Adelopsis ruficollis (Portevin, 1903)

(Figs. 89–106)

Catops ruficollis Portevin, 1903: 166 [and Fig. 7].

Adelopsis heterocera Portevin, 1907: 72 [and Fig. 2a,b]; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (types seen; spelling corrected to original form, feminine gender); Salgado, 2010: 213 (assignment to group). n. syn.

Ptomaphagus ruficollis; Jeannel, 1922: 42 (footnote 2)

Ptomaphagus heterocerus; Jeannel, 1922: 42 (and footnote 2).

Adelopsis ruficollis; Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and Figs. 100–102] (combination not stated as taxonomic change — see Taxonomic Note) (types seen); Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (types seen); Gnaspini and Peck, 2001: 429 (assignment to group ascutellaris); Salgado, 2010: 215 (assignment to group elephas). Here returned to group ascutellaris.

Adelopsis heterocerus; Jeannel, 1936: 67 [and Figs. 98–99] (combination not stated as taxonomic change—see Taxonomic Note) (types seen).

Type material of A. ruficollis examined: 2 “ type ” males in MNHN ( Gnaspini, 1996: 541); assumed as syntypesseveral specimens, sex not given, in original description (and in Jeannel, 1936). Labels: “ Cochabamba / Bolivie // Ptomaphagus ruficollis Port. ” and “ Cochabamba / Bolivie / Germain // Jeannel vidit // C. ruficollis Prt // Ptomaphagus ruficollis Port. ”. Note: the second specimen was previously dissected, and the aedeagus was missing [see Note under MNHN, in ‘Methods and Materials’]; the first specimen was here dissected and illustrated. Both specimens share a reduced eye and are considered to belong in the same species .

For taxonomic reasons, the first male “type”, here dissected, is here designated as lectotype; and the remaining specimens (including those not examined here) as paralectotypes.

Length: 2.1 mm (original description); 2.0 mm (Jeannel, 1936); 2.3 mm (our measurement—both specimens).

Type locality: Cochabamba, [Cochabamba Department], Bolivia. Note: Jeannel, 1936 included “ 2500 m, on the Andes”, which is not in type labels .

Type material of A. heterocera examined: 2 “type” males in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541).—assumed as syn-types— 3 male syntypes in original description [Jeannel (1936) referred to several specimens]. Labels: “ Cochabamba / Germain” // “Jeannel vidit” and “ Cochabamba / Bolivie / Germain”. Note: both specimens were previously dissected, and the aedeagus of both were missing, and the genital segment of the first was also missing [see Note under MNHN, in ‘Methods and Materials’]. PG had previously examined one of the types (here illustrated).

Length: 1.8 mm (original description and Jeannel, 1936); 1.9 and 1.8 mm (our measurement).

Type locality of A. heterocera: Cochabamba, [Cochabamba Department], Bolivia .

Taxonomic Note. Jeannel, 1922: 42 (and footnote 2) synonymized “ Adelopsis Portevin [1907] (type species: A. heterocera Port.)” under “ Ptomaphagus Illiger [1798]” (and included “ Ptomaphagus ruficollis ” Portevin [1903]), which was followed by Hatch, 1928: 164, 168. However, Jeannel, 1936: 66–67 did not mention his synonymy and he seemed to treat both species as if he considered them in Adelopsis in 1922.

Short Redescription. Eyes very reduced in size (Figs. 97, 103). Last antennomere deeply concave (Fig. 105). Elytra truncate, with rounded projections close to the internal border (Figs. 96, 99). Data on wings not observed [apterous, according to Jeannel, 1936 (key couplet)]. No posterior projections on male ventrites. Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus subquadrate with the apical margin straight (Figs. 90, 92, 101), thin, almost pointy, in lateral view (Figs. 89, 91, 100). Flagellum shorter (about half the length) than aedeagus and undulate (Figs. 90, 101). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.30. Anterior sides of spiculum gastrale of the genital segment widening towards the apex, resulting in a pawn-shaped spiculum gastrale, with the apical width about three times as wide as the rounded base (Figs. 95, 102). Female unknown (at least not examined).

Distribution. Bolivia: Cochabamba Department: known only from type locality (original descriptions; Jeannel, 1936; here).

Taxonomic Remarks. Although the sizes of the specimens of the two species are slightly different, the two species share significant features, especially the reduced eyes and the elytra (see below); the aedeagus, the flagellum of the aedeagus, and genital segment are very similar; and both species share the same type locality. Therefore, we here consider A. heterocera (the original type species of Adelopsis) a junior synonym of A. ruficollis .

The elytra are indeed truncate, as illustrated in original descriptions (Portevin, 1903: Fig. 7, 1907: Fig. 1) and have rounded projections close to the internal border (Figs. 96, 99), which seem to be an unique feature among species of Adelopsis . The concave nature of the last antennomere (especially when seen in lateral view—Fig. 105 and Fig. 2 in Portevin, 1907) also seems to be a diagnostic feature of the species. A ventrally concave last antennomere has been recorded in a few species, mostly from Central America and mostly in the group elephas, but also in group ascutellaris ( A. albipinna Gnaspini and Peck, 1996, A. coronaria Gnaspini and Peck, 1996, A. gilli Gnaspini and Peck, 1996, A. pileata Gnaspini and Peck, 1996, A. rostrata Gnaspini and Peck, 1996, A. sinuosa Gnaspini and Peck, 1996, A. stella Gnaspini and Peck, 1996).

The detailed view of the aedeagus tip of A. ruficollis illustrated in Jeannel (1936: Fig. 102) seems to be in error, when compared to our drawings. We could not see a projection; which led Salgado (2010: 215) to assign this species to group elephas.