-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by a short and curved body, which increases in width towards apex and ends in a round apical bulb ( Figs. 228, 229, 236, 237 ). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.17–0.18. Female mesotibia slightly curved internally ( Fig. 232 ).

Distribution. Venezuela: Aragua State (original description; Jeannel, 1936; here).

Note: ‘Erroneous’ records (see Taxonomic Notes above): Brazil: São Paulo State ( Jeannel, 1936, Szymczakowski, 1963); Mexico: Veracruz State ( Szymczakowski, 1968); Peru: Cuzco Department ( Salgado, 2014); Venezuela: Aragua State ( Szymczakowski, 1968).

Figures

FIGURES 228–237. Paulipalpina simoni (Portevin, 1903). 228–232, holotype female in MNHN, from Colonia Tovar. 228– 229, spermatheca, in different views; 230, head, lateral view; 231, meso and metathorax, ventro-lateral view (of left side of specimen); 232, mesotibia; 233–235, topotype male in SBPC (same data), 233–234, aedeagus, left lateral and dorsal views; 235, genital segment; 236–237, topotype females in SBPC (same data), spermatheca. Scale lines = 0.5 mm; a for figs. 228, 229, 233–237; b for figs. 230–232.

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 76–88. Adelopsis pteromoria Szymczakowski, 1975 new status, (probable) holotype male. 76–80, aedeagus, left lateral, dorsal, right lateral, and ventral views, and frontal view of aedeagus apex; 81, last ventrite; 82, genital segment; 83, head, lateral view; 84, antenna, dorsal view; 85, meso and metathorax, ventro-lateral view (of left side of specimen); 86, protarsus and protibia; 87, mesotarsus and mesotibia; 88, metatarsus and metatibia. Scale lines = 0.5 mm; a for figs. 76–82; b for figs. 83–88.

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 89–98. Adelopsis ruficollis (Portevin, 1903). 89–96, lectotype male in MNHN, from Cochabamba. 89–93, aedeagus, left lateral, dorsal, right lateral, and ventral views, and frontal view of aedeagus apex; 94, last ventrite; 95, genital segment; 96, apex of elytra; 97–98, paralectotype male in MHNH (same data), 97, head, lateral view; 98, meso and metathorax, ventro-lateral view (of left side of specimen). Scale lines = 0.5 mm; a for figs. 89–95; b for figs. 96–98.