Akentrobuthus atakora Vignoli et Prendini, 2008

Kovařík, František, Teruel, Rolando & Lowe, Graeme, 2017, Microananteroides mariachiarae Rossi et Lourenço, 2015 is a junior synonym of Akentrobuthus atakora Vignoli et Prendini, 2008 (Scorpiones: Buthidae), Euscorpius 246, pp. 1-7 : 4-6

Akentrobuthus atakora Vignoli et Prendini, 2008

( Figs. 1–16)

Akentrobuthus atakora Vignoli et Prendini, 2008: 61–70 , figs. 1–17, tab. 1.

= Microananteroides mariachiarae Rossi et Lourenço, 2015: 3–9 , figs. 1–15. New synonym.

TYPE LOCALITY AND TYPE REPOSITORY. Benin, Atakora Department, Natitingou Municipality , Atakora Mountain Range, Tanougou Waterfalls , 10°48.12'N 01°26.26'E, 261 m a. s. l. ; AMNH, American Museum of Natural History , New York , USA.

MATERIAL EXAMINED. Ghana, North Province , Tamale, 7.I.1 972, leg. Y. Endrödy, 1♀ holotype of Microananteroides mariachiarae ( HNHM Scorp-26, Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, Hungary) .

Rossi & Lourenço (2015) did not cite any characters that could differentiate Microananteroides from Akentrobuthus . They only compared Microananteroides to Ananteroides Borelli, 1911 , and also cited the African genus Lychasioides Vachon, 1974 without mentioning any diagnostic differences. However, they completely ignored the genus Akentrobuthus , and the species A. atakora whose description is virtually identical to that of M. mariachiarae , with the exception of a few characters that were incorrectly interpreted by Rossi & Lourenço (2015) (see below).

Figure 4 shows the right pedipalp chela of the holotype of M. mariachiarae , and in Fig. 4a its correct trichobothrial pattern is indicated. Fig. 4b shows the same pattern as depicted by Rossi & Lourenço (2015: 7, fig. 10, herein reproduced unmodified from the original description). There are several glaring discrepancies in this figure:

(i) manus Eb 2 is marked at the same distance from the base as Eb 3; in fact, Eb 2 is distal to Eb 3 ( Fig. 4a); (ii) manus Est and Esb are marked at the same vertical level; in fact Est is situated below Esb ( Fig. 4a);

(iii) manus Est, Esb and Et are marked at positions equidistant from each other; in fact, Est and Esb are much closer to each other, than to Et, i.e. less than half the distance ( Fig. 4a); and

(iv) fixed finger dt is marked only slightly distal to et, i.e. only about one-fourth of the distance between est and et; in fact, dt is much more distally located, with dt, est and et being about equidistant from each other along the finger axis ( Fig. 4a).

Moreover, on the pedipalp patella (Rossi & Lourenço, 2015: 7, fig. 13), em is marked distinctly closer to esb 1 and esb 2, than to est and et; in fact the converse is true ( Fig. 8a). In each of these points, our map of the trichobothrial configuration of the holotype also agrees with corresponding configurations documented in both Akentrobuthus atakora and A. leleupi Lamoral, 1976 .

Figure 13 shows the chelal trichobothrial pattern of A. atakora as correctly marked by Vignoli & Prendini (2008: 68, fig. 12). It is readily apparent that this pattern is identical to the true pattern of the holotype of M. mariachiarae ( Fig. 4a) (see also Lamoral, 1976: 686, fig. 3). We further note that Rossi & Lourenço (2015: 7, figs. 10, 12, 14) incorrectly showed petite trichobothria (chela Eb 3, Esb and esb; patella d 2; femur d 2) with areolar diameters and shaft lengths equal to those of non-petite trichobothria. The same mistake recurs in many recent publications of these authors. This anatomical disinformation creates confusion because, in buthids, petite trichobothria have much smaller areolae and much shorter shafts than non-petite trichobothria.

Another character that was inaccurately described by Rossi & Lourenço (2015: 5) is the carination of the carapace in the holotype of M. mariachiarae , which they characterized as “anterior median and posterior median carinae weak”. However, their own figure 3 (Rossi & Lourenço, 2015: 6) does not depict these carinae, which suggests that they were too weakly developed to be resolved. In fact, our examination of the holotype confirmed that the carapace lacks clearly defined carinae, except for the superciliary carinae. This is consistent with the absence of carinae on the carapace of A. atakora , as revealed in fine detail by UV fluorescence imaging (Vignoli & Prendini, 2008: 67, fig. 6).

Vignoli & Prendini (2008: 63, fig. 2) accurately described the true color of a fresh specimen, both in vivo and immediately after preservation. In contrast, Rossi & Lourenço (2015) described altered coloration of a specimen poorly preserved after over 40 years of storage in alcohol (see our Figs. 1–3 herein), but they did not mention this caveat.

Apart from the above points, the holotypes of M. mariachiarae and A. atakora match each other precisely in the following key characters: size, structure of sternum and genital operculum, pectinal tooth count and lamellar structure, proportions, setation, carination and sculpture of pedipalps, carapace, tergites, sternites, and metasoma, shape and armature of the telson, as well as armature of chelicerae and pedipalp fingers.

The inevitable conclusion is that Microananteroides mariachiarae Rossi et Lourenço, 2015 is a junior synonym of Akentrobuthus atakara Vignoli et Prendini, 2008 .