Studies and reports of District Museum Prague-East Taxonomical Series 5 (1-2): 233-248, 2009 Notes on the genus Eblisia Lewis, 1889 in relation to Platysomatini, with description of four new genera (Coleoptera: Histeridae) Sławomir MAZUR1) & Masahiro ÔHARA2) 1) Department of Forest Protection and Ecology, WULS, Nowoursynowska 159, bld. 34, 02-776 Warszawa, Poland e-mail: [email protected] 2) The Hokkaido University Museum, Hokkaido University, N10 W8, Sapporo, 060-0810 Japan e-mail: [email protected] Taxonomy, new genera, Coleoptera, Histeridae, Platysomatini Abstract. A systematic and taxonomical status of the genus Eblisia Lewis, 1889 and the tribe Platysomatini is analyzed. Four new genera for some species wrongly placed among Eblisia Lewis, 1889 and Silinus Lewis, 1907 are described: Sibelia gen. n. for Eblisia coreana Ôhara et Paik, 1998, Pacifi ster gen. n. for Hololepta urvillei Le Guillou, 1844 and Platylister anatahanensis Ôhara, 1994, Eurosoma gen. n. for Hister minor Rossi, 1792 and Sunilis gen. n. for Platysoma robustum Schmidt, 1892. A key to the genera of Platysomatini is compiled. INTRODUCTION The genus Eblisia was originally erected to include the species “which have no frontal depression such as would authorize their inclusion in Platysoma, and yet at the same time the mesosternum is emarginate in front, a salient character which must exclude them from Phelister (Lewis, 1889: 280). Lewis placed Eblisia among Platysoma section: in his catalogue it is located between Idister Marseul and Cylistix Marseul (Lewis, 1905: 18-19) but Schmidt (1897: 292) did not agree with such a placement, joining all the species of Eblisia again with Phelister and this conception was repeated by Bickhardt (1910: 28-29) in his catalogue. Later Bickhardt (1912: 124) fi rst recognized, indeed, Eblisia as a subgenus Platysoma but shortly after that he synonimized Eblisia with Nicotikis (Bickhardt, 1912b: 224), fi nally placing this genus among the tribe Histerini (Bickhardt, 1917: 156). Such a statement was followed also by Desbordes (1919: 377). Cooman (1941: 319-320) divided again Eblisia and Nicotikis and gave more characteristics separating both these genera and since these defi nitions a general recognition of the genus Eblisia was established. In 1920 Bickhardt (1920: 213) created a new genus Eurylister for the species classifi ed till that time as belonging to Platysoma, having the oval and convex body as well as the marginal stria of prosternal lobe lying close to the margin and parallel to it. He placed here, among others, ”urvillei” Le Guillou and “sequistriatum” Marseul (now in Diister). 233 Considering the convex and oval body Mazur (1972: 138-139) transferred Hister minor Rossi from Platysoma to Eurylister, ignoring the presence and shape of marginal stria of prosternal lobe. Wenzel (1955: 628), however, did not recognize Eurylister as a separate genus: “I do not feel the genus can be recognized or that it can even be treated as a subgenus [of Platysoma]”. Anyway, in the fi rst edition of the world catalogue of Histeridae (Mazur, 1984: 236, 237) Platysoma minor and P. urvillei were placed into Eurylister, treated as a subgenus of Platysoma. Same author (Mazur, 1990: 748-750) synonimized Eurylister, Eblisia and Chronus [the genus erected for the species which superfi cially resemble small Platysoma but the tarsal grooves agree better with those of Phelister (Lewis, 1914: 285), rejecting simultaneously Platysoma urvillei from Eblisia, because of its sternal structure. Consequently, in the second edition of the world catalogue (Mazur, 1997: 66, 80) Hister minor was placed into the genus Eblisia whereas Hololepta urvillei into the subgenus Platylister Lewis (genus Platysoma Leach). Such a treatment of these three genera seems, however, to be going too far and fi nally Mazur (2007: 73) separated again the genera Eblisia (with Chronus as a subgenus) and Eurylister giving more precise defi nitions. In sight of this defi nition Eblisia coreana and E. minor can be not longer treated as Eblisia species and should be transferred to new genera, proposed here. For Eurylister urvillei and Platylister anahatanensis a new genus is also needed. Eblisia guinense Mazur, 1898 is a typical Eurylister species, Platysoma sundae Schmidt, 1889, transferred by Mazur (1999: 3) to Eblisia, belongs to the subgenus Popinus (Platylister). DESCRIPTION OF NEW GENERA Sibelia gen. n. (Figs 13-14) Description. Body oval, depressed. Frontal stria present. Pronotum punctate at antero-lateral angles. Marginal pronotal stria complete at sides, absent anteriorly. Lateral stria complete, carinate at sides. Elytra with dorsal striation and with two subhumeral striae (Fig. 13). Pygidium without elevated margin. Prosternal lobe margined. Prosternum without carinal striae. One lateral stria present. Mesosternum emarginate, margined anteriorly. Mesocoxa without cariniform stria. Post mesocoxal striae absent. Metasternum with lateral striae at sides (Fig. 14). Type species: Eblisia coreana Ôhara et Paik, 1998. Differential diagnosis. See following key. Derivatio nominis. An anagram of Eblisia. Feminine gender. 