PROC. ENTOMOL. SOC. WASH. 102(2), 2000. pp. 332-349 SYNOPSIS OF THE MEXICAN AND GUATEMALAN GENERA RUTELISCA BATES AND METAPACHYLUS BATES (COLEOPTERA: SCARABAEIDAE: RUTELINAE) WITH COMMENTS ON CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBTRIBE RUTELINA Mary Liz Jameson W-436 Nebraska Hall, University ofNebraska State Museum, Lincoln, NE 68588-0514 U.S.A. (e-mail: [email protected]) — Abstract. The Mexican and Guatemalan genera Rittelisca Bates and Metapachylus Bates comprise the ^'Rittelisca lineage," a hypothesized monophyletic group in the tribe Rutelini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae). Both genera were considered members of the subtribe Rutelina (tribe Rutelini), but phylogenetic analyses demonstrated that this subtribe is polyphyletic. Classification ofthe subtribe Rutelina is discussed, and taxonomic synopses are provided for the genera Rutelisca and Metapachylus. Key Words: Scarabaeidae, Rutelinae, Rutelina, Rutelisca, Metapachylus, classification, taxonomy, Mexico, Guatemala The little-known genera Rutelisca Bates genus is founded partakes of the charac- and Metapachylus Bates have not been re- ters of Pachylus\ Oryctomorphus~, and viewed or revised taxonomically since their Parastasia^, with the allied Indian forms description by Bates (1888, 1889). Species Didrepanophorus*, Peperonota^, & c, in both genera are black, moderate-sized genera [that are] widely separated in the scarabs (10-15 mm) that are distributed received classification. It has much also from Mexico to Guatemala and are found in common with the genus Rutelisca, in tropical montane forests and cloud for- which would be better placed in its vi- ests. This research provides a synopsis of cinity than in the group Rutelina, the tar- the species in the genera Rutelisca and Me- sal claws not being really unequal in tapachylus and discusses the historical and length, their different curvature only current classification ofthese poorly studied making them appear so. The North- taxa. Bates (1888, 1889) described Metapa- chylus and Rutelisca in the Biologia Cen- ' Ottokelleha d'Andretta and Martfnez 1957 (Rute- trali Americana. He assigned both genera linae: undesignated tribe and subtribe) is the valid name for Pachylus Burmeister 1847 (a junior hom- to an "unindicated group" that he consid- onym ofPachyIns Kollar 1839) ered to be intermediate between the sub- - Oryctomorplnis Guerin-Meneville 1830 (Dynasti- families Dynastinae and Rutelinae. In ef- nae: Pentodontini) fect, he suggested that no taxon existed for "•Parastasia Westwood 1842 (Rutelinae: Rutelini: this unique group. In his discussion of the Parastasiina) genus Metapachylus, Bates (1889: 412) ^Didrepaiwpliorus Woodmason 1878 (Rutelinae: Rutelini: Parastasiina) noted that: ^Peperonota Westwood 1847 (Rutelinae: Rutelini: "... the interesting form on which this Parastasiina) VOLUME 102. NUMBER 2 333 American genus Polymoechus^ apparent- Taxonomic Material ly belongs to the same hitherto unindi- Specimens examined for this study were cated group of genera." provided by 14 institutions and private col- A Bates clearly recognized the short-com- lections. total of 103 specimens, includ- ing type specimens, formed the basis ofthis ings ofthe accepted classification ofhis era, research. Acronyms for lending institutions and he recognized shared characters that united the "unindicated group of genera." follow Arnett et al. (1993). However rather than creating a new taxon BMNH The Natural History Museum, he placed the genera Metapachylus and Ru- London, England (Malcolm Ker- telisco in the subtribe Rutelina (Rutelinae: ley) Rutelini), and he retained the classification CNCI Canadian National Collection of of other aforementioned genera. Ruteline Insects, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada systematists Ohaus (1918. 