identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03ED878BFFECA260FF4DFDA1FD276F42.text	03ED878BFFECA260FF4DFDA1FD276F42.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhizotrogus genei Blanchard 1851	<div><p>Rhizotrogus genei Blanchard, 1851 (restored combination)</p><p>Figures 1, 4</p><p>Rhizotrogus insularis Reiche, 1862</p><p>Geotrogus sardous Burmeister, 1855</p><p>Type material examined. Rhizotrogus genei Blanchard, 1851 . Syntype 1 ♂ (MNHN): Museum Paris / Sardaigne / Géné 1836 // Rhizotrogus / Genei Blanch. / type // R. Genei / Cat. Mus. / Piemont / M.Géné // Type (red label). Geotrogus sardous Burmeister, 1855 . Syntypes 1 ♂ and 1 ♀ (ZNSH): Sardous / Nob. [nobis means Burmeister is the author of these names] / Sardin—Sp. // (white label, black margin line).</p><p>Additional material examined. Italy, Sardinia, Sassari province: Torralba, Monte Oes, 6.III.1994, A.Lecis leg. 1 ♂ ALMC; Bunnari, 1.I.1962, 1 ♂ UNSS . Chilivani, 30.I.1971, A.Franzini leg. 3 ♂♂ MHNG ; 29.II.1971, A.Franzini leg. 2 ♂♂ MHNG; 25.II.1971, A.Franzini leg. 1 ♂ MHNG; Uras, 22.I.1970, F.Cassola leg. 1 ♂ MHNG . Nuoro province: Campeda, 1.III.1964, 1 ♂ UNSS; 12.I.1966, 2 ♂♂ UNSS . Oniferi, 25.I.1966, 1 ♂ UNSS ; Ottana, 14.III.1975, 2 ♂♂ UNSS ; 25.II.1976, 2 ♂♂ MHNG; 28.XI.1976, 1 ♂ 1 ♀ MHNG; Gairo, Taquisara, Monte Sasso Orruda, 1027m , 14.II.1993, M.G.Atzori leg. 1 ♂ MGAC; Piana di Oliena, II1994, D.Cillo leg. 1 ♂ DCCC . Oristano province: Isola Mal di Ventre, Oristano , 22.I.1969, 1 ♂, DCCC . Terralba, 10.X.1987, 1 ♂ UNSS . “ Città Metropolitana di Cagliari ” province: Villasimius, Capo Carbonara, 60m , 17.XII.2014, C.Ancona leg. 3 ♂♂ MHNG; Dolianova, I.1991, D.Cillo leg. 3 ♂♂ DCCC ; II.1985, D.Cillo leg. 5 ♂♂ DCCC; Elmas, 15.I.2006, F.Fois leg. 2 ♂♂ DCCC ; Elmas, 29.XII.2011, F.Fois leg. 3 ♂♂ DCCC; 22.XII.2011, F.Fois leg. 3 ♂♂ DCCC; Monserrato, 24.II.2016, D.Piras leg. 1 ♂ ALMC . Quartu Sant’Elena, Flumini, 19.XII.2017, R.Rattu leg. 2 ♂♂ AMMC ; 2 ♂♂ MHNG; 22.XII.2000, D.Cillo leg. 4 ♂♂ DCCC; 1-20.I.2009, A.Cardilloni leg. 2 ♂♂ MHNG; Foxi, 11.XII.2010, E.Bazzato leg. 1 ♂ DCCC ; XII.2011, E.Bazzato leg. 1 ♂ DCCC; Porticciolo, 2.III.2003, D.Cillo leg. 1 ♂ DCCC ; 4.I.2001, D.Cillo leg. 1 ♂ DCCC; 5.I.2000, D.Cillo leg. 1 ♂ DCCC; 9.III.2002, D.Cillo leg. 1 ♂ DCCC; 17.I.2002, D.Cillo leg. 3 ♂♂ DCCC; 20.III.2003, D.Cillo leg. 1 ♂ DCCC; 21.I.2002, D.Cillo leg. 1 ♂ DCCC; III.2003, D.Cillo leg. 3 ♂♂ DCCC; XII.2002, D.Cillo leg. 2 ♂♂ DCCC; Sa Funtanedda, 4.I.1988, M.Murgioni leg. 1 ♂ MGAC ; 4.I.1988, M.G.Atzori leg. 1 ♂ DCCC; 9.I.1990, M.G.Atzori and M.Murgioni 2 ♂♂ MGAC; 11.I.1999, M.Murgioni leg. 1 ♂ MGAC; 13.II.1999, M.Murgioni leg. 1 ♂ MGAC; 14.XII.1997, M.G.Atzori and M.Murgioni leg. 1 ♂ MGAC; 15.II.1989, M.G.Atzori leg. 1 ♂ DCCC; 23.I.1989, M.Murgioni leg. 1 ♂ MGAC; 23.I.1989, M.G.Atzori leg. 4 ♂♂ DCCC; 23.I.1999, M.Murgioni leg. 1 ♂ MGAC; 24.II.1989, M.G.Atzori leg. 1 ♂♂ DCCC; III.1999, M.G.Atzori leg. 2 ♂♂ ALMC; 2.II.2000, M.G.Atzori and M. Murgioni leg. 3 ♂♂ MGAC; 10.I.2001, M.G.Atzori leg. 3 ♂♂ MGAC; 2.II.2001, M.Murgioni leg. 1 ♂ MGAC; 6.II.2002, M.G.Atzori leg. 1 ♂ MGAC; III.2002, M.Murgioni leg. 1 ♂ 1 ♀ MGAC; 29.XII.2002, M.G.Atzori leg. 1 ♂ MGAC; 25.I.2005, M.G.Atzori leg. 3 ♂♂ MGAC; I.2009, M.Murgioni leg. 2 ♂♂ MGAC; II.2014, M.G.Atzori leg. 1 ♂ MGAC . Pula, Is Molas, X.2016 L. Fancello leg., 1 ♂ DCCC . Cagliari, Molentargius, 15.I.2015, R.Rattu leg. 1 ♂ DCCC . Cagliari, Saline di Stato, 10.I.2014, E.Bazzato leg. 2 ♂♂ EBQE . Assemini, Flumini