Eccoptolonthus Bernhauer, 1912

Fei, Xu-Dong & Zhou, Hong-Zhang, 2021, Revision of Eccoptolonthus Bernhauer (Coleoptera: Staphylininae: Philonthina) with descriptions of four new species from China, Zootaxa 4949 (3), pp. 473-498 : 474-476

The Genus Eccoptolonthus Bernhauer, 1912

Type species: Philonthus (Eccoptolonthus) conradti Bernhauer, 1912 .

Bernhauer, 1912: 206 (subgenus of Philonthus , species included: conradti ); Bernhauer & Schubert, 1914: 326 (synonym of Philonthus ); Cameron, 1932: 62 (subgenus of Philonthus ); Blackwelder, 1943: 399 (subgenus of Philonthus , type species: conradti ); Blackwelder, 1952: 138 (subgenus of Philonthus , type species: conradti ); Herman, 2001a: 2733 (subgenus of Philonthus ); Newton, 2015: 13 (as valid genus, not subgenus or synonym of Philonthus Curtis , catalog); Schillhammer, 2015: 23, 24 (new synonyms and new combinations of Eccoptolonthus ); Schülke & Smetana, 2015: 1021 ( Eccoptolonthus , catalog); Chani-Posse, et al. 2018: 34 (two species of Hesperus transferred to Eccoptolonthus ); Li, 2019: 424 ( Eccoptolonthus , catalog of Chinese); Mikátová, 2020: 386 (catalogue of type specimens of Eccoptolonthus in Czech Republic); Hayashi, 2020: 135 (a new subgenus of Eccoptolonthus ).

Syn.: Pseudohesperus Hayashi, 2008: 146 (new genus, type species: Philonthus rutiliventris Sharp, 1874 ); Hromádka, 2010: 495 (revised the Afrotropical fauna of Pseudohesperus ); Li & Zhou, 2011: 679 (revised China fauna of Pseudohesperus ); Schillhammer, 2011: 147 (a new species of Pseudohesperus ); Newton, 2015: 12 (synonym of Eccoptolonthus ); Hromádka, 2016: 376 (a new species of Pseudohesperus ); Mikátová, 2020: 386 (catalogue of type specimens of Eccoptolonthus in Czech Republic)

Subgenus: Eumorimotous Hayashi, 2020: 136 (type species: Eccoptolonthus (Eumorimotous) laevigatus ( Fauvel, 1895)) .

Diagnosis: The genus Eccoptolonthus was characterized in great detail by Hayashi (2008), Hromádka (2010) and Li & Zhou (2011): the genus is closely allied to Bisnius Stephens, 1829 and Gabrius Stephens, 1829 , because of the similar structure of protarsi, but is easily distinguishable from them by the following characters: (1) maxillary and labial palpi with fourth segment rod-like; (2) gular sutures gradually convergent posteriad to the neck constriction, not parallel in posterior (basal) half; (3) chaetotaxy of the pronotum composed of only a pair of anterolateral macrosetae, basolateral setae absent; (4) mesoventrite with apical portion distinctly and abruptly convex ventrad, without transverse carina; (5) sternite IX of males in most species with a pair of long appendages and without any long erect bristles; only a few with short appendages.

Taxonomic history: the name Eccoptolonthus Bernhauer, 1912 was treated as a subgenus of the genus Philonthus Stephens, 1829 ( Bernhauer & Schubert, 1914; Cameron, 1932; Blackwelder, 1943; Blackwelder, 1952; Tottenham, 1962; Herman, 2001a) and included only a few species: Philonthus (Eccoptolonthus) conradti Bernhauer, 1912 as the type species, Philonthus (Eccoptolonthus) eccoptomus Tottenham, 1962 , and another un-named one mentioned by Tottenham (1962).

