Кавказский энтомол. бюллетень 14(Suppl.): 3–8 © CAUCASIAN ENTOMOLOGICAL BULL. 2018
1Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya Emb., 1, St. Petersburg 199034 Russia. E-mail: agk@zin.ru, kirejtshuk@gmail.com
2All-Russian Institute of Plant Protection, Podbelskiy roadway, 3, St. Petersburg, Pushkin 196608 Russia. E-mail: melasis313@gmail.com
1Зоологический институт Российской академии наук, Университетская наб., 1, Санкт-Петербург 199034 Россия
2Всероссийский институт защиты растений, шоссе Подбельского, 3, Санкт-Петербург, Пушкин 196608 Россия
Key words: Coleoptera, Nitidulidae, Carpophilus s. str., new species, designation of lectotypes, synonymy, Palaearctic, Mediterranean, Sahara.
Ключевые слова: Coleoptera, Nitidulidae, Carpophilus s. str., новый вид, обозначение лектотипов, синонимия, Палеарктика, Средиземноморье, Сахара.
Abstract. Carpophilus (Carpophilus) saharaensis sp. n. belonging to the bifenestratus-group, which is distributed mostly in the Afro-Malagasy (Afrotropical, Capean and Malagasy) Regions, is described from Algeria (Theniet el Had). This group is first proposed. Its diagnosis, composition, variability and distribution are discussed. The lectotypes of Carpophilus (Carpophilus) bifenestratus Murray, 1864, C. (C.) biguttatus Klug, 1862 and C. (C.) binotatus Murray, 1864 are designated. The renewed synonymy for the species name C. (C.) bifenestratus and also the information on variability of this species and probable synonymy with Carpophilus (Carpophilus) bipustulatus (Heer, 1841) (Ips) are given. The latter name needs a re-examination of the type series used for its proposal.
Резюме. Описан Carpophilus (Carpophilus)
saharaensis sp. n. из Алжира (Тхениэт Эл Хад), относящийся к группе bifenestratus, которая распространена преимущественно в Афро- Мадагаскарских (Афротропической, Капской и Мадагаскарской) областях. Эта группа предложена впервые. Обсуждается ее диагноз, состав и распространение. Обозначены лектотипы Carpophilus (Carpophilus) bifenestratus Murray, 1864,
C. (C.) biguttatus Klug, 1862 и C. (C.) binotatus Murray, 1864. Дана обновленная синонимия для видового названия C. (C.) bifenestratus, а также информация об изменчивости этого вида и его возможной синонимии с Carpophilus (Carpophilus) bipustulatus (Heer, 1841) (Ips). Последнее название нуждается в переизучении типовой серии, использованной для его предложения.
DOI: 10.23885/18143326201814S38
The genus Carpophilus Stephens, 1829 consists of some subgenera (Askocarpolus Kirejtshuk, 2008; Caplothorax Kirejtshuk, 1997; Carpophilus s. str.; Ecnomorphus Motschulsky, 1857; Gaplocarpolus Kirejtshuk, 1997;
Megacarpolus Reitter, 1919; Myothorax Murray, 1864; Plapennipolus Kirejtshuk, 1997; Semocarpolus Kirejtshuk, 2008) [Kirejtshuk, 2008]. The subgenus Carpophilus s. str. includes the hemipterus-group, whose species, in contrast to other consubgeners, have more or less distinct yellowish spots on elytra (sometimes scarcely expressed in very light immature specimens): Carpophilus (Carpophilus) africanus Kirejtshuk, 2001; C. (C.) bifenestratus Murray, 1864;
? C. (C.) bipustulatus (Heer, 1841); C. (C.) binotatus Murray, 1864; C. (C.) bisignatus Boheman, 1851; C. (C.) delkeskampi Hisamatsu, 1963; C. (C.) hemipterus (Linnaeus, 1758);
C. (C.) indicus Hisamatsu, 1963; C. (C.) jelineki Audisio et Kirejtshuk, 1988 (= politus Jelínek, 1986, non Heer, 1841); C. (C.) ligatus Murray, 1864; C. (C.) quadrisignatus Erichson, 1843; C. (C.) spinosus Kirejtshuk, 1995 and
C. (C.) tegmenalis Kirejtshuk, 1995. This group, in turn, can be splitted into two subgroups as following: (I) species with narrower and subflattened body and the postmesocoxal line slightly and more densely undulate (bifenestratus- subgroup): C. (C.) bifenestratus, ? C. (C.) bipustulatus,
C. (C.) binotatus and C. (C.) spinosus; and (II) species with more robust and convex body, and also with the postmesocoxal line strongly and more sparsely undulate (hemipterus-subgroup): C. (C.) africanus, C. (C.) bisignatus,
C. (C.) delkeskampi, C. (C.) hemipterus, C. (C.) indicus,
C. (C.) jelineki, C. (C.) ligatus, C. (C.) quadrisignatus and
