identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
8A79BB71023CFF8AFF57AC2EFD02F982.text	8A79BB71023CFF8AFF57AC2EFD02F982.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aleochara Gravenhorst 1802	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Aleochara Gravenhorst, 1802</p>
            <p> Aleochara Gravenhorst, 1802: 67 . Type species:  Staphylinus curtulus Goeze, 1777 (=  Staphylinus fuscipes sensu Gravenhorst, 1802 ). Note: for a complete discussion of type species of  Aleochara , see Smetana (2004:30). For a complete synonymy list see Klimaszewski (1984:8) and Smetana (2004:353). </p>
            <p> Mecorhopalus Solier, 1849:348 . Type species:  Mecorhopalus elongatus Solier, 1849 , subsequent designation by Chenu &amp; Desmarest 1857:18. Solier, 1849:348 (Description of the genus, containing three species). Chenu &amp; Desmarest 1857:18 (Type species designation). Fairmaire &amp; Germain, 1861:413 (Revision, subjective synonym of genus  Aleochara ). Fauvel 1866:285 (Revision, subjective synonym of genus  Aleochara ). Fenyes, 1918:23 (  Staphylinus curtulus Goeze, 1777 as type species of  Mecorhopalus ). Note: this species was not originally included by Solier in the genus (art. 67.2.1 ICZN 1999), and the designation of the type species was already made (art. 69.1 ICZN 1999), then here this is considered as invalid designation. Bernhauer &amp; Scheerpeltz, 1926:775 (Catalogue; as subjective synonym of  Aleochara ). Tottenham, 1939:228 (  Mecorhopalus ater as type species of  Mecorhopalus ). Note: the designation of type species was already made (art. 69.1 ICZN 1999), then here this is considered as invalid designation. Blackwelder 1952:232 (Catalogue; as subjective synonym of  Aleochara ). Moore &amp; Legner 1975:327 (Catalogue; as subjective synonym of  Aleochara ). Klimaszewski, 1984:8 (Revision; and subjective synonym of  Aleochara ). </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/8A79BB71023CFF8AFF57AC2EFD02F982	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Moussallem, M.;Ribeiro-Costa, C. S.;Caron, E.	Moussallem, M., Ribeiro-Costa, C. S., Caron, E. (2014): Review of Solier's Mecorhopalus species (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Aleocharinae). Zootaxa 3852 (5): 540-552, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3852.5.2
8A79BB71023CFF8EFF57AE45FAB7FAF9.text	8A79BB71023CFF8EFF57AE45FAB7FAF9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aleochara atra (Solier 1849) Solier 1849	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Aleochara atra (Solier, 1849)</p>
            <p> Mecorhopalus ater Solier, 1849:348 (Description, type locality: “Santiago y Valdivia). Kraatz 1859:11 (Revision, as valid name). Tottenham 1939:228 (Cited as type of  Mecorhopalus , invalid as discussed above). </p>
            <p> Aleochara atra: Fairmaire &amp; Germain, 1861:414 (Revision, the first time cited as  Aleochara ). Fauvel, 1864:121 (Revision, as valid name). Fauvel 1866:285 (Revision, cited as synonym of  A. lata ). Bernhauer &amp; Scheerpeltz, 1926:776 (Catalogue, as valid name). Caron et al., 2008:831 (Checklist, as valid name). </p>
            <p> Aleochara humilis Fauvel, 1866:286 (Description, type locality: Santiago). Pace, 1990:174 (Cited as subjective synonym of  A. atra ). Caron et al., 2008:831 (Checklist, as junior synonym of  A. atra ). </p>
            <p> Aleochara gravenhorsti Blackwelder, 1944:167 (Objective synonym, incorrect preoccupied name for  A. atra ). Caron et al., 2008:831 (Checklist, as junior synonym of  A. atra ). </p>
            <p> Aleochara paleoatra Pace, 2000:404 (Objective synonym, incorrect preoccupied name for  A. atra ). Caron et al., 2008:831 (Checklist, as junior synonym of  A. atra ). </p>
            <p>Note. For a complete discussion about synonyms and the valid name of this species see Caron et al. (2008).</p>