In contrast, the genus Pseudohesperus Hayashi, 2008 was established as a separate genus and it was treated as valid for a long time after its description. In the original paper, Hayashi (2008) transferred the type species, Philonthus rutiliventris Sharp, 1874 and Philonthus eustilbus Kraatz, 1859 from the genus Philonthus to Pseudohesperus . Hromádka (2010) revised the Afrotropical fauna, namely, P. apsilus Hromádka, 2010 , P. tauraco Hromádka, 2010 , P. tyto Hromádka, 2010 , P. varanus Hromádka, 2010 , P. conradti ( Bernhauer, 1912) , P. eccoptomus ( Tottenham, 1962) , P. proselytus ( Bernhauer, 1912) , P. bafutensis ( Levasseur, 1967) , and P. natalensis ( Scheerpeltz, 1956) . At the same time Hesperus longicornis Cameron, 1950 was synonymized with Pseudohesperus conradti ( Bernhauer, 1912) ( Hromádka, 2010) . Schillhammer (2011) described another species, Pseudohesperus ernsti Schillhammer, 2011 . In the same year, Li & Zhou (2011) revised the Chinese fauna with a phylogenetic analysis of Philonthina and reported six Chinese species, of which four were described as new: Pseudohesperus luteus Li & Zhou, 2011 ; P. pedatiformis Li & Zhou, 2011 ; P. sparsipunctatus Li & Zhou, 2011 and P. tripartitus Li & Zhou, 2011 .

The taxonomy of Pseudohesperus was maintained as above until Newton (2015), following the concept of Hromádka (2010), recognized that Pseudohesperus Hayashi, 2008 should be as a synonym of Eccoptolonthus Bernhauer, 1912 . As a result, all the species included previously in Pseudohesperus were transferred to Eccoptolonthus Bernhauer, 1912 ( Newton 2015) . In the same year, Schillhammer (2015) confirmed this generic synonymy and transferred Philonthus gastralis Sharp, 1874 , Philonthus hongkongensis Bernhauer, 1931 and Philonthus lassallei Coiffait, 1981 to Eccoptolonthus . In the same paper, Philonthus insignitus Fauvel, 1875 and Philonthus longipalpis Kashcheev, 1999 were synonymized with Eccoptolonthus rutiliventris ( Sharp, 1874) ( Schillhammer, 2015) . Hromádka (2016) described another species but under Pseudohesperus : Pseudohesperus terezae Hromádka, 2016 . The correct combination under Eccoptolonthus was given by Mikátová et al. (2020). Chani-Posse et al. (2018) reported the results of phylogenetic analyses, which supported the transfer of two Hesperus species to this genus: Eccoptolonthus laevigatus ( Fauvel, 1895) and Eccoptolonthus roepkei ( Bernhauer, 1911) . Hayashi (2020) reported the newest findings and erected the subgenus Eumorimotous Hayashi, 2020 in the genus Eccoptolonthus , with one species and one subspecies described: Eccoptolonthus (Eumorimotous) morimotoi Hayashi, 2020 and Eccoptolonthus (Eumorimotous) laevigatus tiomanensis Hayashi, 2020 . Eccoptolonthus (Eumorimotous) wasmanni ( Fauvel, 1895) was also transferred from Hesperus to this genus.

In conclusion, there were 24 species and one subspecies included in the genus Eccoptolonthus Bernhauer, 1912 before this study ( Bernhauer, 1912; Bernhauer & Schubert, 1914; Cameron, 1932; Blackwelder, 1943; Blackwelder, 1952; Tottenham, 1962; Herman, 2001a; Hayashi, 2008; Hromádka, 2010; Li & Zhou, 2011; Schillhammer, 2011; Newton, 2015; Schillhammer, 2015; Hromádka, 2016; Chani-Posse, 2018; Newton, 2019; Hayashi, 2020). Our study contributed new findings after revising the above-mentioned studies.

Key to the Chinese species of the genus Eccoptolonthus

1. Male sternite VIII with a pair of long appendages (Figs. 7D, 9H, 11D)........................................... 2

- Male sternite VIII without a pair of long appendages (Figs. 1D, 3E, 5D).......................................... 8

2. Head with distinct microsculpture........................................................................ 3

- Head without microsculpture............................................................................ 5

3. Paramere weakly constricted at midlength in ventral view: paramere at narrowest part more than half the corresponding width of median lobe ( Fig. 11B )............................................................................... 4

- Paramere strongly constricted at midlength in ventral view: paramere at narrowest part less than half the corresponding width of median lobe ( Fig. 7B )..................................................... E. fuyuensis Fei & Zhou , sp. nov.

4. Male tergite X with arcuate medioapical emargination.................................. E. rutiliventris ( Sharp, 1874)

- Male tergite X with acute triangular medioapical emargination................ E. xiaolongmenensis Fei & Zhou , sp. nov.

