Bothynus laticifex Burmeister, 1847

Bothynus laticifex Burmeister, 1847 View in CoL

( Figures 2 View Figure 2 (g), 3(i), 9(g, h), 11(e, f), 13(i, t), 14(i), 15(j), 17(c, d), 19(i), 20(c), 22)

Bothynus laticifex

Burmeister 1847: 115 (original description); Lacordaire 1856: 414 (remarks); Gemminger and Harold 1869: 1251 (name citation, catalogue); Arrow 1937b: 41 (catalogue); Blackwelder 1944: 255 (checklist); Endrödi 1969: 112 (identification key), 116 (figs. 160– 161, illustrations of aedeagus), 132–133 (redescription, remarks, lectotype designation, distribution); Endrödi 1985: 274 (figs. 1124–1125, illustration of aedeagus), 275 (identification key, distribution); Krajcik 2005: 38 (checklist); Abadie et al. 2008, pl. 14 ( Figure 3 View Figure 3 , male illustration); López-García et al. 2016: 496 (checklist).

Diagnosis

Bothynus laticifex resembles B. cylindricus at first glance in the elongated aspect of body, pronotum with small tubercle, bearing small and shallow cavity, elytral punctures small and male with incised inner protarsal claw. However, B. laticifex is distinguished by the following characters: Posterior margin only of the male pronotum punctate ( Figure 9 View Figure 9 (g,h)); inner protarsal claw of male with shorter outer branch, not surpassing the basal half of the inner one in length ( Figure 11 View Figure 11 (e,f)); parameres nearly smooth, with minute punctures only ( Figure 13 View Figure 13 (i)); basal sides of parameres entire, without lateral constriction in frontal view ( Figure 13 View Figure 13 (t)); pronotal cavity with entire posterior edge, without apparent medial interruption in female ( Figure 17 View Figure 17 (c)).

Type material

The type series of B. laticifex preserved at HNHM is recognised by a green label on the specimens’ left side, composed by Burmeister’s calligraphy with the following handwritten information within a rectangle: ‘ Laticifex * /Dp./Buen. Ayr’. Lectotype male, labelled: (a) ‘ Lectotypus / Bothynus / laticifex Burm. /Endröedi [label bordered in red, partly handwritten; (b) Zool. Inst. Halle’ ( HMHN) ( Figure 2 View Figure 2 (g)). Paralectotype female, labelled: (a) ‘ Paratypus / Bothynus / laticifex Burm. /Endröedi' [label bordered in red, partly handwritten]; (b) 'Zool. Inst. Halle’ ( HMHN).

Additional material

BRAZIL: Minas Gerais, Lavras, 24.iii.2002, A.F. Noronha leg. – 1 male ( CERPE); Lavras , 10. xi.2002, A. Melo leg. – 1 female ( CERPE); Lavras , 20.iii.2004, F.V. Nunciato leg. – 1 female ( CERPE); Lavras , 05.iii.2006 – 1 female ( CERPE); Lavras , 06.vi.2001, MCSSantos – 1 male ( CEMT); Itamonte, Parque Nacional do Itatiaia, Brejo da Lapa , 11.x.2013, 2000 m, luz, W.R.M Souza leg. – 1 male ( CERPE); São Miguel do Anta, Fazenda Monte Sinai , 16.x. 2014, 642 m, A. Puker leg. – 1 male ( CERPE); Três Rios , 18.vii.1994, F.Z. Vaz-de-Mello leg. – 1 male ( CERPE); Itumirim, Serra do Janela , i–iv.2018, J. Louzada and L. Vieira – 3 males ( CEMT) . Rio de Janeiro: xi.1995, Patricia leg. – 1 male ( CERPE) . Rio Grande do Sul: Eldorado do Sul, 11. x.1996, luz, Carvalho and Silva legs – 1 male ( CERPE). São Paulo: Barueri, 22.i.1967, K. Lenko leg. – 1 male ( IBSP); Birigui , 05.x.2009, Cardoso Leg. – 1 female ( CEMT); Santo Amaro , xi.1933 – 1 male ( IBSP); Ilha Solteira , 08.iv.2000, Santos, R. A. leg – 1 male ( CEMT); Ilha Solteira , 12.iv.2000 – 1 female ( CEMT) . No data – 1 male ( CERPE) .