            <p> Type material.  Mecorhopalus ater : type sex not determined, one specimen, syntype, deposited in FMNH: (1) “ Chile. Coll. So-/ lier &amp; fairm./ m(?)us. Germ.” [White label handwritten with India ink]. The letter “m” in “mus. Germ” is stained by the ink, we believe it stands for museum Germain]. (2) “  atra Solier / det. Bernhauer” [White label, “det Bernhauer” typed in black ink, other information handwritten in India ink] Note 1. According to the ICZN (1999) article 72.4.1.1, “For a nominal species or subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens constitute the type series.” We assume this specimen is the type of  Mecorhopalus ater because this specimen is part of Solier’s collection—label (1). Note 2. Solier did not mention the number of specimens in the type series, as a conservative approach (and following article 72.1.1 of the ICZN 1999) we suggest that this specimen should be considered as a syntype. </p>
            <p> Aleochara humilis : male, one specimen, syntype, deposited in IRSBN: (1) “Santigo” [White label, handwritten with India ink]. (2) “Coll. et det. A. Fauvel/  Aleochara /  humilis Fvl. / R.I.Sc.N.B. 17.479” [White label, “Coll. et det. A. Fauvel” and “R.I.Sc.N.B 17.479” printed in black ink, other information handwritten with India ink]. (3) “  Aleochara /  atra (Sol.) / det. R. Pace 1985” [White label, “det. R. Pace 19” printed in grey ink, other information handwritten with India ink]. Note 1. According to ICZN (1999) article 72.4.1.1, we assume this specimen is the type of  Aleochara humilis because it is part of Fauvel’s collection—label (2) and coincides with the type locality—label (1). Note 2. Fauvel did not mention the number of specimens in the type series, as a conservative approach (and following article 72.1.1 of the ICZN 1999) we suggest that this specimen should be considered as a syntype. Note 3. The specimen arrived with a label [White, handwritten with India ink] (not included on the pin) written: “  atra sol. type ”. </p>
            <p> Additional material. FMNH: Twenty-three specimens. One specimen: (1) “  Aleochara /  atra / Südchile” [White label on graph paper, handwritten with India ink]. (2) “Chicago NHMus/ M.Bernhauer/ Collection” [White label printed in black ink]. Four specimens (on the same insect pin): (1) “ Chile ” [White label, handwritten with India ink]. (2) “  lata ?” [White label handwritten with India ink]. (3) “  atra Sol. / Chile. Luse. / det. Bernhau” [White label “det. Bernhau” typed in black ink, other information handwritten. We believe “er” from Bernhauer has been cut off the label]. (4) “Chicago NHMus/ M.Bernhauer/ Collection” [White label, printed in black ink]. One specimen: (1) “ Chile ” [White label, handwritten]. (2) “Chicago Nat. Hist. Mus./ (ex M. Cameron Colln./ by exchange with/ Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist.)” [White label, printed in black ink]. (3) “  Aleochara /  atra Solsky ” [White label, handwritten with India ink. Probably a mistake: Solsky instead of Solier]. Ten specimens: (1) “ CHILE: Quillota Prov.,/ Olmue, La Campana/ N. P., 800 – 900 m, 2.XII.84 – 21.II.85 ” [White label, printed in black ink]. (2) “ FMHD #85-887/ hygrophilous for.,/ S.&amp;J. Peck, P#85-2,/ carrion trp./ FIELD MUSEUM NAT HIST.” [White label printed in black ink]. (3) “  Aleochara /  atra (Sol.) / det. R. Pace 1992” [White label, “det. R Pace 19” printed in black ink, other information handwritten with India ink.]. Three specimens: with identical labels, and with addition of a fourth label: (4) “female” [White label printed in black ink]. Two specimens: with identical labels with exception of label (3), which in the second line is written “  atra (S.)” instead of “  atra (Sol.) ” One specimen: (1) “ CHILE: Malleco Prov.,/ 11 km W Angol,/ 9.XII.1984 -/ 16.II.1985 ”. [White label, printed in black ink] (2) “ FMHD #85-901, boggy/ mixed forest remnant/ S. Peck, P#85-15,/ carriion trap/ FIELD MUSEUM NAT HIST ” [White label printed in black ink. Carrion is written with two letters “i” instead of one]. (3) “  Aleochara /  atra (Sol.) / det. R. Pace 1992” [White label, “det. R Pace 19” printed in black ink, other information handwritten with India ink]. (4) “m#” [White label printed in black ink]. One specimen: (1) “ CHILE: Nuble Prov., 72/ km SE Chillan, Trancas/ nr Termas,/ 6.XII.1984 – 19.II.1985 ”. [White label printed in black ink]. (2) “ FMHD #85-895, beecn/ forest, S. Peck,/ P#85-10, carrion trap/ FIELD MUSEUM NAT HIST ” [White label printed in black ink. We believe “beech forest” was written in the first line, but due to the cutting of the label the “h” looks like an “n”].