C. (C.) tegmenalis, although not infrequently specimens of the last-mentioned species and C. (C.) africanus have the body somewhat intermediate between the members of these two subgroups in its width and convexity, and the postmesocoxal line of C. (C.) africanus becomes obsolete. The pattern of coloration on elytra among the species of both subgroups is different. The former (bifenestratus- subgroup) is characterized by two paramedian yellowish spots near the middle of elytra, while the species of the latter (hemipterus-subgroup) have similar spots located at the inner apical (suturoapical) angles of elytra and the yellowish pattern of elytra frequently becomes more complex and reaches the base of elytra. Besides, both subgroups have some difference in distribution: the former (bifenestratus- subgroup) is spread mostly in the Mediterranean Province (including Kazakhstan) and Afro-Malagasy Regions, and only one species (C. (C.) bifenestratus) probably thanks to its association with stored products became subcosmopolitous, while the latter (hemipterus-subgroup) is distributed in natural habitats in all regions of the Eastern Hemisphere, but its many species more or less increased their initial range thanks to inhabitance in buildings and feeding on different remains of plant origin.
This paper is devoted to a description of one new species of the bifenestratus-subgroup of the subgenus Carpophilus s. str. from Algeria found among specimens named by A. Grouvelle as “Carpophilus bifenestratus” in the collection of the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle (hereafter MNHN, Paris, France).
After current study of the specimens of the new species the holotype and most paratypes of it were deposited in MNHN and a part of paratypes were taken for depository in the collection of Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (hereafter ZIN, St. Petersburg, Russia). For comparative study specimens from many collections were used, including the Natural History Museum (British Museum of Natural History, hereafter BMNH, London, Great Britain), Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universität (hereafter ZMB, Berlin, Germany). The study of specimens examined was carried out with the stereomicroscopes MBS-10; the photographs were taken with a Canon EOS 11 40D digital camera with a Canon MP-E 65 mm objective and were combined using Zerene Stacker 1.04 software.
Type species: Dermestes hemipterus Linnaeus, 1758 (designated by Parsons [1943]).
Carpophilus (Carpophilus) saharaensis sp. n.
(Figs 1–4, 6–9)
Material. Holotype, ♂ (MNHN) with labels: “Algérie, Teniet el Haad, June, 1892” [Algeria, Theniet el Had], “Carpophilus bifenestratus”
(det. Grouvelle), “Coll. A. Grouvelle”. Paratypes, 16 specimens (11 – MNHN,
5 – ZIN) with labels: “Algérie, Teniet el Haad, June, 1892”, “Algérie, Teniet el Haad” or “Algérie, Teniet el Had”, “Carpophilus bifenestratus” (det. Grouvelle), “Coll. A. Grouvelle”.
Head, pronotal and elytral integument with distinct and regular punctures nearly twice greater than eye facets in diameter (at sides on pronotum and elytra) or somewhat smaller (on head and pronotal disk), interspaces between them greater than one puncture diameter at pronotal disk and smaller on other places, smoothly cellularly microreticulated. Uncovered tergites and hypopygidium with suboval and indistinct punctures, markedly smaller than those on other dorsal sclerites, interspaces between them about one puncture diameter, with dense and coarse microreticulation. Prosternal integument with less distinct punctures about twice as great as eye facets in diameter, interspaces between them markedly less than one puncture diameter and with rather smooth microreticulation. Integument of metaventrite with distinct and quite deep punctures, as coarse as those on prosternum, interspaces between them about 1–3 times as great as one puncture diameter and almost completely smooth; punctures on ventrites 1–4 becoming smaller, shallower and sparser distally, interspaces between them nearly smoothed on ventrite 1 and becoming more clearly microreticulated on ventrites 2–4.
