Geocharidius integripennis (Bates)

Sokolov, Igor M. & Kavanaugh, David H., 2014, The integripennis species group of Geocharidius Jeannel, 1963 (Carabidae, Bembidiini, Anillina) from Nuclear Central America: a taxonomic review with notes about biogeography and speciation, ZooKeys 443, pp. 61-118 : 78

Taxon classification Animalia Coleoptera Carabidae

Geocharidius integripennis (Bates) Figs 12B, 14B, 14C, 15A, 17A, 22

Anillus integripennis Bates, 1882: 145.

Lectotype.

A male, deposited in MNHN, glued on cardboard, dissected, labeled (Fig. 14B): \ Totonicapam, 85- 10,500 ft. Champion \ integripennis Bates \ Lectotypus ♂ det. A. Vigna 1972 \ Lectotypus ♂ Geocharidius integripennis Bates Desig. Vigna- Taglianti 1972 Det. J.P. Zaballos 2004 \. Paralectotype female, also in MNHN, glued on cardboard, dissected, labeled (Fig. 14C): \ Totonicapam, 85- 10,500 ft. Champion \ Anillus integripennis Bates \ TYPE \ ♀ \ PARALECTOTYPUS ♀ Geocharidius integripennis Bates Det. J.P. Zaballos 2004 \. Type locality: Guatemala, Totonicapán Department, Totonicapam [= Totonicapán].

Geocharidius tagliantii Erwin, 1982: 494; synonymized by Zaballos (2004).

Recognition.

Males and females of this species are distinguished from those of other members of the integripennis species group (except Geocharidius gimlii , see Relationships above) by the structure of the median lobe of males and the spermatheca of females. Adults of Geocharidius gimlii have proportionately much wider elytra than those of Geocharidius integripennis .

Description.

Size. Medium for genus (SBL range 1.33-1.43 mm, mean 1.38 ± 0.070 mm, n=2).).

Habitus. Body form (Fig. 12B) moderately convex, elongate ovoid, general proportions (WE/SBL 0.40 ± 0.002), proportions of head (WH/WPm 0.74 ± 0.022) and pronotum (WPm/WE 0.77 ± 0.026) average for group.

Color. Body rufotestaceous, appendages testaceous.

Microsculpture. Mesh pattern of irregularly isodiametric sculpticells present over all dorsal surfaces of head and elytra. Pronotum smooth. Proepisternum with microsculpture.

Prothorax. Pronotum slightly transverse (WPm/LP 1.25 ± 0.009), with lateral margins moderately constricted posteriorly (WPm/WPp 1.33 ± 0.002). Posterior angles slightly obtuse (100-110°). Widths between anterior and posterior angles of equal length (WPa/WPp 0.99 ± 0.018).

Elytra. Moderately convex, slightly depressed along suture, moderately wide (WE/LE 0.67 ± 0.005), without traces of striae. Humeri rounded, in outline forming right angle with longitudinal axis of body. Lateral margins convex, evenly divergent at basal fourth, evenly rounded to apex in apical third.

Male genitalia. Male genitalia of the lectotype are mounted in old gum, covered now with a network of numerous cracks, making the objects inside hard to see. Hence, we could examine only general shape of the median lobe and could not discern details of the inner sac or of the parameres or the round sclerite. Based on what we could see, the median lobe of the aedeagus (Fig. 15A) is very similar to that of the Geocharidius gimlii holotype.

Female internal genitalia. Spermatheca of the paralectotype sclerotized, bean-shaped, with apical constriction, almost straight, cornu short and nodulus long (Fig. 17A). Length of spermathecal gland greater than length of spermatheca. Spermathecal duct loosely coiled.

Geographical distribution.

Precise locality at which the type series of this species was collected is unknown. Presumably, the material that was collected by Champion and served as the basis for the Bates’ description came from the Cerro Maria Tecún mountains in the Totonicapán Department of Guatemala (Fig. 22, black and white triangle), as was shown by Ball and Roughley (1982) for Pterostichus (Percolaus) championi (Bates), the locality label of which is identical with that of the Geocharidius integripennis type specimens.

Way of life.

The type specimens were collected at an elevation of "10,500 ft." (= 3200 m).

Relationships.

Without doubt, the closest relative of Geocharidius integripennis is Geocharidius gimlii . In view of the similarity in the shape of the median lobes (Fig. 15B; cf. Fig. 15A) of their males and the range of variation of the median lobes seen among other species of the group, it may seem reasonable to consider these taxa as two subspecies of a single species. However, in the absence of sufficient material for more thorough investigation of variation of the external features and structure of the genitalia, we prefer to preserve the "status quo" and consider Geocharidius gimlii and Geocharidius integripennis as close, but separate species.