Euconnus (Noctophus)

Jałoszyński, Paweł, 2017, Taxonomy of ' Euconnus complex'. Part XVI. Alloconophron Franz transferred to Anhoraeomorphus Franz as subgenus, with notes on systematic position of Noctophus Casey (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Scydmaeninae), Zootaxa 4358 (2) : -

2. Morphological structures and taxonomic status of Euconnus (Noctophus)

Noctophus ( Figs 14 ¯18) differs from Anhoraeomorphus merely in a short, round (and not elongate) anterior part of head; vertex not bulging posterodorsally; emarginate labrum; hypostomal ridges running posteromesally and not connected at middle; antennae gradually thickened (and not with a delimited club); an uneven number of pronotal antebasal pits, with a distinct median pit (lacking in Anhoraeomorphus ); and protibiae modified. All these characters are known only in a female, males of Noctophus remain unknown. Moreover, the holotype of E. schmitti has lost both maxillary palps during previous preparations.

Conclusions. Noctophus must be excluded from Euconnus on the basis of a narrow, subtriangular and deeply notched at middle metaventral process. Noctophus , although very similar to Anhoraeomorphus (especially to the subgenus Alloconophron due to complete hypomeral ridges), differs in the hypostomal ridges, which do not form the unique single transverse ridge seen in the latter genus. Besides, I am reluctant to place in one genus species that are known to occur in Madagascar and in the eastern United States; at least not until phylogenetic evidence has been found for such a close relationship.

Noctophus is also very similar to the exclusively Southern Hemisphere Sciacharis Broun, 1893 . The latter genus also has unconnected hypomeral ridges, two small asetose basal foveae on each elytron, and nearly identical ventral structures of the pterothorax (illustrated in Jałoszyński (2014a) and Jałoszyński & Newton (2017)). However, there are a few minor differences, as the head in Noctophus is very short (length = width) and very convex; it is neither 'anthiciform' (i.e., subpentagonal and often flattened) as in Sciacharis s. str., nor elongate, as in many Sciacharis (Maorinus) ; also the antebasal pronotal pits in Noctophus are very small, broadly separated and their number is uneven, whereas those in Sciacharis are paired, typically large and the inner pair is narrowly separated at middle or nearly adjacent.

Based on numerous similarities between Noctophus and Sciacharis , the former could be placed as a subgenus of the latter. The distribution ( Noctophus in North America, Sciacharis in New Zealand and Australia ( Jałoszyński & Newton (2017)) does not support such a placement, although some unrevised species of Sciacharis may hide under the name Euconnus and may have a broader distribution. The maxillary palps and male genital structures may be important to clarify the status of Noctophus , especially the aedeagus, which in Sciacharis is remarkably thin-walled and with a weakly sclerotized endophallus. As long as males remain unknown, the problem of relationships between Noctophus and Sciacharis cannot be solved. Tentatively, Noctophus is here removed from Euconnus and restituted as a genus, pending further study.

Figures

FIGURES 14–16. Morphological structures of Euconnus (Noctophus) schmitti (Casey). Dorsal habitus of holotype female (14); head, prothorax and elytral base in dorsal view (15); head, prothorax and anterior portion of pterothorax in ventral view (16). Abbreviations: abp, antebasal pit; bef, basal elytral fovea; bst, basisternal part of prosternum; hr, hypostomal ridge; hyr, hypomeral ridge; ptp, posterior tentorial pit; nss, notosternal suture; smn, submentum.