Head about 0.7 time as long as distance between eyes. Antennae about 0.8 time as long as width of head; antennomere 2 (pedicel) slightly longer than antennomere 3 and more than 3 times as long as antennomere 4; their club suboval (about 1.2 times as long as wide), comprising about third of total antennal length and with subequal width of antennomeres 9–11. Pronotum evenly convex, with abrupt anterior and slightly bisinuate posterior edges, sides even to slightly undulate, arcuately narrowed from middle to rounded anterior angles and subparallel-sided in posterior half, its posterior angles widely rounded and scarcely projecting. Scutellum subpentagonal with slightly projecting and widely rounded apex. Elytra shorter than wide combined, flattened on disk, sides steeply sloping to lateral edges. Pygidium somewhat longer than penultimate tergite, with apical edge widely rounded. Antennal grooves distinctly outlined in both inner and outer edges and strongly convergent. Ultimate labial palpomere somewhat widened to apex and almost as wide as long. Mentum more than 3 times as wide as long. Distance between procoxae nearly twice smaller and that between metacoxae 1.5 times as great as that between mesocoxae. Prosternal process strongly carinate in narrowest place and strongly widened before apex, its apex about 1.7 times as wide as antennal club, posterior edge subtransverse in middle and widely rounded at sides. Mesoventrite without both trace of isolated flattened distal plate and median carina. Metaventrite subflattened and with median suture (discrimen), deeply depressed at convex anterior edge between mesocoxae, its posterior edge between metacoxae feebly angularly excised. Postmesocoxal line almost smooth to very weakly undulate, subparallel to posterior edge of cavities and deviating only at inner edge of metepisterna. Ventrite 1 markedly longer than ventrite 4, hypopygidium slightly longer than ventrite 1 and without depressions at medioapical excision. Epipleura at base slightly narrower than antennal club.
Tibiae comparatively short and rather stout; pro- and mesotibiae somewhat wider, but metatibia somewhat narrower than antennal club, subtriangular, with nearly straight inner edge and slightly prominent outer subapical angle, outer edge of meso- and metatibiae with sparse and short stout spines. Femora with anterior and posterior edges gently curved, pro- and mesofemora
Figs 1–5. Species of the subgenus Carpophilus s. str., males.
1–4 – Carpophilus (Carpophilus) saharaensis sp. n.: 1 – body, dorsal view, 2 – idem (without abdomen and posterior legs), ventral view; 3 – mentum, antennal grooves and labial palpi, ventral view; 4 – posterior leg, ventral view; 5 – C. (C.) indicus, distal plate of mesoventrite, ventral view. Scale bars 0.5 mm.
Рис. 1–5. Виды подрода Carpophilus s. str., самцы.
1–4 – Carpophilus (Carpophilus) saharaensis sp. n.: 1 – тело, вид сверху, 2 – то же (без брюшка и задних ног), вид снизу, 3 – ментум, усиковые бороздки и лабиальные щупики, вид снизу, 4 – задняя нога, вид снизу; 5 – C. (C.) indicus, дистальная пластинка мезовентрита, вид снизу. Масштабные линейки 0.5 мм.
about 1.5 times, and metafemur about 2.5 times as wide as corresponding tibiae. Protarsus about half as wide as protibiae, claws long and narrow.
Aedeagus comparatively small, length of tegmen 0.3 and width of ventral plate 0.1 mm, tegmen heavily sclerotized with one hyaline accessory process at lateral edges of tegmen; armature of inner sac of penis represented by unclear sclerotization at proximal end.
Female. Differs from male in slightly narrower protarsi, longer subtriangular and subflattened pygidium with subacute apex and much longer hypopygidium (nearly 1.5 times as long as ventrite 1). Ovipositor similar to that of C. (C.) bifenestratus; moderately long and slightly sclerotized, but its apex with long styli located apically.
Variations. Body length 1.9–3.2 mm, ratio of general length to width l.7–2.7. Some variation is observed in body coloration, puncturation and microsculpture, although yellowish spots on
elytra and lightening of antennal flagella and legs in all cases are more or less expressed. Ultimate labial palpomere demonstrates a certain variability width of its apex.
