Hydrophilus (Dibolocelus) masculinus ( Régimbart, 1901 )

Short, Andrew E. Z. & Mcintosh Iv, Charles E., 2015, Hydrophilus harpe sp. nov., a remarkable new species of giant water scavenger beetle from Brazil (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 55 (2), pp. 665-671 : 670-671

Hydrophilus (Dibolocelus) masculinus ( Régimbart, 1901)

(Figs 6–9)

Dibolocelus masculinus Régimbart, 1901: 223 .

Hydrous (Dibolocelus) masculinus: ZAITZEV (1908: 366) .

Hydrophilus masculinus: BLACKWELDER (1944: 171) .

Type material examined. LECTOTYPE: J (here designated): “MUSEUM PARIS / Rosario / Claine 1898” ( MNHN: Régimbart Collection) . PARALECTOTYPE: Same data as Lectotype (1 ♀, MNHN: Régimbart Collection).

Additional material examined: (2 spec.): “Rosario / de S. Fe”, “Dr. Stem. / pelmann.”, “37.” (1 J, MNHN: Régimbart Collection), “Republ. / Argentina ” (1 ♀, MNHN: Régimbart Collection),

Differential diagnosis. See Differential diagnosis for H. harpe .

Distribution. Argentina, Uruguay ( HANSEN 1999).

Remarks. Of the specimens of H. masculinus he examined, RÉGIMBART (1901) remarked as follows: ‘République Argentine: Rosario (Claine, 1898), collection du Muséum de Paris et la mienne’. It is clear from the description he saw both males and females though he does not indicate the number of specimens he examined. In the collection of Régimbart, which is maintained separately at MNHN, the Hydrophilus specimens are arranged as he had them in the same order as presented in the 1901 publication. There are four specimens situated

Figs 6–9. Hydrophilus (D.) masculinus ( Régimbart, 1901) , male lectotype:6 – mesotarsus, 7 – metatarsus, 8 – protarsus, 9 – label.Arrows in Figs 6–7 note the dense tuft of ventrally-facing setae.

by the name ‘ masculinus ’, including a male and female pair with identical information to those listed above. The male is here designated as the lectotype for H. masculinus to fix the identity of this species. The other two specimens (also from Argentina) do not bear Rosario labels and it is unclear if they were part of the original type series or not. Consequently, we have opted not to designate these two specimens as paralectotypes as it is unclear if they were part of the original type series.