1934) and Ma- (Jean McNamara, Josee Poirier) chatschke (1972) maintained Metapachylus DJCC Daniel J. Curoe Collection, Palo and Rutelisca as members of the subtribe Alto, CA, USA (Daniel J. Curoe) Rutelina. Classifications of genera and spe- FMNH Field Museum ofNatural History, cies in this "unindicated group" have vac- Chicago, IL, USA (Alfred New- cillated between the subfamilies Dynasti- ton) nae, Rutelinae, and Melolonthinae (i.e., Or- FREY Georg Frey Collection formerly yctomorphus, Ottokelleria [= Pachylus at Zoologische Staatssammlung, Burmeister], genera of Parastasiina, and Munich, Germany (Gerhard genera of Rutelina). The nomenclatural in- Scherer, Max Kuhbanden Martin stability of these genera is indicative of Baer), now at Naturhistorisches classification problems that require further Museum, Basel, Switzerland analyses. HAHC Henry and Anne Howden Collec- My recent work on the phylogeny of the tion, Ottawa, Canada (Henry Howden) tribe Rutelini and subtribe Rutelina (Jame- son 1998) demonstrated that several sub- lEXA Instituto de Ecologia, Xalapa, tribes in the Rutelini were not monophylet- Mexico (Miguel A. Moron) ic, including the subtribe Rutelina (to which KSEM University of Kansas Snow En- the genera Metapachylus and Rutelisca be- tomological Museum, Lawrence, long). The subtribe Rutelina was composed KS, USA (Steve Ashe, Rob of three, independent lineages. One ofthese Brooks) lineages was the Rutelisca lineage" which MCZC Museum of Comparative Zoolo- was composed of""'the genera Metapachylus gy, Cambridge, MA, USA (Ste- phan Cover) and Rutelisca. This lineage was hypothe- MNHN Museum National d'Histoire Na- sized to be monophyletic and closely relat- ed to Old World taxa, including those men- turelle, Paris, France (Jean Men- ier) tioned by Bates (Parastasia, Peperonota, MAMC Miguel A. Moron Collection, Didrepanophorus). Thus, Bates' century- Xalapa, Mexico (Miguel A. Mo- old observation returns us to the problem- ron) atic relationships and classification of these USNM National Museum ofNatural His- poorly studied taxa. tory, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA (Gloria House) tas^iiPnaar)asitsatshiea vWaelsidtwnoaomde(fRourtelPionlayem:oReuctheulisniL:ePCaornatse- ZMHB Museum fiir Naturkunde der 1856 Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin, 334 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON Berlin, Germany (Manfred Uhlig, welder [1944], and Machatschke [1972]) Joachim Schulze) was created by Bates (1888, 1889) for taxa UNAM Collecion Entomologia, Institute that had previously been included in Bur- de Biologia, Universidad Nacion- meister's (1844) "Rutelidae Genuini" and al Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico, Lacordaire's (1856) "Rutelides vraies." DF (Silvia Santiago) The generic composition ofthe subtribe has Definition of Taxonomic Characters not been stable since its inception due to AND Character Examination the inclusion and exclusion of the genera Pelidnota MacLeay (Rutelini: Pelidnotina Internal and external morphological fea- tures formed the basis of this work. Speci- or Rutelina, New World) and Rutelarcha mens were examined with the aid of a dis- Waterhouse, Lutera Westwood, and Cy- secting microscope (6.5 to 50 power) and phelytra Waterhouse (all Rutelini: Parasta- fiber-optic lights. Internal sclerotized struc- siina or Rutelina, all Old World). In con- tures were dissected after relaxing the spec- ducting a revision of the subtribe Rutelina imen in hot water. Heavily sclerotized parts (Jameson 1998), it became apparent that the were soaked in a dilute solution (about phylogenetic limits of the subtribe and the 15%) of potassium hydroxide and neutral- genera in the subtribe were incorrect in the ized in a dilute solution (about 15%) oface- current classification (Machatschke 1972). tic acid. Mouthparts, wings, and genitalia As with many subtribes in the tribe Ru- were studied and card-mounted or placed in telini, subtribal groupings are based on a glycerin-filled vial beneath the specimen. vague diagnoses and characters that are not Species are characterized by combina- constant among all genera. Because of a tions ofcharacters including the form ofthe