Male redescription ( Figure 3 View Figure 3 (i))

Length: 18.8–20.8 mm. Width: 9.5–10.9 mm. Colour: Predominantly reddish-brown; protibia bordered in black; tarsi, meso- and metatibia dark reddish. Head: Clypeus subtrapezoidal (posterior width about 3.5 times wider than anterior); lateral margins regularly convergent; surface rugose, glabrous. Frontoclypeal carina finely marked. Frons nearly completely rugose, except for limit of posterior area smooth at middle, with large, deep, C-shape punctures close to eyes; setae scarce, erect, scattered on sides. Interocular width 4.2–4.5 transverse eye diameters. Ocular canthus subrectangular, narrow, slightly crenulated on anterior margin. Mouthparts: Mandible with apical and medial teeth subtriangular, rounded at apex (possibly abrased); basal tooth lobed, smaller than previous ones. Maxilla with tridentate galea. Labium subtriangular, slightly convex, surrounded with large, dense, deep, contiguous, setigerous punctures; lateral setae longer those on disc; discal punctures weak, setae scarce, small. Prothorax: Pronotum bearing a small apical tubercle, with rounded apex; cavity shallow, rounded, small, confined to anterior disc. Pronotal surface on anterior corners bearing dense, deep, large, from contiguous to coalescent punctures; punctures on sides close to lateral margins large, deep, contiguous, becoming sparser (separated by about 1–2 pucture diameters) towards posterior disc ( Figure 9 View Figure 9 (g,h)); discal punctures minute; punctures on posterior area close to margin deep, large, predominantly contiguous, with poorly coalescent punctures; cavity from transversely rugopunctate to punctate; punctures large, C-shaped. Pterothorax: Scutellar plate triangular, smooth. Elytral striae well marked; each stria covered with small, ocellate punctures, contiguous to separated about by 1 puncture diameter; punctures on interstriae scarce separated about 1–3 puctures diameter. Metaventrite weakly setose. Legs: Inner protarsal claw obliquely curved, incised ( Figure 11 View Figure 11 (e)); inner branch broader than inner one; outer branch short, not surpassing the basal half of inner one in length ( Figure 11 View Figure 11 (f)). Tarsomere 5 with a ventrolateral process close to apex. Meso- and metafemora bearing smooth disc. Meso- and metatibiae only with a medial carinae. Abdomen: Tergite 7 with stridulatory apparatus formed by 1 band of transverse, finely marked, paired striae. Tergite 8 glabrous, strongly rugose on sides, becoming weaker towards disc. Sternites 4–7 densely rugopunctate on sides, with rugosity becoming weaker towards a glabrous disc, setae arranged in a transverse row confined on sides; sternite 8 weakly rugopunctate on corners, smooth on disc, with setae confined on posterior margin. Aedeagus: Parameres, in caudal view, nearly smooth, except for minute punctures on basal half and small tubercles on sides of apical half; basal half rounded laterally, apical half constricted lateroventrally, apical lobes elongated, with curvature close to apex ( Figure 13 View Figure 13 (i)). Parameres, in frontal view, with entire basal sides ( Figure 13 View Figure 13 (t)). Parameres, in lateral view, with a basal carina on ventral area, apex slightly deflexed ( Figure 14 View Figure 14 (i)).

Female description ( Figure 15 View Figure 15 (j))

Length: 18.2–21.2 mm. Width: 9.2–11.0 mm. Female is similar to male, except in the following aspects: Colour: Pronotum sometimes dark reddish. Prothorax: Pronotum with small apical tubercle; cavity small, shallow, nearly declivous; sides nearly entirely covered with dense, large punctures, from contiguous to coalescent; punctures on disc weaker, smaller than those on sides ( Figure 17 View Figure 17 (c,d)). Pterothorax: Scutellar plate triangular, usually smooth, sometimes with irregular punctures. Elytral punctures slightly larger compared those on male. Legs: Inner protarsal claw simple, similar to outer claw. Abdomen: Tergite 8 glabrous (Figure 29(i)), nearly entirely rugose, except for a discal region bearing transverse, shallow punctures ( Figure 20 View Figure 20 (c)). Sternites 4–7 nearly entirely covered with dense setae; sternite 8 completely rugose, entirely setose.

Distribution

Argentina (Buenos Aires, type locality), Brazil (Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo) ( Figure 24 View Figure 24 ). There are records from Paraguay in Ratcliffe et al. (2023).

Remarks

We examined two specimens, one male and one female, with labels by Burmeister. Both exemplars also possess type labels designed by Endrödi, where the male has a lectotype label and the female has a paratype label. The female exemplar indeed belongs to Bothynus horridus Endrödi, 1968 , which is related to another species group ( Duarte et al. 2022). Endrödi (1969) provided a vague description of the female, but he mentions first that, of the four specimens he examined, only one matched the diagnosis, and designated it as lectotype. Despite this, Endrödi retained the female description. Concerning natural history, Eidmann (1937) reported adults of B. laticifex associated with debris of young nests of the ant Atta sp. , but no other observation was made since then.