Odontocheila nitidicollis

Moravec, Jiří, Huber, Ronald & Brzoska, David, 2017, Taxonomic and nomenclatorial revision within the Neotropical genera of the subtribe Odontocheilina W. Horn in a new sense- 19. Odontocheila microptera nom. nov., a new replacement name for O. euryoides W. Horn, 1922, and lectotype designation of O. nitidicollis (Dejean, 1825) (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), Zootaxa 4347 (1), pp. 109-127: 111-115

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4347.1.6

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DFFDD196-DC79-48F0-B6F6-BE40EA07BCEA

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/2C635D41-FFDD-C811-279E-FBA0FDD01F9A

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Odontocheila nitidicollis
status

 

ODONTOcheila NiTiDicOllis   ( Dejean, 1825)

( Figs 1–29 View FIGURES 1 – 9 View FIGURES 10 – 22 View FIGURES 23 – 29 )

Cicindela Nitidicollis Dejean, 1825: 30   , 31.

Type locality. “Brasil”

Odontocheila nitidicollis: Laporte de Castelnau 1840: 21   . Odontochila nitidicollis: Fleutiaux 1892: 125   .

Odontocheila nitidicollis: Schade 1933: 250   .

Odontochila nitidicollis: Rivalier 1969: 198   , 215, 216, fig. 11, fig. 12. Odontocheila nitidicollis: Wiesner 1992: 80   .

Type material. Lectotype (designated here) ♂ in MNHN, labelled: “Muséum Paris / Coll. Chaudoir, 1874” [greenish, printed] // “Lectotype / Cicindela   / nitidicollis Dejean, 1825   / design. Jiří Moravec 2014” [red, printed]. Paralectotypes. 1 ♂ in MNHN: “Muséum Paris / Coll. Chaudoir, 1874”. 1 ♂ in MNHN: with same label and: “ nitidicollis   / Dej. / Cayenne / C. Gory” [sic!, additionally attached large collection label with wrongly written “Cayenne”, see “Remarks” below].