Diagnosis. This new species stands far apart from other species of the hemipterus-group (Carpophilus (Carpophilus) bifenestratus, ? C. (C.) bipustulatus,
C. (C.) binotatus, C. (C.) bisignatus, C. (C.) delkeskampi,
C. (C.) hemipterus, C. (C.) indicus, C. (C.) jelineki,
C. (C.) ligatus, C. (C.) quadrisignatus, C. (C.) spinosus and C. (C.) tegmenalis) due to its comparatively slender and dorsally subflattened body, peculiar pattern of elytral spots, not raised distal plate of mesoventrite, as well as due to the male genital structure, particularly in the tegmen. Carpophilus (Carpophilus) saharaensis sp. n. belongs to
Figs 6–13. Male genital structures of species of the subgenus Carpophilus s. str. (Figs 10, 11 after Kirejtshuk [1995]).
6–9 – Carpophilus (Carpophilus) saharaensis sp. n.: 6 – tegmen, lateral view, 7 – idem, ventral view, 8 – penis trunk, dorsal view, 9 – ventral plate and spiculum gastrale, ventral view; 10–11 – C. (C.) spinosus: 10 – tegmen, lateral view, 11 – idem, ventral view; 12–13 – C. (C.) indicus: 12 – tegmen, lateral view, 13 – idem, ventral view. Scale bars 0.25 mm.
Figs 6–13. Структуры гениталий самцов Carpophilus s. str. (рис. 10, 11 по [Kirejtshuk, 1995]).
6–9 – Carpophilus (Carpophilus) saharaensis sp. n.: 6 – тегмен, вид сбоку, 7 – то же, вид снизу, 8 – ствол пениса, вид сверху, 9 – вентральная пластинка и spiculum gastrale, вид снизу; 10–11 – C. (C.) spinosus: 10 – тегмен, вид сбоку, 11 – то же, вид снизу; 12–13 – C. (C.) indicus: 12 – тегмен, вид сбоку; 13 – то же, вид снизу. Масштабные линейки 0.25 мм.
the bifenestratus-subgroup consisting of narrower species with almost simple postmesocoxal line (see above) and it is distinct among the members in the absence of trace of distal plate on its mesoventrite, as on that of C. (C.) spinosus, however, the male aedeagi (particularly tegmina) of both
lastly-mentioned species are rather different (Figs 6, 7, 10, 11). On the other hand, the hyaline processes on the lateral edges of tegmen are known, except the new species, only in one member of the subgenus Carpophilus s. str., only in C. (C.) indicus (hemipterus-subgroup), but the shape
of the tegmina of this species and C. (C.) saharaensis sp. n. as well as the position and shape of their hyaline processes along the lateral edges of tegmina are rather different (Figs 6, 7, 12, 13). In addition to this genital difference
C. (C.) indicus has also a rather raised distal plate on the mesoventrite (Fig. 5) and other characters mentioned for the hemipterus-subgroup (see above). Besides, the new species differs from other members of hemipterus-group in the comparatively shorter antennal flagella.
Carpophilus (Carpophilus) saharaensis sp. n. and
C. (C.) spinosus have no remains of lateral and median ridges of the distal plate of the mesoventrite, while such plate is variable in more or less common species of the subgenus Carpophilus s. str., and in many specimens of
C. (C.) bifenestratus it become rather reduced, particularly in smallest representatives (which were frequently determinated as “Carpophilus bipustulatus”).
Dobson [1993] described “Carpophilus delkeskampi australiensis” from Australia differing from
C. (C.) delkeskampi and C. (C.) indicus, according to the original description, mostly in the castaneous body with the uniformly lighter elytra and the tegmen with “small angular terminal hyaline projection of the lateral lobes” [Dobson, 1993: 9]. It can be supposed that this form seems to be a separate species of the subgenus Carpophilus s. str. quite different from both (C. (C.) delkeskampi and