5. Antennae black, with apical three or four antennomeres yellowish white; abdomen black with reddish yellow posterior margins in 3rd, 4th, 7th and 8th ventrites; 5th and 6th brownish red; inner face of paramere sparingly scattered with about 16 peg-setae along margins in apical third................................ E. (Eumorimotous) laevigatus laevigatus ( Fauvel, 1895)

- Antennae black, with antennomeres I–III to various extent reddish-brown, antennomere XI or antennomeres X–XI dark brown; abdomen black; paramere with more than 16 peg-setae....................................................... 6

6. Eyes very large, 1.75–2.33 times as long as tempora; pronotum with sparse punctures; paramere much wider and underside of paramere with larger number of peg setae..................................... E. sparsipunctatus ( Li & Zhou, 2011)

- Eyes flat, 1.3 times as long as tempora; pronotum with dense punctures.......................................... 7

7. Pronotum longer than broad; apex of abdomen dark.................................................................................................................................. E. hongkongensis ( Bernhauer, 1931)

- Pronotum about as long as broad; apex of abdomen reddish-yellow.......................... E. eustilbus ( Kraatz, 1859)

8. Paramere trilobed..................................................................................... 9

- Paramere with single lobe............................................................................. 11

9. Eyes longer than tempora.................................................... E. pedatiformis ( Li & Zhou, 2011)

- Eyes shorter than tempora............................................................................. 10

10. Middle lobe of paramere distinctly exceeding median lobe, apex of median lobe with discernible terminal angles in ventral view....................................................................... E. ernsti ( Schillhammer, 2011)

- Middle lobe of paramere not exceeding median lobe, median lobe distinctly narrowed into subacute apex in ventral view.............................................................................. E. tripartitus ( Li & Zhou, 2011)

11. Sensory peg setae form two circular groups in ventral view ( Fig. 3C ).................. E. dafoensis Fei & Zhou , sp. nov.

- Sensory peg setae uniformly distributed in the apex......................................................... 12

12. Pronotum as long as elytra; elytra obscure-brownish...................................... E. gastralis ( Sharp, 1874)

- Pronotum shorter than elytra, elytra black-brown with suture and posterior margin markedly reddish-brown............ 13

13. Eyes about 1.25–1.67 times as long as tempora; paramere conical, weakly, gradually broadening towards base; male tergite X broadly emarginate at apex; male sternite IX with basal portion weakly deflexed laterad........ E. luteus ( Li & Zhou, 2011)

- Eyes about 0.8 times as long as tempora; paramere cylindrical, strongly broadened from the middle to base; male tergite X with smaller, triangular medioapical emargination; male sternite IX with basal portion sharply deflexed laterad ( Figs. 1 F-G).............................................................................. E. conaensis Fei & Zhou sp. nov.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Eccoptolonthus conaensis Fei & Zhou, sp. nov. A. Habitus; B. aedeagus, dorsal (parameral side) view; C. aedeagus, lateral view; D. sternite IX of male; E. stylus of tergite IX of male; F. tergite X of male; G. sternite VIII of male. Scale bars, A= 1 mm; B, C, D, E, F, G= 0.2 mm.

FIGURE 3. Eccoptolonthus dafoensis Fei & Zhou, sp. nov. A. Habitus; B. aedeagus, dorsal (parameral side) view; C. apex of paramere, enlarged view, dorsal (parameral side) view; D. aedeagus, lateral view; E. sternite IX of male; F. stylus of tergite IX of male; G. sternite VIII of male; H. tergite X of male. Scale bars, A=2 mm, B, C, D, E, F, G, H= 0.2 mm.

FIGURE 7. Eccoptolonthus fuyuensis Fei & Zhou, sp. nov. A. Habitus; B. aedeagus, dorsal (parameral side) view; C. aedeagus, lateral view; D. sternite IX of male; E. tergite X of male; F. sternite VIII of male; g. stylus of tergite IX of male. Scale bars, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H= 0.2 mm;

FIGURE 11. Eccoptolonthus xiaolongmenensis Fei & Zhou, sp. nov. A. Habitus; B. aedeagus, dorsal (parameral side) view; C. aedeagus, lateral view; D. sternite IX of male; E. stylus of tergite IX of male; F. sternite VIII of male; G. tergite X of male. Scale bars, A= 1 mm; B, C, D, E, F, G= 0.2 mm.