Scolytus emarginatus ( Wichmann, 1915 )

Scolytus emarginatus ( Wichmann, 1915) ( Eccoptogaster ), stat. resurr.

Figs 1–4.

= seulensis Murayama, 1930 View in CoL syn.n The species limits of Scolytus schevyrewi Semenov, 1902 View in CoL has been confused in many publications on the Palaearctic Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762 View in CoL fauna [ Murayama, 1930; Kurentsov, 1941; Schedl, 1948; Stark, 1952; Michalski, 1973; Yin, Huang, 1980; Wood, Bright, 1992; Krivolutskaya, 1996; Petrov, 2013; Petrov et al., 2019]. Observed discrete morphological differences among S. schevyrewi View in CoL specimens suggested that its species limits were in need of revision. Unfortunately, the holotype of S. schevyrewi View in CoL is lost but types of its synonyms S. emarginatus Wichmann, 1915 and S. seulensis Murayama, 1930 View in CoL were available for study.

We have studied the male holotype of Scolytus emarginatus (NHMW) , with the geographic label “Fergana, Alay, Turkestan” and the label with designation of holotype. We also examined another male of Scolytus emarginatus in the K.E. Schedl collection (NHMW) bearing only one hand-written geographic label “Fergana, Alay, Turkestan” which is identical to the geographic label of the holotype. In his species description, Wichmann [1915] states that his diagnosis is based on only one specimen thus we cannot consider the second specimen as belonging to the of S. emarginatus type series. In addition, we examined 35 male and 67 females from Buryatia, Chita Region, southern parts of Primorsky Krai (Maritime Terr., Russian Far-East), Kyrgyzstan (West Tian Shan, near Baubash-Ata Mt.) and China. The photographs of the S. seulensis View in CoL holotype (NMNH) were also examined and found to be conspecific with that of S. emarginatus and the species is here placed in synonymy.

Scolytus emarginatus differs from the morphologically similar Scolytus schevyrewi by structure of the male frons and male genitalia: frons in the former is covered by very dense, longitudinal deep aciculations, puncturation not visible ( Fig. 1) and in the latter by sparse, longitudinal shallow aciculatiuons, intervals between aciculations with small punctures ( Fig. 2); male genitalia in S. emarginatus possess long narrow apophyses, penis tube is narrow and long (11.6–12.3 times longer than wide), 1.48 times longer than apophyses ( Fig. 3) and in S. schevyrewi male genitalia have short wide apophyses, median lobe is wider (8.4–8.6 times longer than wide), 2.0 times longer than apophyses ( Fig. 4).

S. emarginatus thus is restored from a synonymy with S. schevyrewi . Both species share partly overlapping distribution ranges in Central Asia and China.