Mannu, 25.XI.2021, L.Fancello leg. 2 ♂♂ LFCC . “ Sud Sardegna ” province: Domusnovas, Sa Duchessa, X.2022, L.Fancello leg., 1 ♂ LFCC; Giara di Gesturi, 28.12.2022, L.Fancello leg. 1 ♂ LFCC ; Arbus, Piscinas, Portu Maga, 25 m, 8.XI.2009, D.Sechi leg., 3 ♂♂ JMCH ; San Sperate, 19.II.2016, D.Sechi leg. 2 ♂♂ AMMC ; 9 ♂♂ MHNG; 20.II.2016, D.Sechi leg., 1 ♂ EBQE; 9 ♂♂ MHNG; 20.II.2016, D.Sechi leg., 9 ♂♂ DCCC; 19.II.2016, M.G.Atzori and D.Murgioni leg. 6 ♂♂ MGAC; Serrenti, Monti Mannu, 11.XII.2024, L.Fancello leg. 1 ♂ LFCC . Sant’Anna Arresi, Porto Pino, env. Foxi, 17.I.2020, M.G.Atzori leg. 1 ♂ MGAC; Isola di Sant’Antioco, Coaquaddus beach, 24.III.1996 , M.G.Atzori leg. 1 ♀ MGAC; 1.IV.2021, L.Fancello leg. 1 ♂ DCCC; 1.IV.2021, L.Fancello leg. 2 ♂♂ LFCC; Nuraghe Feminedda, 16.II.2025 , L.Fancello leg. 1 ♀ LFCC. Turri, 27.XII.2010 , L.Fancello leg. 1 ♀ LFCC; Porto Botte, XII.2010 , L.Fancello leg. 1 ♀ LFCC; Pabillonis, Is Arenas, 12.III.1969 , F.Cassola leg. 2 ♂♂ MHNG. Escalaplano, XI.1970 , 1 ♀ MHNG; Carbonia, Monte Sirai, III.2021 , L.Fancello leg. 1 ♂ LFCC; Tuscany Islands: Capraia, 5.X.1974 , P.Brignoli leg. 1 ♂ MHNG (sub R. insularis Reiche, 1862). France, Corsica: (without more precise location) Damry leg. 2 ♂♂ MHNG; Reitter, 1 ♂ MHNG .</p><p>Taxonomic discussion. Rhizotrogus genei (Fig. 1) was described by Blanchard in 1851 from “ Piémont ” a designation that reflects the historical political context of the time. During that period, Sardinia was part of the Regno di Sardegna ( Kingdom of Sardinia 1720–1861), which included both the island of Sardinia and several mainland possessions in western Italy. The kingdom was often referred to as the Kingdom of Piedmont, as the island itself held a secondary role within the monarchy. This historical background justifies the indication of “ Piémont ” on the labels of the type specimen.</p><p>Reitter (1902) included R. euphytus Buquet, 1840 as well as R. genei in the Apterogyna species group at the subgeneric level within Rhizotrogus Latreille, 1825 crediting Apterogyna to Reiche (1882) who however did not describe it formally. Marseul (1878) described three Apterogyna species, and could be the most suitable author for this species group name. Moreover, Reitter’s concept of the genus Apterogyna — it disagrees with the sentence above (subgeneric level of Apterogyna is stated here for the same paper) encompassed species in which males are winged and females apterous. However, in genei, both sexes are fully winged, which disqualifies it from this genus based on Reitter’s own definition. Burmeister (1855) redescribed Rhizotrogus genei as Geotrogus sardous without a more precise locality than Sardinia. Paulian (1959) reported genei for both Sardinia and Corsica under the name Rhizotrogus insularis Reiche, 1862 . Baraud (1977) clarified that R. insularis and R. genei were synonyms. He also pointed out that the name Apterogyna, credited to Reiche (1892), was preoccupied by a homonymous genus established by Latreille (1809) for a group of Hymenoptera. Given that females of genei are winged, Baraud placed the species in Rhizotrogus sensu stricto, where it remained until the revision by Coca-Abia &amp; Martín-Piera (1998) and confirmed by Coca-Abia (2003). These authors argued that in Rhizotrogini, apterism and associated morphological features—such as the position of the median and posterior coxae, and the development of the humeral callus—are adaptations to desert environments. Emphasizing other characters, particularly male and female genital morphology, they synonymized Apterogyna Reitter, 1902 and Pseudoapterogyna Escalera, 1914 (replacement name for Apterogyna) with Geotrogus Guérin-Méneville, 1842, and consequently placed genei within Geotrogus .</p><p>This classification was followed in Ballerio et al. (2014) and species catalogued in the genus Geotrogus by Bezděk (2016). We feel the placement of genei in Geotrogus unsatisfactory since the characters used by Coca-Abia &amp; Martín-Piera (1998) and by Coca-Abia (2003) to define the Geotrogus cluster do not adequately reflect the true morphology of the species genei . In our assessment, the species shows stronger affinities with Rhizotrogus sensu stricto, warranting its reattribution to this genus. In their study, Coca-Abia &amp; Martín-Piera (1998) dismissed characters such as wing development (micropterism) in both sexes—as well as associated morphological changes like the length of the coxae and the development of the humeral callus—as adaptive features, rather than diagnostic ones. Actually in these studies, the genus Geotrogus was defined on a limited set of characters and number of species (see Coca-Abia 2003, Table 1): an antennal club shorter than the stem and of similar size in both sexes; weakly serrated lateral margins of the pronotum; hind tibiae slightly punctate and shiny; and parameres as long as or longer than the phallobase. We have tested these morphological criteria on a large series of genei specimens and challenge this interpretation. In males, the antennal club is approximately equal in length (2.4 mm) to the “stem”, if the stem is defined as the funicle alone. In females, however, the antennal club is markedly shorter (0.8 mm), consistent with other Rhizotrogus species. This marked sexual dimorphism contradicts the claim of equal antennal size between sexes in Geotrogus .</p><p>Furthermore, the lateral pronotal margins in genei are clearly serrated, as also observed in R. marginipes Mulsant, 1992; R. maculicollis Villa &amp; Villa, 1833; R. romanoi Sabatinelli, 1975; R. cicatricosus Mulsant, 1842; Firminus fossulatus (Mulsant &amp; Rey, 1859); and G. euphytus . Regarding the aedeagus, the parameres in R. genei are shorter (2.4 mm) than the phallobase (2.7 mm), whereas in R. romanoi and R. cicatricosus, for example, the parameres are at least equal in length to the phallobase. Sparacio (2014) also rejected the synonymy of Pseudoapterogyna with Geotrogus, but without providing any supporting arguments. It is evident that the morphological analysis and the resulting phylogenetic framework proposed by Coca-Abia and collaborators is far from satisfactory and requires reinforcement through molecular studies, which are now easier to perform. We do not aim here to provide a full critical review of the works by Coca-Abia &amp; Martín-Piera (1998) and Coca-Abia (1999, 2003), but rather to highlight specific points of concern regarding the taxonomic placement of R. genei Blanchard, 1851 and the newly described species within the genus Rhizotrogus .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03ED878BFFECA260FF4DFDA1FD276F42	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sabatinelli, Guido;Cillo, Davide;Bazzato, Erika	Sabatinelli, Guido, Cillo, Davide, Bazzato, Erika (2025): Rhizotrogus ruzzantei, a new species from southwestern Sardinia (Italy), with biogeographic considerations on the Sulcis-Iglesiente subregion and Scarabaeoidea endemics of Sardinia (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae: Rhizotrogini). Zootaxa 5665 (2): 256-270, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5665.2.6, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5360.3.8