lack of subtribal definition that is based on clypeus, maxillary palps, and claws; sculp- shared, derived characters, genera have turing of the head, pronotum, eltyra, and been placed and displaced within subtribes. pygidium; and form of the male genitalia. Taxa in the subtribe Rutelina seemed to For measurements, I used an ocular micro- have been grouped by Ohaus (1934) based meter. The following standards are used. on robust body form and similarity in color; Body length: measured from the apex ofthe characters that are not reliable for grouping clypeus to the apex ofthe pygidium. Widest taxa. body width: measured at mid-elytra. Punc- Because subtribal groupings are unstable, ture density: defined as dense if punctures the heuristic power of classifications (e.g., are nearly confluent to less than two punc- in hypotheses of evolution and biogeogra- ture diameters apart, moderately dense if phy) and the utility ofmost taxonomic keys punctures are between two to six puncture (which are based on shared characters) is diameters apart, and sparse if punctures are greatly diminished. Using existing keys to separated by more than six puncture diam- tribes and subtribes (Ohaus 1934, Jameson eters. Length of setae: defined as moderate- 1990), and based on the current classifica- mm ly long if between 0.2-0.6 and long if tion, neither Rutelisca nor Metapachylus between 0.6-1.0 mm. Elytral sutural length: will correctly key to the subtribe Rutelina. measured from the base ofthe elytral suture Rutelisca will key to the subtribe Parasta- to apex. Elytral discal striae: defined as the siina based on its frontoclypeal suture that striae located between the first elytral stria is incomplete medially and elevated later- (laterad of the sutural stria) and the elytral ally and pronotal basal bead that is lacking. humerus. Based on the characters in the key, Meta- Systematics and Classification of the pachylus will key to the subtribe Didrepa- '"RUTELISCA lineage" nephorina (a monogeneric subtribe from In- The "Group Rutelina" (referred to as a dochina). The source ofthis problem is that subtribe by Ohaus [1918, 1934], Black- current classification is composed ofhetero- VOLUME 102, NUMBER 2 335 geneous assemblages of taxa; that is, they tionships of the basal lineages of the tribe are composed of paraphyletic groups. Rutelini. Phylogenetic analysis ofexemplargenera My recent work on the phylogeny of the in the tribe Rutelini (Jameson 1998) dem- Rutelina (Jameson 1998) corroborates onstrated that several subtribes were not Bates' (1888, 1889) suggestion that the monophyletic, including the subtribe Rute- genera Rutelisca and Metapachylus are, in- lina. All species and genera of the Rutelina deed, "intermediate between the true Ru- (as defined by Machatschke [1972]) were telae and Cyclocephali." Bates was the first included in the analyses. Results demon- to recognize the affinities of these poorly strated that the subtribe Rutelina was com- known taxa with the Parastasiina (Ruteli- posed of three, independent clades: the nae: Rutelini) and Cyclocephalini (Dynas- ""Rutelarcha lineage,'' the ""Rutelisca line- tinae). Analyses of the relationships of the age," and the ^'Rutela lineage." Based on Rutelini resulted in questions of possible the results ofthe analyses, I suggested clas- paraphyly between the basal Rutelini and sification changes in the tribe, one ofwhich the subfamily Dynastinae. Sytematists have was eliminating the polyphyletic subtribe long noted "affinities" that the genus Par- Rutelina. astasia and its allies share with the Dynas- The genera Metapachylus and Rutelisca tinae and Rutelinae. Bates (1888: 270) com- comprise the ''Rutelisca lineage." Basal to mented that the genus Rutelisca was "... the ''Rutelisca lineage" is a clade com- an interesting form, intermediate between posed of the Old World genera Fruhstor- the true Rutelae [Rutelinae: Rutelini] and feria Kolbe (subtribe Fruhstorferiina in Ma- the Cyclocephali [Dynastinae: Cylcoce- chatschke [1972]), Kibakoganea