234 Pacifi ster gen. n. (Figs 22-26) Description. Body oblong, somewhat convex. Forehead fl at, frontal stria present. Pronotum without coarse punctation. Marginal pronotal stria present at sides. Lateral stria marked, interrupted apically, not replaced by apical stria. Elytral striation reduced to two complete dorsal striae. Both subhumeral and sutural striae absent. Prosternal lobe margined, the marginal stria lying close to margin. Prosternum of moderate width, without carinal striae. Both lateral striae present. Mesosternum emarginate at anterior margin, marginal mesosternal stria present, interrupted or complete. Mesocoxa without longitudinal cariniform stria. Post mesocoxal striae absent or strongly reduced. Lateral metasternal striae present. Second abdominal sternite with a transverse stria at sides (Fig. 22). Parameres longer than basal piece, convergent apically (Figs. 23-25). Eight sternite not extending inwardly (Fig. 26). Type species. Hololepta urvillei Le Guillou, 1844. Differential diagnosis. See following key. Derivatio nominis. Pacifi ster, masculine gender, indicates the general distribution of the species. Catalogue: anatahanensis Ôhara, 1994 Mariana Is. urvillei Le Guillou, 1844 Mariana Is., Moluccas, New Guinea, madecassum Desbordes, 1923 Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Fiji, Tahiti, Madagascar (introduced?) Sunilis gen. n. (Figs 27-28) Description. Body oblong, somewhat cylindrical. Frontal stria present. Mandibles incised basally, with one dent at inner margin. Pronotum impunctate. Marginal stria complete. Lateral stria broadly interrupted behind the head, prolongated on pronotal base and margining it. Elytral striation present, dorsal striae connected by a transverse line (Fig. 27). Subhumeral striae wanting. Prosternal lobe margined. Prosternum narrow, with carinal striae margining the base. Both lateral striae present. Mesosternum emarginate anteriorly, with complete marginal stria only. Mesocoxa without carina. Metasternum margined laterally, post mesocoxal striae absent (Fig. 28). Type species: Platysoma robustum Schmidt, 1892 Differential diagnosis. See following key. Derivatio nominis. Sunilis is an anagram of Silinus. Masculine gender. 235 Eurosoma gen. n. (Figs 61-66) Description. Body oval, moderately convex. Frontal stria present. Mandibles with longitudinal stria at base. Pronotum densely and rugosely punctured at sides. Marginal stria complete, lateral stria marked at sides only, parallel to margin. Dorsal striation present (Fig. 61). Subhumeral striae absent. Prosternal lobe anteriorly margined. Prosternum with carinal striae at base. Both lateral striae present. Mesosternum deeply emarginate, marginal stria present as well as two transverse, short fragments of additional striae at anterolateral angles. Mesocoxa with longitudinal striiform carina. Metasternum fl at, distinctly margined laterally. Post mesocoxal stria absent (Fig. 62). Parameres a little longer than basal piece, arcuately convergent at apical 1/3 (Figs 63-65). Eight sternum wider than long (Fig. 66). Type species: Hister minor Rossi, 1792 (= H. frontalis Paykull, 1798). Differential diagnosis. See following key. Derivatio nominis. The name refers to Europe where Eurosoma minor commonly occurs. Neuter gender. SYSTEMATIC STATUS OF PLATYSOMATINI As primarily defi ned (Bickhardt, 1917: 121) the S-shaped tarsal grooves on foretibia are the main character distinguishing the tribe Platysomatini among Histerinae. According to this defi nition the genus Omalodes Erichson, 1834 and allied genera were also placed here. This conception was followed by other coleopterologists (Wenzel, 1962: 376). Kryzhanovskij (1972: 20) gave a more precise definition of the tribe when establishing a new tribe Omalodini. The tribe Platysomatini may be separated, among others, from Omalodini by lateral metasternal stria being never curved, extending or not, to the apical margin whereas the outwardly curved lateral metasternal stria, extending to the