(3) “  Aleochara /  atra (Sol.) / det. R. Pace 1993” [White label, “det. R Pace 19” printed in black ink, other information handwritten with India ink. The handwriting of the last digit of the year is indistinct looking like a “3”]. IRSBN: five specimens. One specimen: (1) “Santiago” [White label, handwritten with India ink]. (2) “Coll. R. I. Sc. N. B.” [White label, printed in black ink]. One specimen: “I de (?) Juan/ Fernandez/ Chili ” [White label, handwritten with India ink. It is difficult to read due to the handwriting. We assume it stands for Juan Fernandez Island, in Chile]. (2) “Coll. R. I. Sc. N. B.” [White label, printed in black ink]. One specimen: “ Chili ” [White label, handwritten with India ink]. (2) “Coll. R. I. Sc. N. B.” [White label, printed in black ink]. One specimen: (1) “Prov. de Neuquen/ Rep. Argent.” [White label, handwritten with India ink]. (2) “Coll. R. I. Sc. N. B.” [White label, printed in black ink]. One specimen: (1) “Coll. R. I. Sc. N. B.” [White label, printed in black ink]. </p>
            <p> Diagnosis. This species is easily distinguished from other species of the  lustrica group (  A. lustrica Say, 1832 ,  A. curtula (Goeze, 1777) and  A. centralis Sharp, 1883 ), by the body entirely black, elytra without paler spot or paler colors (present in those species) and by the shape of spermatheca;  A. lustrica has the capsule elongated,  A. curtula has the chamber about as thick as the capsule,  A. centralis spermatheca is L-shaped contrasting with  A. atra which is C-shaped and has the capsule globular and wider than the chamber. Differs from  A. lata Gravenhorst, 1802 by the shape of genitalia of which the median lobe is narrower and less globular than  A. atra and the apex of paramere is thicker than that of  A. atra , the spermatheca has the chamber thicker than the capsule, contrasting with  A. atra , which is narrower.  A. pseudochrysorrhoa Caron et al., 2008 can easily be distinguished from  A. atra by the apex of abdomen (half of segment VII and VIII—is lighter, yellowish to rusty brown), parameres with a slender condylite and spermatheca L-shaped. </p>
            <p>Redescription. BL: 4.7–5.4 mm. EW: 1.5–1.6 mm</p>
            <p>Body compact and robust (Fig 1 a–c), pronotum about the same width as elytra or slightly wider (Fig. 1 d); body uniformly dark to piceous black with elytra reddish; tarsi, maxillary and labial palpi light brown; surface glossy and pubescent with pale setae, setigerous pores impressed. Head triangular with the base rounded, antennae with antennomere II smaller than the first, antennomere IV slightly transverse, antennomeres V-X gradually widening, antennomere XI twice longer than the precedent one and subtriangular in shape; maxilla with palpus 4-articulated with a minute pseudopalpomere at the apex of the last palpomere. Pronotum transverse with posterior margin arcuate, pubescent with straight setae directed posterad medially and obliquely in the lateral area. Mesoventrite without medial carina, reaching near the posterior margin of mesocoxae, apex broadly rounded to subtruncate. Elytra as long as the pronotum [EL/PL = 1.2], length about equal to width [EL/EW = 1.2], pubescent with straight setae directed posterad, hind wings well developed. Abdomen gradually narrowed posteriorly, glossy, pubescence sparse and very fine directed posterad, paratergitum distinctly marked until the fifth visible tergum (tergum VII).</p>
            <p>Male: Tergite VIII pubescent with many small setae positioned in the anterior area, some macrosetae in the postero-medial area (fig. 2a); posterior margin truncate to slightly emarginate with about 15–16 small teeth in the border which are strongly marked in the median area (fig. 2b); lateral margin sub-parallel, forming a quadrangular shape. Sternite VIII pubescent with small and numerous setae; posterior margin truncate to slightly emarginate, about half of the length of anterior margin (fig. 2c); lateral margins somewhat convex, forming a sub-hexagonal shape. Tergite IX divided and not contiguous, each side with asymmetrical ventral struts, lateral margin pubescent (fig. 2d). Tergite X with the margin slightly emarginate (fig.2d); anterior and posterior margins about the same length; postero-medial area pubescent with small setae, getting larger at the posterior margin of the sclerite. Sterntite IX translucent; apical area with pubescence in a triangular format, no longer than of the length, restricted to this area (fig. 2e). Aedeagus: Medial lobe with expanded bulbus, short tubus and acute apex, sclerites of internal sac forming complex arrangement (fig. 2f–g). Parameres well developed with four apparent setae in the apical lobe, two smaller in the apex and two longer, about 5–6 times the size of those in at the apex; velar sac well developed, about two thirds of the length of the parameres; velar phragma oblique (fig. 2h).</p>
