Mniophila taurica, Nadein, 2009

Nadein, Konstantin S., 2009, Revision of the genus Mniophila S, 1831 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), Beiträge Zur Entomologie = Contributions to Entomology 59 (1), pp. 103-131 : 120-122

Mniophila taurica sp. n.

( Figs 5 , 10 )

Type material:

Holotype (labels numbered): 1. Ukraine, Crimea, ascent to Chatyr-Dagh mid plateau from Sosnovka Vill. 18.VI.2003 Nadein K.; 2. Quercus-Fraxinus-Fagus forest, on Fagus stem and in moss, male ( ZIN) . – Paratypes: the same label as holotype, 4 females ( NC) . – Ukraine, Crimea, ascent to Chatyr-Dagh mid plateau from Sosnovka Vill. 18.VI.2003 Yunakov N., 1 male, 1 female ( NC) . – Crimea, Chatyr-Dagh nr. Bin-Bash-Koba Cave mid plateau, on Fagus stem in forest, 100 m, 22.VI.2003 Nadein K., 1 female ( ZIN) . – 1. Crimea Bakhchisarayskiy Distr. Bol’shoy Kan’yon Gorge, 5.05.1999 N. Yunakov; 2. in forest, on moss among stones, 5 females ( ZIN) , 4 females ( DEI) . – 1. Crimea Bol’shoy Kan’yon Gorge , reserved area, 05.05.1999 A. Drogvalenko; 2. in moss on stones, 12 females ( KUMN) . – 1. Ukraine, Crimea, 1 km S Pereval’noe Vill., left bank of Angara Riv., 1.VII.2008 Nadein K. leg.; 2. Quercus- Fagus-Carpinus forest , in moss at base of Quercus stem, 2 females ( DEI) . – Ukraine, Crimea, Dolgorukovskaya Yajla, upper stream of Burul’cha Riv. , env. Kolan-Bair Mt. , h= 800 m, 29.VI.2008 Nadein K. leg.; 2. Fagus-Quercus-Carpinus forest, in moss on stones, 2 males 3 females ( SIZK) , 3 males, 3 females ( NHML) .

Etymology:

The specific epithet refers to geographical distribution of the new species that is endemic to Crimea.

Distribution:

Ukraine: Crimean Mountains.

Description:

Body black, shining, often with greenish luster; legs and antennae yellow-reddish to light brown. Body almost rounded, with weakly elongated elytral apices. Head small, vertex moderately wide; eyes convex. Head surface covered with poorly developed, smoothed shagrination, sometimes vertex almost smooth. Antennae thin. Pronotum comparatively long, with distinctly rounded base, its surface covered with fine shagrination, punctation small, weakly visible among surface’s microsculpture. Elytra with small, dense punctation, striae usually confused; secondary punctation usually well developed, size as large as in striae or nearly so; rarely striae regular. Legs thin; first protarsomere of male almost not widened or weakly widened; tibiae straight or slightly curved, metafemora narrow. Aedeagus ( Fig. 5 K-M) ventrally toward apex parallel-sided, wide, apical 1/4 with straight, narrowing sides and with distinct and straight apex with rather short, wide denticle or denticle poorly developed; from lateral view apical half gradually narrowed to apex.

Body length – 1.34-1.59 mm, width – 0.95-1.21 mm.

Differential diagnosis:

From M. caucasica sp. n. differs: in structure of aedeagus ( Fig. 5 K-M) with poorly developed denticle or with wider and shorter one, from lateral view narrower; flattened eyes ( Fig. 5C ); apical antennal segments shorter ( Fig. 5E ); shape of pronotum with more rounded and more elongated base ( Fig. 5F ); head more elongated with vertex narrower, hind femora narrower ( Fig. 5D ). From M. transcaucasica sp. n. differs: in structure of aedeagus, wide, ventrally toward apex parallelsided, apical 1/4 with straight, narrowing sides and with distinct and straight apex with rather short, wide denticle or poorly developed instead of aedeagus ventrally with apical third gradually narrowed to apex, the latter obtuse with well developed denticle; head longer, shagrination of head less developed, frontal calli more developed; pronotum longer with more convex base; tibiae less curved and usually straight ( Fig. 5G, H ); hind femora narrower; notch between metathoracic cavities concave; first protarsomere of male narrower. From M. turcica differs: in structure of aedeagus, wide, ventrally toward apex parallel-sided, apical 1/4 with straight, narrowing laterally, apex distinct and straight with rather short, wide denticle or poorly developed compared to aedeagus ventrally with apical third gradually narrowed to apex, the latter almost straight with large denticle; tibiae nearly straight and usually less curved; shagrination of head less developed; hind femora narrower; pronotum punctate; tibiae thicker; eyes more flattened.

Figures

Fig. 5: Mniophila taurica sp. n.: A, B – body outline: A – male; B – female; C – head; D – hind femur; E – antenna; F – pronotum outline; G – hind tibia of male; H – fore tibia of male; I – hind tarsus of male; J – fore tarsus of male; K – aedeagus, ventral view; L – aedeagus, lateral view; M – aedeagal apex, ventral view. Scale bar: A, B – 1 mm, C-M – 0.5 mm.

Fig. 10: Distribution of the Mniophila species.Rhomb – Mniophila taurica sp. n.; circle – Mniophila caucasica sp. n.; triangle – Mniophila transcaucasica sp. n.; square – Mniophila turcica L. MEDVEDEV.