Nagai phalini], and having a marked affinity with the Indian and Malayan genus Parastasia/' (subtribe Fruhstorferiina [Nagai 1984, Mi- Bates commented that the "unidentified yake and Muramoto 1992]), Ceroplophana group of genera" should be placed between Gestro, Dicaulocephalus Gestro, and Pe- the Rutelinae and Dynastinae, and he did peronota Westwood (all in the subtribe Par- not assign the group to either subfamily astasiina in Machatschke [1972]). Apical to (Arrow 1907). Arrow (1907) also noted that the "Rutelisca lineage" is either a clade characters in genera such as Oryctomor- composed only of the genus Parastasia phus, Desmonyx, Parastasia, and Metapa- (primarily Old World with one species in chylus (what he calls the "Parastasia the New World) or a clade composed ofthe Group") link the subfamilies Dynastinae Old World genera Rutelarcha, Cyphelytra, and Rutelinae, effectively obscuring the and Lutera (all in the subtribe Parastasiina limits of the subfamilies. Lack of well-de- in Machatschke [1972]). The placement of fined characterizations of the subfamilies the genus Parastasia was not resolved in has exacerbated this classification problem, the analysis (either basal to the clade that resulting in some genera that have been included Fruhsfoiferia, Ceroplophana, Di- placed in both groups (i.e., Oryctomorphus caulocephalus, and Peperonota or apical to and Peltonotus Burmeister). the "Rutelisca lineage"), but inclusion of The "Rutelisca lineage" can be charac- additional taxa such as Oryctomorphus terized as follows: Mandible with one an- (Dynastinae: Pentodontini), Alvarengius teriorly projecting tooth (Figs. 2a-c). Fore- Frey (Melolonthinae), Ottokelleria (Ruteli- tibia with base notched (Fig. 3a). Meso- and nae: incerta sedis), Desmonyx Arrow (Ru- metatarsal claws widely cleft in males and telinae: Rutelini), Mesystoechus Water- females (e.g.. Fig. 3f). Frontoclypeal suture house (Rutelinae: Anoplognathini), and elevated laterally or base of clypeus elevat- Pseudogeniates Ohaus (Rutelinae: Rutelini) ed. Unguitractor plate and associated setae may help to resolve the problem of rela- exposed beyond base of tarsal claw (Figs. 336 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON Fig. \. Ruteliscaflohri (male). . VOLUME NUMBER 102, 2 337 h^<»- Fig. 2. Dorsal view of heads showing differences in palps, sculpturing, and clypeal apices, a, Riitelisca durangoana. b, R.flohri. c, Metapachylus sulcatus. 3e-f). Pronotum lacking basal bead. Max- width 4.0-4.5 transverse eye diameters. illa with poorly developed, peg-like teeth. Clypeal apex rounded, reflexed, lacking Key to the '"Rutelisca lineage": Genera tboeoatdh., aMpaenxdibbllunets; 2w-i4thin1nerresccuirssvoerdi,alatpeiectahl; Metapachylus and Ruteusca molar region moderate to narrow in width. 1 Elytra sulcate, with 5-6 impressed, punctate Labrum rounded or quadrate. Maxilla with striae that nearly reach the elytral apex and weak, conical or peg-like teeth; terminal - bElaystera(Fingo.t5)sulcate, wiMtehtoauptacihmyplruesssseudlcasttursiaeBates segment of palpus (Figs. 3g-h) with or (Fig. 1) Rutelisca 2 without dorsal, longitudinal flattened region 2. Elytra lacking punctate striae. Maxillary palp (surface shagreened). Mentum with apex in dorsal view with longitudinal flattened area reflexed into oral cavity. Antenna 10-seg- extending from base to middle of palp (Fig. mented with 3-segmented club; club sub- 3h). Apex of clypeus broadly parabolic (Fig. equal in length to segments 1-7 combined. 2a) R. durangoana Ohaus - Elytra with weak punctate striae. Maxillary Pronotum: Widest at middle, apicomedial- palp in dorsal view with longitudinal flattened ly weakly protuberant, basolaterally feebly area extending from base to apical third or angled anteriorly (Fig. 1). Variably sculp- fourth (Fig. 3g). Apex ofclypeus narrowlypar- tured, shagreened and punctate. Marginal abolic (Fig. 2b) R.flohri Bates bead complete anteriorly and laterally, in- Genus Rutelisca Bates 1888 complete basally (to slightly beyond basal (Figs. 1, 2a-b, 3a-b, d-h, 4a-b, 6) angle). Scutellum: Parabolic, wider than long; base declivous at elytral base. Mesep- Rutelisca Bates 1888: 270. imeron: Apex entirely hidden by base of Type species: Rutelisca flohri Bates elytra in dorsal and lateral views. Elytra: 1888: 270-271, 408, by monotypy. Variably sculptured, shagreened and with or Description.