            <p>Female: Tergite VIII similar to that of male but without the serration and with a slight medial emargination on the posterior margin (fig. 2i –j). Sternite VIII with the posterior margin shorter than that of a male, about one third of the anterior angle’s length, the lateral angles are more pronounced, forming a truncated sub-triangular shape, pubescence similar that of to a male´s (fig. 2k). Tergite IX without ventral struts (fig. 2l). Tergite X narrower than that of male (fig. 2l). Spermatheca C-shaped; capsule curved; chamber curved, narrower than the capsule, in apical third slightly constricted; duct about half the size of the capsule (fig. 2m).</p>
            <p> Subgeneric assignment  Aleochara sensu strictu Gravenhorst 1802. Confirmed by: dorsal surface of body without microsculpture, pronotum evenly pubescent; mesoventrite not carinate; maxillary palpus long. For complete description of the subgenera see Klimaszewski (1984:70). Note: As  Aleochara s. str. is the subgenus containing the type species of the genus  Aleochara (nominotypical subgenus), we attribute the subgenus description to Gravenhorst, 1802, in accordance with the article 44.1. of ICZN (1999), and not to Mulsant &amp; Rey, 1874 cited in earlier works (Smetana 2004:353). </p>
            <p> Remarks. We agree with the subjective synonym proposed by Pace (1990), and we consider  A. humilis as a junior subjective synonym of  A. atra . </p>
            <p> Remarks 2.  A. atra belongs to the  lustrica species group (sensu Klimaszewski 1984:72), by having: antennal antenomere IV transverse, antonnomeres V-X twice as wide as long, pronotum densely pubescent, body large, aedeagus and spermatheca of a similar shape. Contrasting with gracilicornis species group (sensu Klimaszewski 1984:80), which have antennal articles IV and V-X, as long as wide or longer, narrower than in  lustrica group; median lobe of aedeagus with smaller bulbus and spermatheca divided into three distinct parts. </p>
            <p>Distribution. Material examined: Chile (Juan Fernandez Island, Malleco, Nuble, Quillota, Santiago and Valdivia); Argentina (Neuquen).</p>
            <p>Biological notes. On additional labels: found in association with carrion; found in a mixed forest remnant.</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/8A79BB71023CFF8EFF57AE45FAB7FAF9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Moussallem, M.;Ribeiro-Costa, C. S.;Caron, E.	Moussallem, M., Ribeiro-Costa, C. S., Caron, E. (2014): Review of Solier's Mecorhopalus species (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Aleocharinae). Zootaxa 3852 (5): 540-552, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3852.5.2
8A79BB710238FF81FF57ADC2FDC0FD6A.text	8A79BB710238FF81FF57ADC2FDC0FD6A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aleochara solieri Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz 1926	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Aleochara solieri Bernhauer &amp; Scheerpeltz, 1926</p>
            <p> Mecorhopalus bipustulatus Solier 1849:348 (Description, type locality: “Carelmapú”). </p>
            <p> Kraatz 1859:11 (Revision, as valid name). Caron et al. 2008:834 (Checklist, as junior synonym of  A. solieri ). </p>
            <p> Mecorhopalus elongatus Solier, 1849:348 (Description, type locality: “Copiapo). Chenu &amp; Desmarest, 1857:18 (  Mecorhopalus elongatus as type species of the genus). Fairmaire &amp; Germain, 1861:413 (Revision, as junior synonymy of  A. bipustulata ). Kraatz, 1859:11 (Revision, as valid name). Caron et al., 2008:834 (Checklist, as junior synonym of  A. mutare ). New subjective synonym. </p>