Other material examined. Historical data. 1 ♀ in MNHN: “ Muséum Paris / Coll. Chaudoir, 1874”. 1 ♀ in MNHN with same label. and: “ Brésil   . 1 ♀ in SDEI: “[ Brazil]Ypanema / Natterer” // “N. c. / Y.” // ex coll. / Wien Mus.”. 1 ♂ in NHMW: “Brasilien / Ilha de Curari / Rio Solimoes ”. 1 ♂ in MNHN: “ Amérique du Sud ”. Other data. 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in IRSNB: no locality label. 7 spms in SDEI: “Matto Governo / S. Paulo / Melzer”. 1 ♀ in RLHC: “State / Sao Paulo / Brazil ”. 2 ♂♂ in SDEI: “Brasilia / Minas Gerais ”. 5 ♂♂, 5 ♀♀ in MNHN: “Trinidade / Goyaz [ Brazil]”. 1 ♀ in SDEI: “Cuyaba”. 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀ in MNHN   , 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀ in SDEI: “Brésil / Jatahy / Prov. de Goyaz ”. 4 ♂♂ in MNHN: “Terra Nova, Bahia / Brésil ”. 1 ♂ in SDEI: “Brasilie”. 2 ♀♀ in MNHN: “ Amazonas / Obidos”. 1 ♂ in MNHN: “Brésil / Barro Preto”. 1 ♀ in MNHN: “ Brésil / Est de Sao Paulo / Ribeipaõ Pires”. 1 ♀ in MNHN: “Brésil / Provincie de Matto Grosso ”. 1 ♀ in MNHN: “ Brésil ”. 1 ♂ in SDEI: “Buena Vista” // “Santa Cruz / Bolivia ”. 1 ♀ in MNHN: “Guyane Franç. / Passaura [sic!]. Recent data. 1 ♀ in CPVP: “ Venezuela   , Bolívar distr. / San Francisco de Yuruaní / vill.env., Canaima NP, / 30.IV. 2003, 100 m / J. Vondráček lgt.”. 1 ♂ in RLHC: “ Brazil   , S.P. / Sao Paulo / 9 Jan 1972 / V.N. Alin ”. 1 ♀ in RLHC: “ Brazil   : Mato Grosso / 20 km S Vilhena / 23 Nov 1992 / D.L. Pearson ” // secondary forest / floor”. 1 ♂ in RLHC: “ Brazil   : Rondonia / 30 km N Vilhena / 24.XI.1992 / D.L. Pearson ” // “open cerrado / forest”. 3 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ in CMHP: “ Brazil   Mato Grosso / Barra do Carças , / Serra Azul, 3-8.XII.2012 / F. Vaz-de-Mello lgt.”. 1 ♀ in DZRJ: “ Brasil   , Pernambuco, / Bonito , 8º32'34''S, 35º42'46''W, 846m / 18.II.2016, Alves, A. A. leg.”. 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in COSJ: “ Bolivia GoogleMaps   : Santa Cruz depart. / Santiago de Chiquitos env. / S18°19´29´´; W59°34´45´´, 630 m / 5.XII.2013, O. Šafránek lgt.”. 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in COSJ: “ Bolivia   : Santa Cruz depart. / Alta Vista , 15 km E of Concepcion, 410 m / 16°05´52´´S; 61°53´28´´W, 11-12.I.2016 / O. Šafránek et J.L. Aramayo lgt.”. 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in CCJM (ex DBCN): “ Bolivia GoogleMaps   Santa Cruz / 5 km E   Concepcion / D. Brzoska 30-XI- 1995 ”. 1 ♂ in CCJM: “ Bolivia-Santa Cruz, 14.7 km NE – San Ramon / 350m   , 29-XI-1995, David Brzoska ”. 3♂♂, 2♀♀ in RLHC: “ Bolivia   : Santa Cruz / Parq. Nac. N. Kempf / 29 Dec 1991 (400m) / F.Guerra & S. Otazu ” // “secondary savanna / forest”. 2 ♂♂ in RLHC: “ Bolivia   : Santa Cruz / Parq. Nac. N. Kempf / 30 Dec 1991 (400m) / F.Guerra & S. Otazu ” // “secondary savanna / forest”. 1 ♂ in CCJM   , 2 ♀♀ in RLHC: “Bolivia – Beni / 68.7 km SW – Santa Rosa / 23-XI-1994 / Brzoska / Guerra ”. 1 ♂ in DBCN   : ibid., except for: “ 63.6 km SW – Santa Rosa ”. 1 ♂ in DBCN   : ibid., except for: “ 48.5 km E – Santa Rosa / D. Brzoska 4-XII-1995 ”. 2 ♂♂ in DBCN: “ Bolivia   : Beni / 1.5 km W – Reyes / 14°17.64´´S, 67°21.22´´W / D. Brzoska 24-XI-1996 ”. 1 ♂ in CCJM: “ Bolivia GoogleMaps   Beni / 9.5 km E – Reyes /14°17´66´´S; 67°15´12´´W, 11-12.I.2016 / D. Brzoska 24-XI-1996 ”. 1 ♂ in DBCN: “ Bolivia   : Santa Cruz / 2.5 km E- San Carlos / Camino Cochabamba, KM 109 / D. Brzoska 25-XI-1995 ”. 1 ♀ in DBCN: “ Bolivia   Beni / 56.7 km E – San Borja / 30-XI-1994 / Brzoska / Guerra ”. 1 ♂ in CCJM: “ Bolivia   Santa Cruz / 12 km E- 14.5 km N / Concepcion (a P. Almacen ) [province of Ñuflo de Chavez] / D. Brzoska 23-XI-1992 ”. 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in DBCN: “ Bolivia   Beni / 88.7 km S Riberalta / 24-XI-1994 / Brzoska / Guerra ”. 1 ♀ in DBCN: “ Bolivia   Santa Cruz / 29 km SW – San Javier / D. Brzoska, 21-XI-1992 ”. 1 ♂ in DBCN   , 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in RLHC: ibid., except for: “ 13 km S – San Javier / D. Brzoska 24-XI-1992 ”. 1 ♂ in DBCN: “ Bolivia   : Santa Cruz / 9.5 km SE Yotau / D. Brzoska 3-I- 1994 ”. 1 ♂ in CJVB: “ Bolivia   Santa Cruz dep. / 20 km S of Concepcion / Hacienda San Sebastian env., / 16°21´36´´S, 82°00´49´´W, 535 m / 13-16.I.2016 Zd. Mráček lgt.”. 1 ♀ in JWCW: “ Paraguay / Villarica / XII.1977 ”. 3 ♂♂, in DBCN: “ Paraguay GoogleMaps   San Pedro / Rt. 3 – 5 km, N Barrio San Pedro 126m / –24.336,–56.419, 17-XI-2014 / pasture with many termite mounds”. 1 ♂ in CCJM: “ Paraguay   , dpt. Concepcion / Estancia Terrado , 209 m / 23°15'57"S 56°19'05"W / 20.I.2012 leg. Jiří Moravec ”. GoogleMaps  