—Scarabaeidae, Rutelinae, without longitudinal, punctate striae; punc- Rutelini. Form (Fig. 1): Elongate oval, tures simple. Epipleuron from base to mid- sides subparallel, pygidium exposed be- metacoxa with shelf; epipleuron from mid- yond apices ofelytra, apex ofelytrabroadly metacoxa to apex beaded. Apex of elytra rounded. Length from apex of clypeus to weakly rounded, beaded. Sutural angle with apex of pygidium 12.0-20.0 mm; width at apex square or weakly rounded. Elytral su- mid-elytra 5.0-9.5 mm. Head (Figs. 2a-b): tural length about 7.0 times length of scu- Disc of frons and clypeus in lateral view tellum. Propygidium: Hidden or weakly nearly flat, clypeus with margins and apex exposed. Pygidium: Semitriangular, about reflexed. Frons and clypeus variably sculp- twice as wide as long at middle. Variably tured, punctate and rugose. Frontoclypeal sculptured, shagreened and rugose. Margins suture cariniform, incomplete at middle. beaded. Apex rounded or weakly quadrate. Eye canthus weakly cariniform. Interocular Venter: Prostemal keel triangular; apex 338 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON projecting anteroventrally at about 35° with rounded, dilated apex (Fig. 3a). Protibia respect to ventral plane; apex produced to with 3 teeth in apical third, basal tooth level of protrochanter, blunt; basomedially weakly removed from apical teeth; base protuberant. Mesometastemal keel lacking. with protibial notch (Fig. 3a). Modified Stemites 1-4 subequal in width in male and foreclaw of male widely split apically (Fig. female. In lateral view, male stemites flat, 3e), subequal in length to tarsomere 5, female stemites weakly convex. Last ster- twice as thick as unmodified claw, apical nite with apex weakly bisinuate in male, tooth present or absent. Modified foreclaw quadrate in female. Legs: Profemur with of female widely cleft (Fig. 3f), both claws Fig. 3. Diagnostic characters for Rutelisca and Metapochylus. a. Apex offorefemur (rounded and dilated at apex) and foretibia (with base notched) of/?, durangoana (male), b-c, Metatibiae ofR.flohri(b)andM. sulcatus (c) (showing form and apex with seta-like spinulae). d, Mesotibia ofRutelisca (showing form and apex with median, tooth-like projection), e-f, Foretarsi of male R. durangoana (e) female R. durangoana (f) (showing formofforetarsomeres4-5, formoftheclaws, and form ofthe unguitractorplate), g-h. Maxillarypalpus(dorsal view) ofR.flohri (g) and R. durangoana (h) (showing shape and longitudinal, flattened area). VOLUME 102, NUMBER 2 339 subequal in width. Unguitractor plate lat- true Rutelae and the Cyclocephali, and hav- erally flattened, exposed beyond tarsomere ing a marked affinity with the Indian and 5; apex with 2 long setae. Mesotibia (Fig. Malayan genus Parastasia."' For lack of a 3d) with sides subparallel, apex weakly di- better association. Bates (1888) placed the vergent; external edge with 1-2 carinae; in- genus in the subtribe Rutelina. However, in ner apex with 2 spurs; apex with 1 median the Supplement to the Biologia, Bates tooth-like projection that extends to about (1889: 412) assigned the genus to an "un- Va length of tarsomere 1, 2-6 seta-like spi- indicated group" (including Ottokelleria [= nulae present between inner spurs and me- Pachylus], Oryctomorphus, Parastasia, Di- dian tooth, and 2-6 spinulae present laterad drepanephorus, Peperonota, and Metapa- of median tooth; spinulae short and long. chylus) which he placed between the Ru- Meso- and metatarsomere 4 with 2 spinulae telinae and Dynastinae. Moron et al. (1997) apicomedially and 1 seta-like spinule lat- stated that the position of the genus Rutel- erad of