            <p> Aleochara bipustulata: Fairmaire &amp; Germain, 1861:413 (Revision, the first time cited as </p>
            <p> Aleochara , as valid name and synonym of  M. elongatus ). Fauvel, 1864:120 (Revision, as valid name). Fauvel, 1866:288 (Revision, as valid name). Bernhauer </p>
            <p> &amp; Scheerpeltz, 1926:794 (Catalogue, preoccupied name, suggested the name  A. solieri ). </p>
            <p> Aleochara elongata: Fauvel, 1864:121 (Revision, as valid name). Fauvel 1866:287 (Revision, as valid name). Bernhauer &amp; Scheerpeltz, 1926:793 (Catalogue, as valid name). Blackwelder, 1944:167 (Preoccupied name, suggested the name  A. mutare ). New subjective synonym. </p>
            <p> Aleochara solieri Bernhauer &amp; Scheerpeltz, 1926:794 (Catalogue, preoccupied name, objective synonym of  A. bipustulata ). Caron et al. 2008:834 (Checklist, as valid name). </p>
            <p> Aleochara mutare Blackwelder, 1944:167 (Catalogue, preoccupied name, objective synonym of A. elongata-). Caron et al. 2008:834 (Checklist, as valid name). New subjective synonym. </p>
            <p> Type material.  Mecorhopalus bipustulatus : female, one specimen, syntype, deposited in FMNH: (1) “ CHILE FAIRMAIRE/ IN COLL KRAATZ/ DON. MUS. GERM.” [Pink label, typed </p>
            <p> in black ink]. (2) “  bipustulata / det. Bernhauer/ aus origen mater.” [Blue label, handwritten with India ink. “Aus origen mater” (from origin mater), indicates this is part of the Soliers original material]. (3) “  solieri Bh. &amp; Sch. / det. Bernhauer” [White label, “det. Bernhauer” typed in black ink, other information handwritten with India ink]. (4) “Chicago NHMus/ M. Bernhauer/ Collection” [White label, typed in black ink]. (5) “  Aleochara mutare / BLACKW./  solieri BERNH. / det. Ch. MAUS 1999 ” [White label, printed in black ink. “ BLACKW./  solieri BERNH. ”is written in the same line with the slash (/) between “BLACKW.” and “  solieri ”]. Note 1. According to the ICZN (1999) article 72.4.1.1, “For a nominal species or subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens constitute the type series.” Therefore we assume Bernhauer’s note “aus origen mater” indicates that this specimen belongs to Solier’s original type series. Note 2. Solier did not mention the number of specimens in the type series, as a conservative approach (and following article 72.1.1 of the ICZN 1999) we suggest that this specimen should be considered a syntype. Note 3. The label (5) written by Christian Maus “  Aleochara mutare / BLACKW./  solieri BERNH. ” indicates a possible synonymy of these names. </p>
            <p> Mecorhopalus elongatus : female, one specimen, syntype, deposited in IRSNB. (1) “Copiapo/ Chili ” [White label, handwritten with India ink]. (2) “Coll. et det. A. Fauvel/  Aleochara /  elongata Sol. / R.I.Sc.N.B 17.479” [White label, “Coll. et det. A. Fauvel” and “R.I.Sc.N.B 17.479” printed in black ink, other information handwritten with India ink]. (3) “ Holotypus ” [Red label, handwritten with India ink]. (4) “  Aleochara /  notula ER./ det. R. Pace 1985” [White label, “det. R. Pace 19” printed in grey ink, other information handwritten with India ink]. (5) “  Mecorhopalus / (  Aleochara )/  elongatus SOLIER, 1849 / PARALECTOTYPUS / Ch. Maus 1998 ” [Red Label, printed in black ink]. Note 1. According to the ICZN (1999) article 72.4.1.1, “For a nominal species or subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens constitute the type series.” We assume this specimen is the type of  Mecorhopalus elongatus because this specimen is the only specimen that coincide with the type locality and was borrowed as a type from IRSNB – label (3), therefore we assume that this specimen belong to Solier’s original type series. Note 2. Solier did not mention the number of specimens in the type series. We received only this specimen marked as type, it is not clear whether this one is the only specimen Solier described or whether there is and where is deposited the lectotype, presumably designated by Maus in 1998. We follow article 72.1.1 of the ICZN (1999) and designate this specimen as a syntype. </p>