Differential diagnosis. O. nitidicollis   is immediately distinguished from all other taxa of the species-group related to O. rutilans (Klug, 1834)   , and O. fulgens (Klug, 1834)   by the absence of whitish elytral maculae. Moreover, the labrum in O. nitidicollis   is metallic-black in both sexes (very rarely in some males with testaceous narrow area at the anterior margin). The immaculate elytra are shared with O. microptera   nom. nov. which, however, immediately differs in having its elytra in both sexes conspicuously ovaliform. The adults of O. nitidicollis   are strong fliers having normally developed thoracic wings ( Fig. 22 View FIGURES 10 – 22 ) as in all other Odontocheila   (when the foldable wings are stretched, they are approximately as long as the whole body). In contrast, the flightless O. microptera   nom. nov. has uniquely atrophic thoracic wings and its labrum is in male strongly bicoloured, ivoryyellow on more than half of anterior labral area. Female labrum ( Figs 17–18 View FIGURES 10 – 22 ) is mostly entirely metallic black, but bicolored labra also occur in both species. Moreover, the elytral apices in O. nitidicollis   are generally blunter, less acute towards the sutural spine. The aedeagi in these two species have hooked apex as in O. rutilans   , O. fulgens   and others of the O. rutilans   species-complex, but in most males of O. nitidicollis   the ventral edge of the aedeagus apex is straighter and with an indentation. However, the shape varies to the extent that the indentation in the lectotype ( Fig. 25 View FIGURES 23 – 29 ) and some other males ( Fig. 26a, 29 View FIGURES 23 – 29 ) is so distinct that it may resemble the aedeagus apex of O. trilbyana Thomson, 1857   (as in fig. 8tr by Rivalier 1969 and fig. 131 by Moravec 2015a), which is otherwise a very different species, while in some other males the aedeagus apex is ventrally almost rounded ( Figs 27–28 View FIGURES 23 – 29 ) as in the speciescomplex of O. rutilans   , and in most males of O. microptera   nom. nov. The male antennal scape ( Figs 20–21 View FIGURES 10 – 22 ) is in O. nitidicollis   and O. microptera   narrower than that in O. rutilans   and others of the species-complex, which all have the scape more distinctly dilated (the spatulate-dilated apex in O. rutilans   was overlooked by Huber (1999) when he described O. suareziana Huber, 1999   , and the error was adopted by Pearson et al.(1999) who obviously did not examine the holotype of Cicindela rutilans Klug, 1834   in MFNB). The bright coloured, subglobose pronotal disc, as well as the mandibles and palpi, are in O. nitidicollis   shaped as in O. fulgens   , but the pronotal disc is in O. nitidicollis   covered with shallower rugae, the antennal scape is less markedly dilated. Pearson et al. (1999) misleadingly mentioned that O. nitidicollis   lacks rugae on its pronotum, but in fact, the wide median area of the pronotal surface is covered with shallow or deep, wide and rather distinct, mostly transverse rugae, which are shallower or effaced only on lateral areas.