C. (C.) indicus) in the mentioned characters, however, it could not be a member of the bifenestratus-subgroup.
The taxonomic interpretation and synonymy of Carpophilus (Carpophilus) bifenestratus here accepted is based on previous study of the types of C. (C.) tersus and
C. (C.) sanguineofasciatus [Audisio, Kirejtshuk, 1988], and also on further testing the types of C. (C.) bifenestratus which completely fit the previous interpretation of this species by Kirejtshuk [1996: 25–27]. The lectotype of
C. bifenestratus, male (BMNH), here designated has the labels: “Ceylon”, “bifenestratus”, “68.106”, “Type”, and lectotype of C. (C.) biguttatus, male (ZMB), here designated (designated by S. Endrody-Younga in collection but not published), and 2 paralectotypes (ZMB) of C. biguttatus have the labels: “biguttatus Kl., Madagasc., Goud.”, “8363”. The type series of C. (C.) tenenbaumi Roubal, 1926 (Israel) remained untested is presumably deposited in the collection of the Slovak National Museum in Bratislava. The type of
? Carpophilus (Carpophilus) bipustulatus Heer, 1841 (Ips) [Heer, 1841: 416: “Genf und im Wallis”] also needs a re- examination, because its interpretation after Spornraft [1967] could be treated as a variety of C. (C.) bifenestratus. Spornraft [1967] included in the European fauna only one species from the mentioned pair, C. (C.) bipustulatus and
C. (C.) bifenestratus. Later Spornraft [1992] and Audisio [1993] distinguished two species (Carpophilus bipustulatus and C. tersus) mostly after the outline of the lateral lobes of tegmen. Both last-mentioned researchers pointed out that C. (C.) bipustulatus is spread in Southern Europe and “Central Asia”, while C. (C.) bifenestratus (named as
C. “tersus”) in the Afrotropical and “acclimatized throughout Mediterranean countries” [Audisio, 1993: 237–238]. Indeed all specimens examined from the Caucasus, Transcaucasia, Middle East and Kazakhstan seem to be conspecific with other C. (C.) bifenestratus demonstrating a certain variation in the lateral lobes of tegmen within
C. (C.) bifenestratus sensu Spornraft [1992] (named as “tersus”) and C. (C.) bipunctatus sensu Spornraft [1967, 1992]. Specimens of this species from natural localities in the Mediterranean seem to be frequently somewhat smaller than those from southern areas and have the comparatively less raised to obsolete distal plate of mesoventrite (completely without median carina) and less curved distal parts of the lateral lobes of tegmen which could be interpreted as “Carpophilus bipustulatus” sensu Spornraft [1967, 1992], Audisio [1993] and other researchers. Nevertheless among large series from the Afrotropical and Indo-Malayan Regions there are also present some rather small specimens with weak to obsolete distal plate of mesoventrite and less curved distal parts of the lateral lobes of tegmen, although any clear correlation between the peculiar structure of mesoventrite and certain shape of tegmen is scarcely traceable. Crucial argument on correspondence of the type series of C. (C.) bipustulatus and other type series of the names synonymized with
C. (C.) bifenestratus can be obtained after a further re-
examination of the type series of C. (C.) bipustulatus and also additional materials from the Caucasus, Transcaucasia, Near East, Middle Asia and Kazakhstan. It is preliminarily accepted that the forms “C. (C.) bifenestratus” and “C. (C.) bipustulatus” could be somewhat isolated in the past distribution (but not now) or they still now have some level of isolation and can be treated as two subspecies of the same species. On the other hand, the African
C. (C.) binotatus (lectotype, male (BMNH) here designated with the labels: “Guinea, Sra Leone”, “ex Mus. Murray”, “Fry Coll. 1905-100” , “51849”) with a weakly raised distal plate of the mesoventrite differs from C. (C.) bifenestratus also mostly in the lateral lobes of tegmen widened before apex [Kirejtshuk, 1996: 26, figs 6–7]. Thus, the current synonymy of C. (C.) bifenestratus can be recognized as following:
Carpophilus (Carpophilus) bifenestratus Murray, 1864
= Carpophilus biguttatus Klug, 1862: 208
(Madagascar), non Motschulsky, 1858: 43;
= Carpophilus bifenestratus Murray, 1864: 364 (Sri Lanka);
= Ips tersus Wollaston, 1865: 16 (Canary Islands, La Gomera);
= Carpophilus sanguineofasciatus Gemminger et Harold, 1868: 813, non Murray, 1864: 364 et non Dejean,
1837: 134 (for Carpophilus biguttatus Klug, 1862: 208);
= Carpophilus tenenbaumi Roubal, 1926: 171 (Israel);
= Ips bipustulatus auctorum, non Heer, 1841: 416 (Switzerland).
