Tomarus pumilus ( Prell, 1937 )

López-García, Margarita M. & Deloya, Cuauhtémoc, 2018, Description of the Female of Tomarus rostratus Dupuis and New Synonyms and Records for the Genus Tomarus Erichson (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae), The Coleopterists Bulletin 72 (2), pp. 331-338 : 334

Tomarus pumilus ( Prell, 1937)

( Figs. 14–19 )

Ligyrus pumilus Prell 1937: 90

Ligyrus rosettae Endrödi 1968:68 . NEW SYNONYMY.

Examined Material. Tomarus pumilus : Lectotype deposited in ZMHU (16): “Corralitos // Ligyrus pumilus , 6Type // Lectotypus, Ligyrus pumilus Prell, Endrody // Tomarus pumilus (Prell) / det. B.C. Ratcliffe 2011”. Tomarus rosettae : Holotype deposited in NHMB (16, Figs. 16–17 ): “Proc. San Clemente / del Tuyu, Arg. / Prov. Bs. Aires, xii.49 // Holotypus / Ligyrus rosettae Endr. // Tomarus pumilus (Prell) det. M.M. López-Garc´ıa 2016 ”. Paratype deposited in HNHM (16): Proc. San Clemente /del Tuyu, Arg. / Prov.Bs. Aires, xii.49” . Paratypes deposited in HNHM (16, 1♀): Mendoza, Rep. Arg., v.26 . Additional material: ARGENTINA: Mendoza, Coll. Jensen-Haarup, L. rosettae , det. Endrödi, 1967 [1♀, HNHM]. Arandel, Salta, 10/11.x.68, Leg Pena, L. rosettae , det. Endrödi, 1970 [16, HNHM]. Pedregal , Mendoza, 20.10.1906, L. rosettae , det. Dr. Endrödi, 1967 [16, HNHM]. Prov. Córdoba, Fanti, Sierra de Córdoba , 11.I.1966, Leg. Mahunka, det: Dr. Endrödi, 1968 [26, 1♀, HNHM]. Mendoza, C.S. Reed Coll. [26, 2♀, USNM]. Mendoza, R. Sanzin Coll. [1♀, USNM]. Mendoza, 4 km E Potrerillos, 20-22.xii.1973. C.M. & O.S. Flint Coll. [1♀, USNM]. R´ıo Negro, General Roca, 24.xi.1920, A. Wetmore [2♀, USNM] .

Comments. Endrödi (1969) indicated that T. pumilis and T. rosettae were very similar and differentiated only by the size of the elytral punctures, which should not be considered a diagnostic character to separate species in the genus. He kept them as different species because of their allopatric distribution, T. pumilus in Mexico and T. rosettae in Argentina. However, Ratcliffe et al. (2013) reasoned that the type locality of T. pumilus (“Corralitos”) must be in Argentina and not in Mexico as thought by Endrödi (1969). Supporting evidence is that no specimens of T. pumilus have been found after intensive sampling and revision of collections in Mexico, and the most closely related species ( T. roigjunenti Neita and Ratcliffe and an undescribed species) are only found in southern South America. It is very likely that the type locality of T. pumilus is Corralito, a locality in Córdoba founded in 1913, more than a decade before the description of T. pumilus . After reviewing the type material of both species, we conclude that these are the same taxon for the following reasons: 1) There are no differences in body length nor in any other characters; 2) The parameres of the male have the same general shape ( Figs. 15, 16, 18, 19 ), although the apex is slightly wider in some specimens; and 3) Both species occur in Córdoba, Argentina.

Figures

Figs. 14–19. Tomarus pumilus, lectotype: 14) Head and pronotum; 15) Parameres, frontal view; 16) Parameres, lateral view, and labels. Tomarus rosettae, holotype: 17) Head and pronotum; 18) Parameres, frontal view; 19) Parameres, lateral view, and labels.