Coptocephala scopolina floralis ( Olivier, 1791 )

Bezdċk, Jan & Regalin, Renato, 2015, Identity of species-group taxa of the Western Palaearctic Clytrini (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) described by Maurice Pic and Louis Kocher, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae (suppl.) 55, pp. 1-114 : 24-25

Coptocephala scopolina floralis ( Olivier, 1791)

Clytra ssoralis Olivier, 1791: 37 (original description).

Coptocephala ssoralis var. subasciata [sic!] Pic, 1897c: 206 (original description).

Type localities. Clytra ssoralis : ‘Provence’. Coptocephala ssoralis var. subfasciata : ‘Espagne’.

Type material examined. Clytra ssoralis : not examined.

Coptocephala ssoralis var. subfasciata : SYNTYPE: 1 ♂, ‘ Espagne [w, h] // Ħoralis var [w, h] // type [w, h] // v. subfasciata / Pic [w, h] // TYPE [r, p]’ ( MNHN – coll. Pic).

Distribution. Portugal and Spain ( REGALIN & MEDVEDEV 2010b).

Comments. STAINES & WHITTINGTON (2003) published a list of Olivier ̓ s types of Chrysomelidae deposited in Dufresne ̓ s collection in the Royal Museum of Scotland in Edinburg including three syntypes of Clytra ssoralis . Richard Lyszkowski from the Royal Museum of Scotland kindly sent us the colour photos of all three specimens, and we identiħed them as Macrolenes dentipes (2♀♀) and Coptocephala sp. (probably C. unifasciata (Scopoli, 1763) , 1 ♂). OLIVIER (1791) described Clytra ssoralis in the 6 th volume of his Encyclopedie Methodique and explicitly mentioned black head and legs and small black humeral spot on elytra, but did not mention the deposition of the specimens. The description is provided with reference to a plate and a picture published later and associated with the 6 th volume of another Olivier ̓ s publication: Entomologie ou histoire naturelle des insectes ( OLIVIER 1808). It is necessary to note that OLIVIER (1808) also published another description of Clytra ssoralis , different to that from 1791; however, he explicitly mentioned the reference of description from 1791.

We are sure that the male Coptocephala specimen deposited in Edinburg is not the true syntype of Clytra ssoralis because of bicolorous legs. This male probably refers to the description from 1808. We also have some doubts about the type status of additional two females. Although the colouration of legs agrees with the description, the black spots on elytra have somewhat different shape in comparison with the original description ( OLIVIER 1791) and with the picture in OLIVIER (1808). In sum, we treat all three specimens deposited in Edinburg as non-type material of Clytra ssoralis .

We found one additional specimen of Clythra ssoralis in Olivier ̓ s collection in MNHN bearing a green round label ‘COLLECTION / OLIVIER / TYPE’ added by Olivier ̓ s son (Mantilleri, pers. comm. 2014). This specimen (actually a female of Macrolenes dentipes ( Olivier, 1808)) originates from Spain (‘Hispan.’), while Clytra ssoralis was described from Provence in southern France. Thus we also tentatively treat it as a non-type specimen.

Currently we are unable to conħrm the identity of C. scopolina ssoralis as we have not found reliable type material. For the purposes of this paper we accept this taxon in its current usage (e.g. WARCHA Ł OWSKI 1991, 2003, 2010) and the male syntype of C. ssoralis var. subfasciata is treated as its synonym. However, in the future we cannot exclude taxonomical changes based on clariħcation of the identity of C. scopolina ssoralis .