spinulae. Meso- and metatarsal isca in the Rutelini required revision. claws of male and female widely cleft. Me- Based on my phylogenetic analyses tacoxal apex laterally square or rounded. (Jameson 1998), the genus Rutelisca is Metatrochanter with apex not produced be- most closely related to the genus Metapa- yond posterior border of femur. Metatibia chylus. Additional analyses ofthe basal Ru- (Fig. 3b) with sides subparallel, apex weak- telini that include such genera as Ottokel- ly divergent; external edge with 1-2 cari- leria, Alvarengius, Desmonyx, Mesystoe- nae; inner apex with 7-10 seta-like spinu- chus, Pseudogeniates (genera not included lae; spinulae both short and long. Para- in Jameson [1998]), Oryctomorphus, and meres: Symmetrical (Figs. 4a—b). Female genera of Heterosternina may yield new genitalia: No—t diagnostic. views of relationships among these poorly Diagnosis. Members of the genus Ru- known taxa and "affinities" with the Dy- telisca differ from other genera in the tribe nastinae. Rutelini by the following characters: man- The genus Rutelisca is one of several dibles with one recurved, apical tooth (Figs. Mexican scarab genera that are endemic to 1, 2a-b); mentum with apex reflexed into the Pacific slopes of Mexico (Moron 1994). oral cavity; frontoclypeal suture incomplete Other scarab endemics include the genera medially, cariniform laterally; apex of me- Callirhinus (Rutelinae), Ischnoscelis, and tatibia with spinules (Fig. 3b); profemur Neoscelis (both Cetoniinae) (Moron 1994). with rounded, dilated apex (Fig. 3a); pro- Moron (1994) hypothesized that these en- tibial base with notch (Fig. 3a); modified demic taxa are relictual elements ofthe Old claw of meso- and metatarsus in male and World fauna. female widely cleft (Fig—. 3f). Distribution (Fig—. 6). Mexico. Rutelisca durangoana Ohaus Natural history. Adults ofRutelisca are not commonly encountered but have been (Figs. 2a, 3e-f, h, 4a, 6) collected under logs, in the soil, under rot- Rutelisca durangoana Ohaus 1905: 312. ting bark, and at lights. Rarity of montane, — pine-oak habitat in the Pacific region of Types. Lectotype male (here designat- ZMHB Mexico may limit the range of Rutelisca ed) at with label data "Canelas, Du- species (Moron 1994). The larva and pupa rango," male genitalia and mouthparts card of one species, R. durangoana Ohaus, were mounted, "Rutelisca durangoana Ohaus" described by Moron and Deloya (1991). (red label, handwritten), with my lectotype — ZMHB Remarks. Bates (1888: 270) comment- label. Lectoallotype at labeled, ed that the genus Rutelisca is "... an in- "Mexico, Canelos, R. Becker," "$," "Ru- teresting form, intermediate between the telisca durangoana cotype 9 Ohs." (red la- 340 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON Fig. 4. Male genitalia in caudal view (left) and lateral view (right), a, Riitelisca diirangoana. b, R.flohii. c, Metapachylus sulcatiis. bel, handwritten), with my lectoallotype la- to rugopunctate; punctures 0.02 (at base)- bel. — 0.08 (at apex) mm. Clypeus with surface Description. Length 14.0-19.0 mm. rugopunctate; shape semicircular; base and Width at elytral humerus 6.9-9.3 mm. Col- sides moderately reflexed, apex broadly re- or: Dorsum, venter, and appendages cas- flexed. Mandibles with 1 apical, recurved taneous to black, with or without orange- tooth; scissorial region with 2-3 poorly de- brown maculae; frons (males) with orange- veloped teeth; molar region narrow. La- brown macula from base to disc, anterior brum rounded apically. Maxilla with 6 border of macula strongly biarcuate. Head poorly developed teeth; terminal segment of (Fig. 2a): Frons moderately densely punc- palpus rod-shaped, with flattened region tate to rugopunctate; area of macula (base from base to mid-palpus (Figs. 2a, 3h). and disc) moderately densely punctate, lat- Mentum with apex quadrate, width of apex eral and apical regions confluently punctate about V2 width of base. Pronotum: Closely — VOLUME 102, NUMBER 2 341 shagreened, moderately densely