Redescription. Body ( Figs 1–3 View FIGURES 1 – 9 ) medium-sized (of a very variable size independent of sex) 9.30–11.3 (LT 11.0) mm long, 2.90–3.60 (LT 3.30) mm wide, dark coppery except for shiny reddish-cupreous pronotum or also head, with faint green-blue lateral iridescence.

Head ( Figs 10–12 View FIGURES 10 – 22 ) with notably large eyes, but always at least slightly narrower than body, width 2.90–3.20 mm; all head portions glabrous.

Frons steeply sloped towards clypeus, with distinctly convex median area, dorsally bluntly triangular, deep violaceous-blue with gold-bronze and blue-green lustre on lateral areas and reddish-cupreous in middle, sharply delimited from clypeus and confluent with vertex over bluntly triangular, median frons-vertex fold, but with rather distinct lateral edges reaching orbital margins and thus delimiting the frons from vertex laterally; supraantennal plates flat and with strong metallic-violaceous lustre; frons surface smooth except for the median area of fronsvertex fold ornamented with distinct, vermicular or mostly transverse-wavy rugae forming a distinct ornament passing on anteromedian area of vertex.

Vertex with only one juxtaorbital sensory seta (on each side), anteromedian area rather distinctly convex, dark coppery or brighter reddish cupreous in middle delimited with usually iridescent green-blue sublateral areas; fronsvertex fold and anteromedian convex area transversely wavy and arcuate rugulose (sculpture passing from frons), large juxtaorbital areas and lateral areas distinctly and deeply longitudinally parallel-striate, distinct striae on moderately impressed sublateral and lateral areas divergent posteriad, passing on temples, while the posteromedian moderately convex area is notably finely longitudinally striate, passing posteriad to irregularly finely vermicular to asperate sculpture; posterior and occipital area moderately convex, finely irregularly vermicular-rugulose to asperate.

Clypeus iridescent reddish cupreous with either narrow or prevailing iridescent green or blue lateral areas, surface usually almost smooth or coriaceous, often with few wrinkles mostly on lateral areas.

Genae shiny metallic violaceous or violet-blue, rarely with faint greenish lustre, almost smooth in middle, with few parallel striae on postgenal area passing from temples, rarely few wrinkles also on anterior area.

Labrum 4-setose, rather distinctly convex in middle, in both sexes metallic black, often with green and mahogany lustre, very rarely in male with testaceous narrow patches at the labral anterior margin; male labrum ( Figs 13–16 View FIGURES 10 – 22 ) rather long, length 0.60–0.70 mm, width 1.15–1.25 mm, basolateral teeth mostly subacute, anterolateral teeth subacute or acute, anterior lobe slightly prolonged anteriad, tridentate with acute outer anterior teeth and variably with wide, right-angled (triangular), or acute median tooth, rarely the anterolateral teeth in same level as the three anterior teeth ( Fig. 14 View FIGURES 10 – 22 ); female labrum ( Figs 17–18 View FIGURES 10 – 22 ) much longer, 1.05–1.20 mm long, 1.20–1.45 mm wide, with prominent, acutely tridentate median lobe with protruding median tooth.

Mandibles ( Figs 10–12 View FIGURES 10 – 22 ) in male mostly metallic-black (slightly faded to black-brown in old specimens), in female usually almost black, in both sexes with ivory-yellow lateral stripe (much more extended in male) and usually with limited, brownish-testaceous juxtamolar area; normally shaped (lateral margins including terminal teeth arcuate), subsymmetrical, inner teeth rather variable in shape and size: left mandible with second tooth simple, while it is in right mandible notably dilated or variably moderately or distinctly bilobed ( Figs 10–11 View FIGURES 10 – 22 , but in LT ( Fig. 10 View FIGURES 10 – 22 ) the bilobed part broken); third and fourth teeth in left mandible either gradually smaller towards basal molar, or of almost same length and slightly or more notably smaller than second tooth, while in right mandible the third and fourth teeth are usually much smaller than the second tooth; sometimes, mostly in female, the third tooth is usually somewhat smaller than the fourth.