            <p> Additional material. IRSBN: seven specimens. One specimen: (1)“ Santiago” [White label, handwritten with India ink]. (2) “ Perou ” [White label, handwritten with India ink]. (3) “  bipustulata / Sol.” [White label, handwritten with India ink]. (4) “Coll. R. I. Sc. N. B.” [White label, printed in black ink] Two Specimens: same labels as above, but all printed in black ink. One specimen: (1) “ Perou ” [White label, printed in black ink]. (2) “Santiago” [White label, printed in black ink]. (3) “  bipustulata / Sol.” [White label, printed in black ink]. (4) “Coll. R. I. Sc. N. B.” [White label, printed in black ink]. One specimen: (1) “Pirou” [White label, handwritten in India ink. Probably refer to “ Perou ”cited by Fauvel in 1864 and 1866 as one of the localities of  A. bipustulata – “Se retrouve au Pérou ”(is found in Peru)]. (2) “Coll. et det. A. Fauvel/  Aleochara /  elongata Sol. / R.I.Sc.N.B 17.479” [White label, “Coll. et det. A. Fauvel” and “R.I.Sc.N.B 17.479” printed in black ink, other information handwritten with India ink]. (3) “  Aleochara /  notula ER./ det. R. Pace 1985” [White label, “det. R. Pace 19” printed in grey ink, other information handwritten with India ink]. One specimen: (1) “Santiago” [white label, handwritten with India ink]. (2) “r.  elongata / Sol.” [white label, handwritten with India ink]. (3) “Coll. et det. A. Fauvel/  Aleochara / R.I.Sc.N.B 17.479” [White label, “Coll. et det. A. Fauvel” and “R.I.Sc.N.B 17.479” printed in black ink, other information handwritten with India ink]. (4) “  Aleochara /  notula ER./ det. R. Pace 1985” [White label, “det. R. Pace 19” printed in grey ink, other information handwritten with India ink]. One specimen: (1) “Santiago” [white label, handwritten with India ink]. (2) “Coll. et det. A. Fauvel/  Aleochara /  elongata Sol. / R.I.Sc.N.B 17.479” [White label, “Coll. et det. A. Fauvel” and “R.I.Sc.N.B 17.479” printed in black ink, other information handwritten with India ink]. (3) “  Aleochara /  notula ER./ det. R. Pace 1985” [White label, “det. R. Pace 19” printed in grey ink, other information handwritten with India ink]. FMNH: twenty-six specimens. One specimen: “ Chili ” [White label in graph paper, typed in black ink]. (2) “ BRIT. MUS./ DON. ARROW ” [White label, typed in black ink]. (3) “  Aleochara /  solieri Brnh / et Scheerp./ Bernhauer det.” [White label, “Bernhauer det.” typed in black ink, other information handwritten in India ink]. (4) “ Chili ” [Green circular label, handwritten with India ink]. (5) “Chicago NHMus/ M. Bernhauer/ Collection” [White label, typed in black ink]. (6) “  Aleochara mutare / BLACKW./  solieri BERNH. / det. Ch. MAUS 1999 ” [White label, printed in black ink.] One specimen: (1) “ Chile ” [White label, printed in black ink]. (2) “ Chili ” [White label, printed in black ink]. (3) “Sharp Coll./ 1905 – 313.” [White label, printed in black ink]. (4) “Brit. Mus./ don. Arrow” [White label, printed in black ink]. (5) “  Aleochara /  solieri Bernh. / et Scheerp./ Bernhauer det.” [White label, printed in black ink]. (6) “Chicago NHMus/ M. Bernhauer/ Collection” [White label, printed in black ink]. (7) “  Aleochara mutare / BLACKW./  solieri BERNH. / det. Ch. MAUS 1999 ” [White label, printed in black ink.]. Four specimens: (1) “ CHILE: [Coquimbo?]:/ El Tangue, 7.IX.1947 / L.E. Peña leg./ FIELD MUS. NAT. HIST ” [White label, printed in black ink] (2) “  Aleochara mutare / BLACKW./  solieri BERNH. / det. Ch. MAUS 1999 ” [White label, printed in black ink]. Two specimens: (1) “ CHILE:/ Cobquecura/ XII:14:1953/ Leg. L. Pena” [White label, printed in black ink]. (2) “ FMNH ” [White label, typed in black ink]. (3) “  Aleochara mutare / BLACKW./  solieri BERNH. / det. Ch. MAUS 1999 ” [White label, printed in black ink.] One specimen: (1) “ CHILE: Maule: Chanco,/ 1.XII.1953 / L. E. Peña leg./ FIELD MUS. NAT. HIST.” [White label, printed in black ink]. (2) “  Aleochara / det. Newton 1995” [White label, “det. Newton 1995” printed in black ink, “  Aleochara ” handwritten with India ink]. (3) “  Aleochara mutare / BLACKW./  solieri BERNH. / det. Ch. MAUS 1999 ” [White label, printed in black ink] Five specimens: (1) “ CHILE: Maule: Chanco,/ 1.XII.1953 / L. E. Peña leg./ FIELD MUS. NAT. HIST.” [White label, printed in black ink]. (2) “  Aleochara mutare / BLACKW./  solieri BERNH. / det. Ch. MAUS 1999 ” [White label, printed in black ink]. One specimen: (1) “ CHILE: Coquimbo:/ Los Vilos, 15.III.1984 / L.E. Peña leg./ FIELD MUS. NAT. HIST.” [White label, printed in black ink]. (2) “  Aleochara / det. Newton 1995” [White label, “det. Newton 1993” printed in black ink, “  Aleochara ” handwritten with India ink]. (3) “  Aleochara mutare / BLACKW./  solieri BERNH. / det. Ch. MAUS 1999 ” [White label, printed in black ink]” Eleven specimens: (1) “ CHILE: Coquimbo:/ Los Vilos, 15.III.1984 / L.E. Peña leg./ FIELD MUS. NAT. HIST.” [White label, printed in black ink]. (2) “  Aleochara mutare / BLACKW./  solieri BERNH. / det. Ch. MAUS 1999 ” [White label, printed in black ink]”. </p>