punctate; area that extends from the base to the mid- punctures 0.01-0.05 mm; larger punctures dle of the palp (Fig. 3h) (in R. flohri, the on sides. Elytra: Closely shagreened, mod- terminal segment of the maxillary palp is erately densely punctate, without punctate kidney bean-shaped with a longitudinal flat- striae; punctures minute-0.07 mm, random- tened area that extends from the base to the ly distributed. Pygidium: Closely sha- apical third or fourth [Fig. 3g]); the broadly greened; with close, weakly undulating parabolic clypeal apex (Fig. 2a) (in R. floh- wrinkles from base to apex, basolaterally ri, the clypeal apex is narrowly parabolic weakly rugose. Apex with moderately long [Fig. 2b]); male with orangish-brown mac- to long setae; setae tawny to rufous. Venter: ulae on the frons only (in R.flohri, maculae Stemite 5 at apex with broad intersegmental are present on the frons, lateral margins of membrane, membrane about Va to Vz width pronotum, bases and apices of the elytra of sternite 5. Sternite 6 subequal in length [Fig. 1]); and female that lacks an orangish- to sternite 4. Last sternite with surface brown macula on the frons (macula present weakly, undulatingly wrinkled to weakly on the frons of R. flohri—females). rugose; apical margin setigerous; setae taw- Distribution (Fig. 6). Mexico, Sonora ny, moderate in length. Legs: Protarsomere south to Michoacan. I have examined 2 5 of male subequal to tarsomeres 1-4. types (see locality data under type data) and Modified foreclaw ofmale widely split api- 50 other specimens from the following lo- cally (Fig. 3e); subequal in length to tar- calities: Aguascalientes (1): La Congoja somere 5; twice as thick as modified claw; [1 lEXA]. DuRANGO (19): Arroyo Hondo apical tooth present. Modified foreclaw of nr. La Flor [1 9 CNCI], Canelos [2 ? 5 d female widely cleft (Fig. 3f); claws sub- ZMHB], La Borrega [1 9 ZMHB], Reserva equal in width. Unguitractor plate laterally Biosfera La Michilia [1 9 DJCC, 8 flattened, exposed beyond tarsomere 5; MAMC, 1 lEXA]. Michoacan (1): Urua- apex with two long, stiff, tawny setae. Me- pan [1 9 ZMHB]. Sinaloa (1): Badiragua- sotibia with sides subparallel, apex weakly to [1 lEXA]. Sonora (7): Yecora [3 divergent; external edge with weak carina MAMC, 2 lEXA, 1 d 1 9 CNCI]. Zaca- in basal V2, 1 carina in apical V3 (e.g.. Fig. TECAS (23): Chalchihuites (8 mi. S) [2 d 1 3d); apex with 1 median, tooth-like projec- 9 FMNH], Chalchihuites (15 mi. SW) [1 tion (extends to about Va length oftarsomere 6 FMNH], Fresnillo (61 mi. W) [3 (5 1 9 1 ), 2 inner spurs, 4-5 seta-like spinulae be- WFMNH], Hac. Laguna Balderama (25 mi. tween spur and median tooth, 2-4 spinulae Fresnillo) [1 6 FMNH], Milpilla (13 mi. laterad of median tooth; spinulae short to W) [6 (?, 6 9 FMNH], Monte Escobido (4 long, rufous. Meso- and metatarsal claws of mi. W) [1 6 1 9 FMNH]—. male and female widely cleft (e.g.. Fig. 3f). Temporal distribution. June (13), July Metatibia with sides subparallel; external (37), August (3), September (4) (label data edge with 1 carina in basal V2, 1 carina in and Moron 1—981). apical V3; apex without corbel, with 2 inner Remarks. Adults of R. durangoana spurs (spurs equal in width in male; ventral have been collected at incandescent lights spur thicker than dorsal spur in female), (Moron 1981, label data), on the bark of with 7-10 seta-like spinulae; spinulae short rotting oak {Quercus sp.) (Moron 1981, or long, reddish. Parameres: Fig. 4a. Ohaus 1934, label data), and under yellow Diagnosis. Rutelisca durangoana is pine bark {Pinus sp.) (label data). Due to separated from R.flohri based on the elytral the paucity of specimens in collections and striae (Fig. 1) (punctate striae lacking in R. the seemingly restricted distribution of the durangoana, present in R. flohri); terminal species. Moron (1981) hypothesized that/?. segment of the maxillary palp that is rod- durangoana was endemic to the state of shaped with a weak, longitudinal, flattened Durango. Additional records (Moron et al.