03ED878BFFEAA26DFF4DFCAFFA9D6BC2.text	03ED878BFFEAA26DFF4DFCAFFA9D6BC2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhizotrogus ruzzantei Sabatinelli, Cillo & Bazzato 2025	<div><p>Rhizotrogus ruzzantei Sabatineli, Cillo &amp; Bazzato, sp. nov.</p><p>(Figs 2, 3, 5–7, 8–14)</p><p>Type locality. Italy, Sardinia region, South Sardinia province, Domus de Maria municipality, Punta su Pisu locality, located about 55 kilometres southwest of Cagliari .</p><p>Type material. Holotype ♂ (MCNG): Italy, Sardegna (Ca) / Domus de Maria, P. ta [Punta] su Pisu / 25 m, 30˚53’N 8˚61’E / 11.XII.2010, G.Ruzzante leg. // HOLOTYPUS / Rhizotrogus ruzzantei Sabatinelli, Cillo &amp; Bazzato, 2025 (red label) . Paratypes: Italy, Sardinia, “ Sud Sardegna ” province: Domus de Maria, Punta su Pisu, 25 m , 12.I.2014, G.Ruzzante leg., 1 ♂ AMMC, 15 ♂ 1 ♀ MHNG, 2 ♂♂ JMCH; 14.II.2016, G.Ruzzante leg. 20 ♂♂ LFCC; 19-20.III.2011, G.Ruzzante leg. 4 ♀♀ LFCC; 14.II.2016, G.Ruzzante leg. 25 ♂♂ DCCC, 2 ♂♂ DPCR, 2 ♂♂ FFCP, 2 ♂♂ RRCC, 2 ♂♂ DSCC, 2 ♂♂ PLCC; 14.III.2011, G.Ruzzante leg. 11 ♂♂ DCCC; 19/ 20.IV.2011, G.Ruzzante leg. 4 ♂♂ LFCC; 22.I.2011, G.Ruzzante leg. 2 ♂♂ AMMC; 22.II.2015, G.Ruzzante leg. 4 ♂♂ LFCC; 23.I.2011, G.Ruzzante leg. 5 ♂♂ LFCC; 23.I.2011, G.Ruzzante leg. 6 ♂♂ AMMC; 23.II.2015, G.Ruzzante leg. 3 ♂♂ LFCC; 28.I.2011, G.Ruzzante leg. 11 ♂♂ DCCC; 29.I.2011, G.Ruzzante leg. 44 ♂♂ LFCC; 29.I.2012, G.Ruzzante leg. 2 ♂♂ UNSS; 29.I.2012, 25m, G.Ruzzante leg. 36 ♂♂ 5 ♀♀ DCCC; 30.I.2011, G.Ruzzante leg. 2 ♂♂ AMMC . Isola di Sant’Antioco, env. Sant’Antioco , 14.III.2007, D.Cillo leg., 1 ♂ DCCC; 16.XII.2007, E.Bazzato leg. 4 ♂♂, EBQE . Teulada, 23.XI.2020, L.Fancello leg., 2 ♂♂ LFCC . “ Città Metropolitana di Cagliari ” province: Villa San Pietro , 04.I.2016, S.Macis leg., 13 ♂♂ DCCC; 20.III.2015, E.Bazzato and S.Macis leg. 3 ♂♂ DCCC; II.2015, S.Macis leg. 12 ♂♂ EBQE; II.2015, E.Bazzato and S.Macis leg. 26 ♂♂ DCCC; XII. 2015, S.Macis leg. 1 ♂, EBQE; Santa Margherita di Pula, I.2019, M.Massi leg. 2 ♂♂ FFCP . All Paratypes with red label: PARATYPE ♂ or ♀ / Rhizotrogus ruzzantei / Sabatinelli, Cillo &amp; Bazzato, 2025.</p><p>Diagnosis. Integument reddish-brown. Antennomeres II–X bear fine, inconspicuous setation; the longest setae on antennomeres VII–X are markedly shorter than the width of antennomere III (approximately 0.3×). Elytra with intervals 3 and 5 wrinkled but not elevated. Wings well developed both in male and female. Protibia tridentate, with a developed basal tooth lacking a medial tibial carina; the medial tooth is well-developed and bears a dorsal carina. The most striking morphological differences between R. ruzzantei sp. nov. and other Mediterranean Rhizotrogini and in particular with sympatric R. genei is the significantly longer protarsi in R. ruzzantei sp. nov. (average 6.00 mm vs. 4.82 mm in R. genei). Moreover, the sides of the pronotum are generally uniformly reddish-brown and, in contrasts with R. genei, in which the lateral margins of the pronotum are typically broadly and distinctly yellowish (Fig. 4 vs. 5). Parameres are not diagnostic when compared to those of other known species within the genus.