Palpi ( Figs 10–12, 19 View FIGURES 10 – 22 ). Maxillary palpi ivory yellow to ochre, terminal palpomeres in male ochre-testaceous with metallic black apical half, in female entirely black and often also penultimate palpomere blackened or black, moderately or more distinctly dilated, in male usually spatulate-dilated ( Fig. 19 View FIGURES 10 – 22 ), width 0.20–0.22 mm; labial palpi ivory-yellow to ochre-testaceous except for black terminal palpomeres; penultimate (longest) palpomeres rather wide, cylindrical, only gradually dilated towards apex.

Antennae ( Figs 1–3 View FIGURES 1 – 9 , 10–12, 19 View FIGURES 10 – 22 ) in male usually reaching elytral half, in female notably shorter; scape with one apical seta, dilated towards apex 0.28–0.31 mm wide, mostly metallic black, usually with strong, violaceous or mahogany, rarely green-blue lustre; pedicel concolorous with scape, sometimes with more distinct mahogany lustre and testaceous base; antennomeres 3–4 ( Figs 10–11 View FIGURES 10 – 22 ) with rather distinct but short, sparse whitish setae, variably almost uniformly metallic-black with violaceous reflections, or prevailing strong, purple-violet lustre; antennomeres 5–11 smoky black with usual micropubescence.

Thorax. Pronotum ( Figs 23–24 View FIGURES 23 – 29 ) rather variably coloured, shiny metallic reddish-cupreous or golden-cupreous, with narrow or prevailing iridescent green lateral areas, but also blackened on disc in middle or on its lateral areas, as long as wide or very slightly longer, length 1.90–2.30 mm, width 1.85–2.25 mm; sulci clearly pronounced (anterior sulcus deep only laterally, posterior sulcus deeper); anterior lobe distinctly wider than the posterior, but narrower than dorsally visible proepisternal margins, its anterior margin in middle often notably prolonged anteriad, mostly reddish-cupreous with green lateral margins, very irregularly and mostly very shallowly wrinkled; disc almost subglobose, notopleural sutures indistinct, running parallel with the convex lateral margins; median line distinct; discal surface covered with shallow, but wide and distinct, irregular or mostly transverse rugae which are coarser on median area and become shallower and effaced on lateral areas; prosternum, mesosternum and metasternum smooth and glabrous, metallic black, usually with faint or strong greenish, cobalt-blue, or violaceous lustre; proepisterna and mesepisterna smooth and glabrous, shiny metallic black, usually with diffusing metallic lustre; female mesepisternal coupling sulci indistinct, with only sinuous, longitudinal median furrow, only slightly deeper and sharper in dorsal area than in male; metepisterna shiny metallic black, finely wrinkled.

Elytra ( Figs 4–9 View FIGURES 1 – 9 ) notably elongate, length 5.80–7.20 mm, with arcuate humeri; lateral margins parallel or subparallel when outer margin slightly widened in middle, anteapical angles arcuate, then obliquely running towards apices which are in male subacute or emarginate towards mostly notably distinct, but also short (but wide) sutural spine, in female usually more rounded towards the spine; elytral surface moderately to more distinctly convex on posterior half of elytral disc, mostly with only very shallow or moderate humeral and discal impressions and indistinct or moderate basodiscal convexity; anteapical impression rather distinct. apical impression moderate; whole elytral surface punctate: punctures on anterior area larger and more isolated, with several largest isolated punctures within the humeral impressions, while very large punctures with irregular, almost cristulate intervals anastomosing in chains within the shallow discal impression; punctures on posterior elytral half much smaller, with irregular intervals and commonly anastomosing, forming almost cristulate sculpture (appearance of the sculpture depends on angle of illumination); elytral surface as in other species glabrous, except for few, but usually long, white hairlike sensory setae scattered mostly on basal area, and a few others adjacent to epipleura; elytral coloration rather variable, often almost uniformly dark coppery, rarely more vividly cupreous, usually darkened on wide area of elytral disc along sutures, reddish-cupreous on sublateral areas, passing to mostly indistinct, narrow, gold-bronze area and wider iridescent green-blue lateral stripe (in lateral view passing to violaceous or purpleviolet juxtaepipleural area); whitish elytral maculation entirely absent.