            <p> Diagnosis. This species is easily distinguished from other species of the  bimaculata group: from  A. suffusa (Casey, 1906) and  A. bilineata Gyllenhal, 1810 , by the paler spots in the postero-medial region of elytra, the former two species have unicolored elytra. In addition  A. suffusa does not have a prominent external carina (present in  A. solieri ) and spermatheca with up to 18 coils (while  A. solieri has 5–6).  A. bilineata has the base of the medial lobe of aedeagus less bulbous than that in  A. solieri , and the spermatheca has the chamber more curved;  A. densissima Bernhauer, 1906 , has the pronotum and elytra densely pubescent and spermatheca with 3 coils, by having a coarse pubescence and 5–6 coiled spermatheca; from  A. bimaculata Gravenhorst, 1802 by the 8-coiled spermatheca; from  A. verna Say, 1833 by the 10–11 coiled spermatheca; and from  A. notula Erichson, 1839 by the medial lobe of aedeagus with the external carina more prominent and base of median lobe more rounded and globular, in addition the spermatheca with a smoothed curvature and the capsule more globular. </p>
            <p>Redescription. BL: 4.6–6.4 mm. EW: 1.1–1.5 mm</p>
            <p>Body subparallel, robust. Head dark brown; pronotum in most specimens dark brown, some specimens with a reddish lateral area (fig. 3a–d); elytra yellow dark to reddish getting darker on the lateral and anterior margins, some specimens with a pair of reddish spots; abdomen brown getting lighter near the posterior margin, legs, antennae and mouth parts brown to light brown. Dorsal surface glossy and covered with fine golden yellowish setae with setigerous pores impressed. Head circular, a slightly acuminated anteriorly, transverse [HL/HW = 1,1]; coarsely punctate with golden yellowish setae, pubescence semi-erect directed mediad, only those on the frons directed anterad and mediad; posterior margin of the head very rounded. Antennae with antennomere I robust, antennomere II smaller and narrower than the first, antennomere III slightly longer than II, antennomere IV transverse, antennomeres V–X gradually widening, antennomere XI twice longer than X in a semi triangular shape, antennomeres III–XI combined presenting a fusiform shape. Maxilla with palpus 4- articulated with a minute pseudopalpomere at the apex of the last palpomere. Pronotum moderately transverse [PL/PW = 1.2] with posterior margin arcuate, wider than the head; strong punctures forming two longitudinal, parallel, not grooved, rows in the midline; pubescence directed posterad and laterad. Mesoventrite glabrous, rounded posteriorly with medial and lateral strong carinae, not reaching the posterior portion of mesocoxae. Elytra longer than wide [EL/EW = 1.2], surface densely and deeply punctate; conspicuous setae directed laterad and posterad; posterior margin rounded in latero-posterior angles; hind wings well developed. Abdomen gradually narrowing posteriorly, almost subparallel, glossy, densely pubescent with setae directed posterad.</p>
            <p>Male: Tergite VIII pubescent with small setae, two macrosetae in the postero-lateral area; posterior margin shorter than the anterior, the border truncate with a very small serration (fig. 4a–b); lateral margin with posterior angles rounded. Sternite VIII pubescent with small and numerous microsetae, and some sparse macrosetae (fig. 4c); posterior margin convex, slightly acuminate with rounded apex; lateral margins oblique with rounded angles. Tergite IX divided with asymmetric ventral struts, lateral margin pubescent with 2 macrosetae positioned on the posterior area of the lateral margin (fig. 4d). Tergite X with the posterior margin slightly emarginate and with about ten stout small setae (fig. 