</p><p>Description. Holotype male. Habitus as in Fig. 2. Measurements in mm: body length from anterior margin of clypeus to apex of pygidium 15.9, body maximal width 9.1, ratio body length/maximal width 1.7, antennal club length 2.4, II-VII antennomeres length 2.1 mm, scapum length 1.6, clypeus maximal width 2.3, clypeus medial length 1.9, front width at base 2.2, pronotum medial length 4.24, pronotum maximal width 6.8, scutellum length 1.8, scutellum width at base 1.4, anterior tibiae length 3.9, anterior tarsi length 6.8, median tibiae length 4.2, median tarsi length 6.6, posterior tibiae length 5.1, posterior tarsi length 6.8, pygidium medial length 3.1, pygidium width at base 3.1, in lateral view phallobase length 2.7 and paramera length 2.4. Body. Integuments rather uniformly reddish brown, shiny, underside and legs lighter (Fig. 2). Head. Clypeus sub-trapezoidal, anterior angles not visible, 1.2x as wide as long at the midline; margin slightly reflexed all along its length, and almost flat at the posterior ends, above eyes, anterior margin of the clypeus with medial sinuation; surface smooth, quite shining, punctures strong and dense on most of the surface, uniformly distributed. Fronto-clypeal suture straight, well visible all along its length. Frons with strong, dense, punctures, similar to those of the postero-medial part of the clypeus and even denser on vertex. Postero medial part of head with by flat elevation on vertex and extended to the posterior part of clypeus, glabrous. Canthus with a row of dense, long, thick setae. Clypeus and frons glabrous. Pronotum. 1.93x as wide as long, with maximum width slightly at the middle. In dorsal view, surface regularly convex. Anterior angles broadly obtuse, well-marked, posterior angles comparatively more obtuse and smooth. Margins bordered all along the perimeter. Anterior border thicker than others. Anterior margin with short erected setae. Lateral margins with some long, thick, erect yellow setae emerging only from the dorsal side of the border, especially near anterior half producing a series of carinulae. Dorsal surface glabrous, shining, with sparse, irregularly punctures, denser on discus. Elytra. Glabrous, except for inconspicuous micro-setae emerging from punctures and for setae on epipleura. Surface covered with slightly wrinkled punctures, rather weak and sparse, slightly denser towards sides. Only the first (sutural) and second stria are well recognizable, signs of the others are barely perceivable among the punctation. Interval 1 well marked, almost completely void of punctures but covered with wrinkles. Intervals 3 and 5 barely recognisable as feebly longitudinal stripes with less dense punctation, not significantly raised. Epipleura delimited by a carina reaching the apex, bearing a row of thin setae, longer and sparse in the distal third, very sparse and short in the remaining part. Scutellum. Triangular, glabrous, shiny, with few very sparse punctures. Basal third covered by a tuft of long setae inserted below the posterior margin of pronotum. Pygidium. Microreticulate, looking overall glabrous, with few setae near the apex, Punctures round, moderately incised, irregularly sparse. Ventral side. Thorax covered by dense and long fluffy setation, masking the integument. Abdominal ventrites with short, adpressed, scattered setae, especially present in the central part of ventrites. Antenna. 