Rhinocylapus, POPPIUS, 1909

RHINOCYLAPUS POPPIUS, 1909 View in CoL View at ENA

( FIG. 15F)

Rhinocylapus Poppius, 1909: 5 View in CoL (original description; type species Rhinocylapus simplicicollis Poppius, 1909 View in CoL by original designation); Carvalho, 1957: 23 (catalogue); Schuh, 1995: 35 (catalogue); Wolski, 2010: 21 View Cited Treatment (redescription, key to species); Gorczyca, 2006: 72 (catalogue).

Rhinocylapidius Gorczyca, 2006: 72 (junior synonym of Rhinocylapus View in CoL ); Wolski, 2010: 16 View Cited Treatment (rejected synonymy).

Remarks

Poppius (1909) described Rhinocylapus to accommodate three new species, Rhinocylapus acutangulus Poppius, 1909 , Rhinocylapus simplicicollis Poppius, 1909 and Rhinocylapus sumatranus Poppius, 1909 . Later, Hsiao (1944) described Rhinocylapus scuttatus Hsiao, 1944 and Rhinocylapus vittatus Hsiao, 1944 , and Wolski (2010) included Rhinocylapus kmentii Wolski, 2010 , Rhinocylapus pallescens Wolski, 2010 and Rhinocylapus redeii Wolski, 2010 . Gorczyca (2006) synonymized monotypic Rhinocylapidius with Rhinocylapus , after which Wolski (2010) restored its status.

We examined non-type specimens of Rhinocylapus vittatus and the lectotype and paralectotype of Rhinocylapidius velocipedoides . From descriptions and specimens, we could not find any characters serving as apomorphies for Rhinocylapus , and our analysis did not support its monophyly. Rhinocylapus vittatus differs from other species in having antennal segment III shorter than segment II and an absence of spines on the labrum. According to the descriptions of Wolski (2010), in all other species segment III is longer than segment II, and in all species with known males, spines are present on the labrum. We also could not find any characters to support or reject the present status of Rhinocylapidius . Further phylogenetic analysis of Rhinocylapus based on morphological and molecular data is required to determine the taxonomic relationships of Rhinocylapus .