Abdomen. Ventrites metallic-black with green, blue-green or violaceous iridescence, smooth, with only usual hairlike sensory setae at margins, surface of ventrites glabrous.

Legs. Coxae metallic-green with blue or violaceous iridescence, procoxae with paler apical area; pro- and mesocoxae densely white setose, metacoxae with only one apical and one discal seta (easily abraded), lateral margins densely fringed with white setae; trochanters glabrous (except for usual apical seta), pale brownish, metatrochanters darker (fading in old specimens), femora almost entirely metallic black rarely with faint violaceous or cyaneous diffusing lustre; setal vesture as in most other species: pro- and mesofemora covered with rows of white to greyish, rather long, erect or semierect setae which are densest on profemora and much sparser on metafemora; tibiae metallic-black, with indistinct mahogany lustre on their apical half, particularly on protibiae, covered with scattered semierect whitish setae and rusty thorn-like setae, metatibiae with only sparse semierect and stiffer short white setae and rusty thorns; basal third to half of pro- and mesotibiae covered by usual dense pad of greyish setae; tarsi metallic black; as in other species, first three protarsomeres in male dilated and with usual pad of dense, greyish-white setae.

Aedeagus ( Figs 25–29 View FIGURES 23 – 29 ) shaped as in most other species of the genus, moderately voluminous in middle, 3.00– 3.50 mm long, 0.80–0.95 mm wide, with variably shaped apex which is hooked, but its ventral edge is mostly nearly straight and with an indentation forming almost a “hammer-like” apex ( Figs 25–26a View FIGURES 23 – 29 ), or the ventral edge is ventrally rounded forming almost simply hooked apex ( Figs 27–28 View FIGURES 23 – 29 ); in its ventral view ( Fig. 26b View FIGURES 23 – 29 ) the apex appears with the ventral edge running centrally upwards, then clavate-dilated, and the very apex terminated by a rounded knob; internal sac ( Fig. 29 View FIGURES 23 – 29 ) as in most other species of the genus with long convoluted flagellum of which the flagelliform part usually protrudes from the dorsoapical orifice and its voluminous base is large and normally shaped with arcuate dorsal margin as in others of the species-group related to O. rutilans   .

Variability. As emphasized in the “Differential diagnosis” and partly also in the “Redescription” above, the most important variability is in the shape of the aedeagus apex, occurring also in syntopic males.

Biology and distribution. O. nitidicollis   has a large distribution. It is known from Venezuela where it was recently caught in the Canaima National Park in the district of Bolivar, and it spreads to the central-western Brazilian state of Mato Grosso. It also spreads to the Brazilian Highlands in the province of Goyas, all characterized by diverse ecosystems, including the cerrado vegetation of savannah, but also penetrating to Amazonas (found in the area of Rio Solimões, one of the largest Amazon tributaries), towards Obidos on the northeastern coastal areas of the state of Pará. It also occurs in the south-eastern states of Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais, and in the north-eastern states of Bahia and Pernambuco. Mandl (1960) reported it from the northern Brazilian state of Acre on the border of Bolivia. It is rather common in Bolivia; apart from the examined specimens caught mostly by the third author and listed above, other records from the districts of Beni and Santa Cruz were published by Pearson et al. (1999).

O. nitidicollis   is obviously much rarer in Paraguay as only one exact record from Paraguay was published by Wiesner (2000) based on one female ( JWCW, see above) caught in Villarica, and he also cited the record from Mborero (province of Guairá) published by Schade (1933). Two recent records from Paraguay are the male caught by the first author in the Estancia Terrado in the department of Conception ( CCJM), and the three males caught by the third author near Barrio San Pedro ( DBCN).

Regarding the occurrence in Argentina, Wiesner & Bandinelli (2014) only refer to general records in literature (Salta, Tucuman by Bruch 1911, Jujuy and Formosa by Erwin & Pearson 2008), without any exact or recent record. Two specimens (males) were labelled as if from French Guiana: one syntype (paralectotype here) with the large, additionally attached collection label: “ nitidicollis   / Dej. / Cayenne / C. Gory”, and one other specimen (both listed above) labelled: “ Guyane Fr.” and with ambiguous “Passaura”. Within this revision, no other specimen of O. nitidicollis   from French Guiana was found in collections, but because this species radiates from Venezuela to Brazil, its occurrence in French Guiana is possible.

Most of the old specimens listed in the “Other material examined”, as well as records in literature, do not specify the biotopes of O. nitidicollis   . According to Pearson et al. (1999) and Erwin & Pearson (2008) who listed a great number of Bolivian localities (most of them examined here), and experience gained by the third author, this species is ecologically distinctive as it inhabits dry uplands and scrubby grasslands, at nights also attracted to lights, but it also occurs on edges of secondary forests, together with Odontocheila chrysis (Fabricius, 1801)   . The area of Pernambuco, Bonito comprises remaining Atlantic Rainforest and the Caatinga biome (xeric shrubland and thorn forest) in the north-eastern Brazilian State of Pernambuco (André Silva Roza pers. com.). As discussed by Roza and Mermudes (2015), the Atlantic Rainforest is one of the most threatened biomes of the world, with only 11−12 % of its original cover. The Mato Grosso area of Barra do Carcas is in the State Park of Serra Azul with predominant Cerrado biome. In Bolivia, O. nitidicollis   sometimes was found by the third author together with Pentacomia (Mesochila) discrepans (W. Horn, 1893)   , P. (Poecilochila) cupricollis (Kollar, 1836)   and P. (Poecilochila) rugipennis (Kollar, 1836)   ; in the department of Santa Cruz it is sympatric, but probably not syntopic with Odontocheila camuramandibula Huber, 1999   , which mostly inhabits different biotopes. The males from the Paraguayan Estancia Terrado ( CCJM) and Barrio San Pedro ( DBCN) were caught on bare soil of the grassy cattlepastures with termite mounds.

Remarks. Only the male sex of Cicindela nitidicollis   was described by Dejean (1825), but he did not mention the number of the males. Besides the male designated here as the lectotype to increase stability of the taxon, two other males, also originally from the Dejean-Chaudoir collection ( MNHN), are obviously syntypes, therefore considered paralectotypes here, although one of them bears the large, originally a common collection label with “Cayenne” (see “ Type material” above), obviously written in error. The collecting label was attached to this syntype subsequently when the specimens were moved from the historical Dejean-Chaudoir collection, and arranged in the box of the MNHN “Collection Géneralle” (together with the syntype designated here as the lectotype). It must be noted here that when Rivalier arranged the specimens in MNHN, he, as in many of other taxa, had not recognized most of the type specimens by Dejean, because old authors mostly did not label their types by a “ type ” label.

The name “ Cicindela Auricollis   ” was mentioned by Dejean (1825) as a synonym of his O. nitidicollis   . Dejean simultaneously cited Germar as if he attributed the name “ auricollis   ” to him, but Germar never mentioned the name. Notwithstanding, C. auricollis   is a nomen nudum, listed without a description also by Sturm (1826) and as a “synonym” of O. nitidicollis   by Sturm (1843) and Fleutiaux (1892). Sherborne (1928) attributed the unavailable name (as nomen nudum) to Sturm (1826).

MNHN

Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle

NHMW

Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien

IRSNB

Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique

MFNB

Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Coleoptera

Family

Carabidae

Genus

Odontocheila

Loc

Odontocheila nitidicollis

Moravec, Jiří, Huber, Ronald & Brzoska, David 2017
2017
Loc

Odontochila nitidicollis:

Wiesner 1992: 80
Rivalier 1969: 198
1969
Loc

Odontocheila nitidicollis:

Schade 1933: 250
1933
Loc

Odontocheila nitidicollis:

Fleutiaux 1892: 125
1892
Loc

Cicindela Nitidicollis Dejean, 1825 : 30

Dejean 1825: 30
1825