10-segmented, antennal club 1.4x as long as antennomeres II–VII, antennomeres III–V non-disjointed along the posterior border (Fig. 8). Legs. Protibia 3-toothed, proximal tooth developed but without medial carina, medial tooth well developed, marked by a developed medial carina connected to the dorsal tibial carina. Femora with dense setae long and thin, similar to those of ventral side of thorax. In addition, few thick, stiff setae on meso- and metafemora, along the posterior margin, especially in the proximal area. Meso-metatibia with internal sidelong setose, external side glabrous, except for long setae emerging from a carina, at about 2/3 of the length. Dorsal surface of metatibae with scattered puntures. Wings. Well developed (Fig. 7): length 18.3 mm; maximum width 6.6 mm; ratio body length/wing length 0.87. Aedeagus. In lateral view, the parameres are shorter than the phallobase, with a length ratio of approximately 0.89. The parameres are ventrally fused, with a partially sclerotized dorsal surface and a large medial membranous area (Fig. 11, 13). This membranous region expands medially and tapers toward the apex. The apices are blunt and nearly closed on the ventral side. Internal structures of the endophallus include inconspicuous raspulae (Fig. 15), tigillum robust (Fig. 14), V-shaped, and exceeds half the length of the endophallus.</p><p>Variability of paratypes males. Body length ranges from 13 to 16 mm; maximum body width from 7.4 to 8.8 mm. Some specimens exhibit partial non-disjunction of antennomeres III–V, resulting in an antenna that appears 9-segmented. In a few individuals, the lateral sides of pronotum are slightly lighter in coloration compared to the rest of the pronotal surface.</p><p>Description of female. Measurement in mm: body length 14.3; maximum body width 8.9, with a length/width ratio of 1.6. Antennal club length 0.8; funicle 1.6; scape 0.9. Wing length 12.6; maximum wing width 4.6 (Fig. 6); body length/wing length ratio 1.1. The females have an ovoid body shape compared to males (see body ratio) (Fig. 3). Vaginal sclerites inconspicuous, as in Fig. 12.</p><p>Etymology. The species is named in honor of the late Giampaolo Ruzzante, who collected and generously shared specimens of this species with colleagues. He was also the first to recognize its morphological differences from the sibling species Rhizotrogus genei Blanchard, 1851 .</p><p>Distribution and ecological notes. Among the approximately 450 specimens of the R. genei / ruzzantei complex examined in this study, R.ruzzantei sp. nov. appears to be restricted to the southern part of Sulcis, specifically in the areas of Domus de Maria, Sant’Antioco, and Villa San Pietro (Fig. 18). This agrosilvopastoral zone is characterized by environments dominated by degraded garrigue and low Mediterranean scrub, typically ranging from sea level to about 50 meters above sea level. The species occurs in degraded garrigue habitats with sparse vegetation, primarily composed of Pistacia lentiscus, Euphorbia dendroides, Olea europaea sylvestris, Genista corsica and Juniperus phoenicea . Larvae are most probably rhizophagous and feed on the roots of various native herbaceous plants.</p><p>Adults are active from late autumn to early spring (23 November to 20 April), even under low temperatures and light rainfall. Males were mainly collected while flying and attracted to artificial lights operating from dusk to dawn, or found beneath stones in short winter grass lawns. Females were rarely collected (10 females among 256 males), despite possessing well-developed wings (Fig. 6). Only one female was observed in flight; others were collected under stones or found crawling near artificial light sources.