Copelatus barbouri Young, 1942

Megna, Yoandri S. & Epler, John H., 2012, A review of Copelatus from Cuba, with the description of two new species (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Copelatinae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 52 (2), pp. 383-410 : 388-389

publication ID 10.5281/zenodo.5331014

persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Copelatus barbouri Young, 1942


Copelatus barbouri Young, 1942 View in CoL

( Figs. 1 View Figs , 12, 16 View Figs , 24 View Figs )

Copelatus barbouri Young, 1942: 88 View in CoL . Copelatus barbouri: SPANGLER (1981: 167) View in CoL , NILSSON (2001: 64), PECK (2005: 44).

Type locality. Cuba, Guantánamo Province, North of Imias.

Type material examined. HOLOTYPE: J ( MCZ): ‘ Mts. N. of Imias, eastern Oriente , July 25–28, 1936, 3000–4000 ft. [printed] / Cuba 1936, Darlington, Collector [printed] / M.C.Z. Type 25903 [printed] / Holotype m# C. barbouri [in pencil] / Feb-July 2002. MCZ Image Database [printed]’. PARATYPE: 1 J ( MCZ): ‘Mts. N. of Imias, eastern Oriente, vii. 25-28-36, 3000–4000 ft. [handwritten label, ink] / Cuba 1936, P.J. Darlington, Collector [handwritten label, ink] / Paratype C. barbouri Young [partly typed, partly in pencil]’.

Diagnosis. TL 5.9–6.3 mm, EW 3.0– 3.2 mm; see Table 1 for other body measurements. Male and female elytra non-striate, reddish-brown with testaceous basal and apical fasciae ( Fig. 1 View Figs ); male anterior tibiae slightly modified ( Fig. 16 View Figs ).

Copelatus barbouri is very similar to C. montivagus ( Fig. 7 View Figs ), but differs from it by slightly larger body size, narrower basal elytral fascia with ragged posterior border, males with less strongly bowed protibia ( Fig. 16 View Figs ) and slightly thicker median lobe in lateral and ventral aspects ( Figs. 12a, b View Figs ).

Ecology. Nothing is known of the ecology of this species, except that it is recorded from mountains.

Distribution. C. barbouri is known only from few specimens from the mountains north of Imías (Guantánamo Province) in eastern Cuba ( Fig. 24 View Figs ).

Remarks. There is some confusion between this species and C. montivagus . YOUNG (1942: 89) stated that the male protibiae of C. montivagus were not so strongly modified (about intermediate between those of barbouri and darlingtoni ). However, the protibiae of C. darlingtoni are unmodified ( Fig. 17 View Figs ), those of C. barbouri are slightly modified ( Fig. 16 View Figs ) and those of C. montivagus strongly bowed ( Fig. 19 View Figs ).

YOUNG (1942: 89) wrote that ‘the figure of the genitalia was from the male paratype’. The junior author examined this specimen, which had its abdomen removed and point mounted with the rest of the specimen, but no genitalia are directly associated with the pinned specimen.

The junior author has dissected the genitalia from the holotype; they are now in a microvial on the specimen’s pin. The single slide of male genitalia (the median lobe and both parameres) in the MCZ labeled (in pencil) as C. barbouri has no indication of a type number on it; the collection data (as on the pinned specimens) are handwritten in ink, along with the number ‘#1023’. These genitalia are identical to those dissected from the holotype by the junior author and are probably those figured by YOUNG (1942), but without a type indication on the slide it is not possible to confirm this.

No females of this species were examined. The putative female of C. barbouri lacks dorsal sculpturing. Its placement in the key and the diagnosis of the female above is dependent on the description of YOUNG (1942). YOUNG (1942: 88) noted that ‘it can be that I have incorrectly associated the males with these females, but all of the specimens are from the same locality and were taken in the same date period. There are, besides, no obvious differences except in size and the secondary sexual characters of the tibiae and tarsi. The male of C. barbouri is sufficiently distinct by virtue of its general habitus, color pattern, and genitalia, to be separated from any other Copelatus I have seen, and if the smooth females really represent the same species, it is the most distinctive of the Cuban forms’.


Museum of Comparative Zoology














Copelatus barbouri Young, 1942

Megna, Yoandri S. & Epler, John H. 2012

Copelatus barbouri

PECK S. B. 2005: 44
NILSSON A. N. 2001: 64
SPANGLER P. J. 1981: )
YOUNG F. N. 1942: 88
Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF