Frankenbergerius armatus (Boheman)

Frolov, A. V. & Scholtz, C. H., 2005, Revision of the southern African genus Frankenbergerius Balthasar with description of new taxa (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae), Journal of Natural History 39 (25), pp. 2355-2377 : 2368-2369

Frankenbergerius armatus (Boheman)

( Figures 14–27 )

Epirhinus armatus Boheman 1857, p 200 .

Coptorhina armata (Boheman) : Harold 1872, p 205; Péringuey 1901, p 288, 294; Janssens 1939, p 32, 36.

Frankenbergerius armatus (Boheman) : Ferreira 1972, p 362.

Coptorhina granulifera Harold 1871, p 112 ; synonymy by Harold 1872, p 205. Frankenbergerius mirabilis Balthasar 1938, p 212 ; synonymy by Paulian 1939, p 37 (as Coptorhina ).

Diagnosis

This species is most similar to F. forcipatus but can be separated by its smaller size, by having elytral intervals 2–4 with more distinct tubercles and by the parameres narrower in lateral view ( Figures 23, 24 ).

Polymorphism

In the examined material, there are two distinct forms of males: one with clypeal horns curved upwards and slightly backwards ( Figures 14, 22 ) with somewhat truncate apices, and another form with acute horns curved upwards but not backwards ( Figures 17, 21 ). An additional, although minor difference, is the less tuberculate elytra in the first form ( Figures 25, 26 ). The form with truncate apices of clypeal horns was collected in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal provinces and the other one in Mpumalanga and Northern Province ( Figure 27 ) .

The distinctness of the form with acute clypeal horns from ‘‘typical’’ F. armatus was apparently recognized by M. Ferreira; one such specimen in the TMSA bears the label ‘‘ Type „ Pseudocoptorhina armata var. tuberculata nov. M.G. Ferreira 1954 ’’. However, the name was not published.

Because of the allopatric distribution and distinct morphological differences between males with well-developed horns we treat these two forms as subspecies. The absence of noticeable differences in paramere shape and ambiguous differences in elytral sculpture (characters that are normally distinctive for other Frankenbergerius species ) prevent us from assigning them specific rank. However, if further research shows reproductive isolation or sympatric distribution, their rank should be reconsidered.

Remark

Harold (1871, p 112) described C. granulifera from Port Natal [Durban]. Later he transferred E. armatus to Coptorhina and wrote that C. granulifera belongs to this species ( Harold 1872, p 205). We did not have the opportunity to examine the type of C. granulifera , however, the collection locality suggests that it is the nominotypical subspecies of F. armatus , to which the type of C. granulifera belongs.

Figures

Figures 13–22. Frankenbergerius spp. (13) F. nitidus sp. n., holotype. (14–16, 22) F. armatus armatus. (17–21) F. armatus tuberculatus ssp. n. (13, 21, 22) Habitus (13, ♀; 21, 22 „; 21, holotype). (14–20) Head (14, 15, 17–19, „; 16, 20, ♀).

Figures 23–27. Frankenbergerius armatus. (23, 25) F. armatus armatus. (24, 26) F. armatus tuberculatus ssp. n. (23, 24) Aedeagus in dorsal and lateral view. (25, 26) Elytron. (27) Distribution map of F. armatus.