The authors greatly appreciate to many colleagues for their assistance in getting specimens for their studies, particularly to Maxwell V.L. Barclay (BMNH), Nicole
Berti (MNHN), Martin Brendell (BMNH), Thierry Deuve (MNHN), Michael Geiser (BMNH), Fritz Hieke (ZMB), Bernd Jäger (ZMB), Antoine Mantilleri (MNHN), Olivier Montreuil (MNHN), André Nel (MNHN) and Manfred Uhlig (ZMB).
The studies were carried out under the framework of the Russian State Research Project No. АААА-А17-117030310210-3, Programme of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Problems of the origin of life and formation of the biosphere” and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant 18-04- 00243-a).
Audisio P. 1993. Coleoptera Nitidulidae-Kateretidae. Fauna d’Italia.
Vol. XXXII. Bologna: Edizioni Calderini. 971 p.
Audisio P., Kirejtshuk A.G. 1988. On taxonomy and nomenclature of some Palaearctic nitidulid beetles (Coleoptera, Nitidulidae). Entomologicheskoe obozrenie. 67(4): 790–797 (in Russian).
Dejean P.F.M.A. 1837. Catalogue des coléoptères de la collection de
M. le comte Dejean. Troisième édition. Paris: Méquignon-Marvis Père et Fils. XIV + 503 p.
Dobson R.M. 1993. New species and subspecies of Carpophilus Stephens (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) from the Australasian region. Storkia. 2: 1–12.
Gemminger M., Harold B. de. 1868. Catalogus coleopterorum hucusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus. T. 3. Monachii (München): Sumptu E.H. Gummi. 753–978.
Heer O. 1841. Fauna Coleopterorum Helvetica. Pars 1. Turici: Orelii, Fuesslini et Sociorum. XII + 652 p.
Kirejtshuk A.G. 1995. New taxa of the Nitidulidae (Coleoptera) of the Eastern Hemisphere. Part 5. In: Trudy Zoologicheskogo instituta RAN. Tom 258. Novosti sistematiki nasekomykh Vostochnogo polushariya [Proceedings of Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Volume 258. News of systematics of insects of the Eastern Hemisphere]. St. Petersburg: Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences: 3–50 (in Russian).
Kirejtshuk A.G. 1996. Some results of study on the Nitidulidae from Namibia and adjacent territories. Part 1 (Coleoptera, Cucujoidea, Nitidulidae). Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin. 72(1): 21–52. DOI: 10.1002/mmnz.19960720106
Kirejtshuk A.G. 2008. A current generic classification of sap beetles (Coleoptera, Nitidulidae). Zoosystematica Rossica. 17(1): 107–122.
Klug F. 1862. Coleoptera. Käfer. In: Naturwissenschaftliche Reise nach Mossambique auf Befehl Seiner Majestät des Königs Friedrich Wilhelm IV. In den Jahren 1842 bis 1848 ausgefuhrt. Zoologie, V. Insecten und Myriopoden. Berlin: G. Reimer Verlag: 145–348.
Motschulsky V. de. 1858. Insectes des Indes orientales. l-ière Série. Études entomologiques. 7: 20–122, 2 pls.
Murray Α. 1864. Monograph of the family of Nitidulariae. Part I. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London. 24: 211–414, pls. 32–35.
Parsons C.T. 1943. A revision of the Nearctic Nitidulidae (Coleoptera). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. 92(3): 121–278.
Roubal J. 1926. Zwei neue palaearktische Coleopteren. Entomologischer Anzeiger. 6: 171.
Spornraft K. 1967. 50. Familie: Nitidulidae. In: Die Käfer Mitteleuropas.
Bd 7. Krefeld: Goecke & Evers: 20–77.
Spornraft K. 1992. 50. Familie: Nitidulidae. In: Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Bd 13, 2. Supplementband mit Katalogteil. Krefeld: Goecke & Evers: 91–112.
Wollaston T.V. 1865. Coleoptera Atlantidum, being an enumeration of the coleopterous insects of the Madeiras, Salvages, and Canaries. London:
J. van Voorst. xlvii + 526 p. + Appendix and Index 140 p.
Received / Поступила: 15.10.2018 Accepted / Принята: 6.11.2018