anterior part of metasternal-metepisternal suture is a typical feature of the tribe Omalodini (Fig. 77). Next De Marzo & Vienna (1982: 80-88) pointed out the antennal structure (V-shaped sutures) as a character typical for “Platysoma-Hololepta-Omalodes complex”. Adopting this solution Mazur (1990: 751) presented a new conception of a tribal subdivision among Histerinae, emphasizing the antennal sutures from which at least one of them being interrupted on underside as a feature discriminating Platysomatini from Omalodini. Ślipiński & Mazur (1999: 229) rejected the tribal subdivision among Histerinae because, according to their analysis, the tribe Omalodini, as compared with Platysomatini and Hololeptini, represents plesiomorphic status and cannot be defi ned as a monophyletic taxon. On contrary, Caterino & Vogler (2002: 408) did not fi nd in their studies on the phylogeny of Histeridae, based on DNA analysis, any reason supporting this solution and they recommended to keep more traditional taxonomy (as presented in Mazur, 1997) until a truly comprehensive phylogeny can be established. 236 Not resolving defi nitely phylogenetic relationships among Histerinae we recognize Platysomatini as a well separated tribe which may be defi ned as follows: Body more or less depressed, sometimes very fl at, often subparallel or parallel. Antennal club with two V-shaped sutures which my be complete (Figs. 2, 20) or interrupted (Figs. 39, 41, 53). Foretibia with more or less S-shaped (Figs. 3, 12, 19, 41, 49) or straight tarsal groove, with dents (Figs. 3, 7), spiny dents (Figs 12, 42, 44) or spines (Fig. 19) at anterior margin. Lateral metasternal stria not curved outwardly, extending (Figs 1, 11, 14, 28, 34, 56, 68, 75) or not (Fig. 50) to the metacoxa. One can separate three distinct groups: 1. species with one lateral prosternal stria. A very heterogenous group in which a systematic position of some genera remains still unclear. 2. species without longitudinal carina on mesocoxa. So called “Eblisia section”. 3. species with longitudinal carina on mesocoxa. So called “Platysoma section”. An examination of Platysoma robustum Schmidt, 1892 showed that this species did not belong to the genus Silinus Lewis because of the lack of mesocoxal carina, presence of carinal striae and one simple dent at outer margin of mandibles, completely margined pronotal base and body form (Figs. 27-28). This species belongs to the “Eblisia section” and a new genus, Sunilis, is proposed for it. Detailed studies conducted within last 10 years showed that some genera classifi ed previously among Platysomatini should have been removed from it. This is true for Macrosternus Marseul, 1853 (Exosternini), Sternoglyphus Desbordes, 1916 (most probably Histerini) [Mazur & Ôhara, 2000: 53-54], Theropatina Mazur, 1984 (Histerini or Omalodini), Platybletes Thérond, 1952 (Exosternini) [Mazur & Ôhara, 2000b: 327, 332], Caenolister Bickhardt, 1921 (Exosternini, Ôhara & Mazur, 2000: 7) and Heudister Cooman, 1940 (Exosternini, Ôhara & Mazur, 2002: 2). There are also four next genera that have been originally classifi ed among Platysomatini: Epuraeosoma Ślipiński & Mazur (1999: 210-212), Gomyoscelis Degallier (2001: 9-10), Blypotehus Vienna (2000: 80) and Perfi dolenus Vienna (2000: 85-86). All these genera differ markedly from those of Platysomatini in common sense and the further studies are needed to explain their fi nal tribal (or subfamiliar) status. Anyway, at present we hesitate to keep them in Platysomatini. The remaining genera of this tribe may be separated as follows: 237 Figs 1-12. 1-5: Placodes senegalensis; 6-9: Plaesius (Hyposolenus) laevigatus; 10-12: Microlister coronatus. 1,6,11- upper side; 2- antenna; 3, 7, 12- foretibia; 4,8- mesotibia; 5,9- metatibia; 10- upper side. 238 Figs 13-20. 13-14: Sibelia; 15-16: Aulacosternus zelandicus; 17-20: Idister morphon; 13,15,17- upper side; 14,16,18- under side; 19- foretibia; 20- antenna. 239 Figs 21-30. 21: Placodister nudisternus, under side; 22-26: Pacifi ster urvillei: 22- under side; 23- edeagus, dorsal; 24- edeagus, ventral; 25- edeagus, lateral; 26 - 8th segment; 27-28: Sunilis robustus, 29-30: Nicotikis incisipyge; 27, 29- upper side; 28, 30- under side. 240 Figs 31-34. Eblisia sp.: 31- upper side; 32- under side; Eurylister sp.: 33- upper side; 34- under side. 241 Figs 35-45. 35-36: Apobletes schaumei; 37-38: Afrosoma capense; 39-40: Desbordesia maindroni; 41-43: Diister omalodellus; 44-45: D. platysomoides; 35,37- lateral view; 36,38,40,43,45- under side; 39,41- antenna; 42,43- foretibia. 242