Atheta Thomson, 1858

Gusarov, Vladimir I., 2003, Revision of some types of North American aleocharines (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Aleocharinae), with synonymic notes, Zootaxa 353 (1), pp. 1-134 : 29

Atheta Thomson, 1858

Atheta Thomson, 1858: 36 (type species: Aleochara graminicola Gravenhorst, 1806 , by monotypy, fixed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ( ICZN 1961)).

Megista Mulsant & Rey, 1874a: 623 (as subgenus of Liogluta ; type species: Aleochara graminicola Gravenhorst, 1806 , by monotypy).

Megista Mulsant & Rey, 1874b: 591 (as subgenus of Liogluta ; synonymic homonym of Megista Mulsant & Rey, 1874a).

Atheta: Ganglbauer, 1895: 136 (as valid genus).

Elytrusa Casey, 1906: 334 (type species: Homalota granulata Mannerheim, 1846 , by original designation).

Atheta (Megista) : Casey, 1910a: 15 (as valid subgenus).

Atheta: Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 604 (as valid genus; in subtribe Athetina ).

Atheta (Megista) : Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 658 (as valid subgenus).

Atheta (Elytrusa) : Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 658 (as synonym of Atheta (Megista )).

Atheta: Benick & Lohse, 1974: 124 (as valid genus; in tribe Callicerini Lohse, 1969 ).

Atheta: Muona, 1979b: 24 (as valid genus; in subtribe Athetina ).

Atheta: Lohse et al., 1990: 188 (as valid genus; in subtribe Athetina ).

(Other references are omitted)

Discussion. The magnitude of the genus Atheta varies in different contemporary works ( Benick & Lohse 1974; Muona 1979b; Lohse et al. 1990). In the narrowest sense (e.g., Lohse et al. 1990, where it is equivalent to Atheta s. str. of Benick and Lohse 1974) Atheta includes the athetines with pronotal setation of type I ( Benick & Lohse 1974), with hypomera fully visible in lateral view and with distinctly shaped spermatheca with thick distal portion and thin coiled proximal portion ( Figs. 150–155 in Strand & Vik 1964). In other interpretations ( Benick & Lohse 1974; Muona 1979b), which can be traced back to Ganglbauer (1895), Atheta is a much wider group. If this wider interpretation of the genus is accepted it is hard to say what the autapomorphies are which define it. In the key by Benick and Lohse (1974; pp. 72–79) one arrives at Atheta at the very end of the key, after having eliminated all other athetine genera, and essentially the genus is characterized by the features it lacks. Further analysis is needed to determine whether Atheta in the broad sense can be maintained as a monophyletic group.

Figures

FIGURES 147–154. Genitalia of Strigota ambigua (Erichson) (male, paralectotype of St. gnava Casey (149–154); and female, lectotype of St. oppidana Casey (147–148)). 147–148 — spermatheca (of the same specimen; different views); 149 — median lobe, parameral view; 150 — apex of median lobe, parameral view; 151 — median lobe, lateral view; 152 — apex of median lobe, lateral view; 153–154 — apex of median lobe with retracted internal sac, lateral view. Scale bar 0.1 mm (150, 152), 0.2 mm (147–149, 151, 153–154).

FIGURES 155–156. Everted internal sac of Drusilla canaliculata (Fabricius) (male from Isakovo, Chelyabinsk region, Russia). 155 — parameral view; 156 — lateral view. Scale bar 0.2 mm.