4d); anterior and posterior margins about the same length; postero-medial area pubescent with about 18–20 stout setae positioned in the posterior margin. Aedeagus. Median lobe elongate with base bulbous to spherical (fig 4e–f.); apical lobe narrowed with rounded apex, sinuate in lateral view; sclerite Y large; sclerite Z large with attachment to apex. Parameres well developed, apical lobe with four small setae in the apex, three positioned near the anterior margin in the apex and one behind them in a posterior position (fig. 4g); velar sac convex in proximo-lateral margin; velar phragma oblique and convex, translucent; hinge zone positioned in the apical third, slightly concave in an almost transverse position; condylite slender and straight; medial phragma of a semi-triangular shape, narrowing near marginal phragma; latero-distal margin slightly concave, latero-proximal margin slightly convex; marginal phragma slender and long.</p>
            <p>Female: Tergite VIII similar to that of male´s but posterior margin truncate and without the serration (fig. 4h–i); Sternite VIII similar to that of male´s but posterior margin more rounded and lacking the acuminate apex (fig. 4j). Tergite IX without ventral struts, with long setae on the latero-distal margin (fig. 4k). Tergite X slightly elongate with anterior and posterior margin truncate, pubescence apparent with setae getting longer and more robust near the posterior margin, at apical margin stout and smaller setae are similar to spine but with rounded apex (fig. 4k). Spermatheca L-shaped with a spherical capsule; chamber narrower than capsule, transition to the duct narrower (fig. 4l); duct short and coiled with 5–6 distinct coils, length about ⅓ length of the chamber.</p>
            <p> Subgeneric assignment  Coprochara Mulsant &amp; Rey, 1874 . Confirmed by: two pronotal subparallel rows of punctures, with the interspace between glabrous or with fine punctuation; completely carinate mesoventrite; and spermatheca with coiled duct. For complete description of the subgenera see Klimaszewski (1984:15). </p>
            <p> Remarks.  A. solieri belongs to the  bimaculata species group (sensu Klimaszewski 1984:17) by having: two subparallel, not grooved, rows of setigerous punctures on pronotum and spermatheca with fewer than 19 coils. In contrast to the sulcicollis species group (sensu Klimaszewski 1984:32), it is lacking the pronotal setigerous punctures placed in strongly marked subparallel grooves. </p>
            <p> Remarks 2. Brief historic and important remarks: Solier described  Mecorhopalus bipustulatus and  M. elongatus in his paper in 1849, indicating the possibility of  M. elongatus (=  A. mutare ) being a variation of  M. bipustulatus (=  A. solieri ). Chenu &amp; Desmarest (1857) fixed  M. elongatus as type species of the genus by subsequent designation (ICZN 1999 art. 69.1). Fairmaire &amp; Germain (1861) revised Solier’s Chilean  Staphylinidae and, for the first time, synonymized  M. elongatus (today  A. mutare ) as junior subjective synonym of  M. bipustulatus (today  A. solieri ), acting as the first reviser (ICZN (1999) articles 24.2.1 and 24.2.2), then we cite in this present work  A. solieri as the valid species name. The fact that  M. elongatus (today  A. mutare ) is considered a subjective junior synonym does not affect it as name-bearing type, as the ICZN (1999) states in article 67.1.2. By recommendation 67B of ICZN (1999) we shall consider as type species of the available name  Mecorhopalus : “  M. elongatus Solier, 1849 , now regarded as a synonym of  A. solieri Bernhauer &amp; Scheerpeltz, 1926 ”. </p>
            <p>Distribution. Material examined: Chile (Cobquecura; Copiapo; Coquimbo; Maule and Santiago) and Peru. Literature: Chile (Carelmap) (Solier 1849; Fauvel 1866).</p>
            <p>Biological notes. Unknown.</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/8A79BB710238FF81FF57ADC2FDC0FD6A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Moussallem, M.;Ribeiro-Costa, C. S.;Caron, E.	Moussallem, M., Ribeiro-Costa, C. S., Caron, E. (2014): Review of Solier's Mecorhopalus species (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Aleocharinae). Zootaxa 3852 (5): 540-552, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3852.5.2