</p><p>Discussion. Table 1 presents the minimum and maximum values, average, and standard deviation for each character in both species, revealing several noteworthy patterns in their morphological variation.The PERMANOVA analysis (Table 2), revealed a statistically significant overall morphological divergence between R. genei and R. ruzzantei sp. nov.; a significant main effect of species was detected (F=9.52, p ≤ 0.01), indicating consistent interspecific morphological differences across individuals. The main effect of character was highly significant (F=4092.1, p&lt;0.001), reflecting substantial inherent variation among the eight measured morphological characters. Notably, the Character × Species interaction was also highly significant (F=25.24, p&lt;0.001), accounting for 8.76% of the total morphological variation. This interaction indicates that morphological differences between species are not uniform across characters but are instead trait-specific, suggesting that the studied morphological features are particularly informative for species delimitation. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons using the PERMANOVA t statistic (Table 3) revealed that the most pronounced and statistically supported differences observed in tarsal lengths, particularly in the length of the protarsus length and in the protarsus/protibia ratio (t = 16.24, p ≤ 0.001) which showed the highest discriminatory power in the analysis. Further significant differences were detected in mesotarsus and metatarsus lengths, reinforcing the pattern of longer tarsi in R. ruzzantei sp. nov. Body size also contributed to interspecific differentiation, with R. genei being generally larger in body length and maximum width, although these differences are less pronounced in relative terms (6–7%) and show some degree of overlap in value ranges (Table 1, 3 and Fig. 16). In addition to the longer anterior tarsi in R. ruzzantei sp. nov. than in R. genei, the species can also be distinguished by pronotal coloration: R. ruzzantei sp. nov. exhibits a nearly uniform reddish-brown pronotum (Fig. 5), while R. genei shows lighter lateral margins contrasting with a darker discal area (Fig. 4). Together, these two morphological characters strongly supports the taxonomic separation of two species and provide reliable diagnostic characters for distinguishing the species, even in regions of sympatry and potential intermixing in southern Sulcis. To rule out conspecificity with the synonyms of Rhizotrogus genei Blanchard, we examined the type series of R. sardous (Burmeister, 1855) housed in ZNSH while we excluded R. insularis Reiche, 1862 from consideration, as it was described from Corsica, a location far outside the known distribution range of ruzzantei sp. nov.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03ED878BFFEAA26DFF4DFCAFFA9D6BC2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sabatinelli, Guido;Cillo, Davide;Bazzato, Erika	Sabatinelli, Guido, Cillo, Davide, Bazzato, Erika (2025): Rhizotrogus ruzzantei, a new species from southwestern Sardinia (Italy), with biogeographic considerations on the Sulcis-Iglesiente subregion and Scarabaeoidea endemics of Sardinia (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae: Rhizotrogini). Zootaxa 5665 (2): 256-270, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5665.2.6, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5360.3.8
