identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
58359F68FFB527633884FAA748D19251.text	58359F68FFB527633884FAA748D19251.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stenobelus Zimmerman	<div><p>Genus Stenobelus Zimmerman</p> <p>Stenobelus Zimmerman in Alonso-Zarazaga &amp; Lyal, 1999: 39; Legalov 2009: 302, 308.</p> <p>Leptobelus Zimmerman, 1994: 356 (non Stål, 1866); Alonso-Zarazaga &amp; Lyal, 1999: 39; Legalov 2009: 308.</p> <p>Type species: Belus tibialis Blackburn, 1893.</p> <p>Diagnosis. For description see Leptobelus in Zimmerman (1994: 356–357). Distinguishable from Rhinotia and other genera of Australian Belinae by the following suite of characters: vestiture dorsally sparse, consisting of fine, white, single setae inserted in wall of large shallow punctures (Figs. 7–8), except denser on midline of pronotum and sutural elytral interstriae in S. tibialis to form a white median stripe (vitta), pronotal setae directed forwards, elytral ones backwards; lateral and ventral vestiture much denser, white; scutellum broad, densely clothed in white setae; rostrum (Figs. 1–6) dark, strongly downcurved, as long as or longer than head + prothorax, inserted on ventral side of head, finely punctate; antennae inserted subbasally, about an eye diameter or less in front of eye, with scape about as long as first 2 funicle segments together, distal 4 segments forming a loose club, the apical one with a distinct cone; femora moderately inflated, with subapical spine, which on front femora is large and often flanked by a smaller, outer one (Figs. 9–10), middle and hind femora with dorsal edge distally armed with a row of few (2–7) isolated, small, black teeth; tibiae with 2 spurs (2-2-2) and preapical mucro, front tibiae with inner edge basally strongly excised to end in strong single spine (S. testaceus, Fig. 9) or series of 2–4 smaller spines (S. tibialis, Fig. 10) shearing against femoral spine when leg is closed, inner edge distally with row of smaller teeth; middle and hind tibiae with outer edge sharply crenulate; tarsi slender, longer than tibiae, basal tarsite inflated, especially in front tarsi where it is sexually dimorphic (elongate in male, shorter to subquadrate in female, Figs. 11–14), claws divaricate, appendiculate; abdomen with apex of ventrite 5 roundly emarginate in male, subtruncate in female; aedeagus (see Zimmerman 1994, fig. 235) short, apex acute, tectum with long, broad anterior apodemes, endophallus with long, single, basal flagellum and a pair of short, dentate sclerites inside aedeagal body, tegmen short, lateral arms continued into ventral apodeme; ovipositor (see Zimmerman 1994, fig. 236) with long gonocoxites, spermatheca with 2 processes, gland very large.</p> <p>Distribution. South-western and south-eastern Australia into southern Queensland (Fig. 15).</p> <p>Remarks. As described and delineated by Zimmerman (1994), Stenobelus is a well-characterised genus and contains only 2 species, S. testaceus and S. tibialis. Legalov’s (2009) recent placement of 6 species of Rhinotia in it, R. acaciae (Lea), R. angustata (Lea), R. aphthosa (Pascoe), R. elegans (Blackburn), R. exilis (Lea) and R. sparsa (Germar), and his erection of a distinct new subgenus, Germaribelus, for the last one of these are totally unjustified as none of them share the diagnostic (apomorphic) characters of Stenobelus. Legalov (2009) gave no reason for including these species in Stenobelus, and for R. acaciae, R. angustata, R. elegans and R. exilis this seems only based on the fact that Zimmerman (1994) placed these in a species group of Rhinotia in which he also keyed out, for convenience, the two species of Stenobelus (as Leptobelus) as they similarly have dentate, short femora. Zimmerman was, however, explicit that the Stenobelus species do not belong in this species group of Rhinotia and were only included in the key in case they were confused with Rhinotia (as he did with Isacanthodes ganglionica (Pascoe) and the three species of Araiobelus Zimmerman). The other two species, R. aphthosa and R. sparsa, were placed among many others in Zimmerman’s next species group (characterised by dentate, long femora), and it is inexplicable why Legalov picked out these two species from the group to include in Stenobelus since they are not, in fact, as narrow as Stenobelus (couplet 7 in Legalov’s key). Legalov’s erection of the new subgenus Germaribelus for R. sparsa is equally untenable since the front femora of the male are not appreciably “wider” in this species than they are in some others, especially in R. acaciae. Zimmerman (1994: 363) clearly stated that his species groups of Rhinotia were artificial and only intended as an identification aid, and Legalov’s (2007, 2009) division of Rhinotia into several genera and subgenera (10 of them new) as largely based on Zimmerman’s species groups is without any basis and best ignored until the genus is comprehensively revised. Since we cannot, however, accept a subgenus Germaribelus for Rhinotia sparsa in Stenobelus and also cannot sanction it as a valid subgenus of Rhinotia, we here formally synonymise only the name Germaribelus Legalov, 2009 with that of Rhinotia Kirby, 1819 (syn. n.).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/58359F68FFB527633884FAA748D19251	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	Oberprieler, Rolf G.;Thompson, Richard T.;Peterson, Magnus	Oberprieler, Rolf G., Thompson, Richard T., Peterson, Magnus (2010): Darwin’s forgotten weevil. Zootaxa 2675: 33-46
58359F68FFB427643884FA1A4A2D919C.text	58359F68FFB427643884FA1A4A2D919C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stenobelus testaceus (Oberprieler & Thompson & Peterson 1839) Oberprieler & Thompson & Peterson 2010	<div><p>Stenobelus testaceus (G. R. Waterhouse) comb. n.</p> <p>(Figs. 1–4, 7, 9, 11–12)</p> <p>Belus testaceus G. R. Waterhouse, 1839: 192; Sherborne, 1931: 6454; Smith 1987: 100.</p> <p>Belus linearis Pascoe, 1870: 475 (type locality: Queensland); Gemminger &amp; von Harold, 1871: 2456; Lea 1908: 230, 231; 1909a: 197, 1909c: 5; Von Dalla Torre &amp; Voss 1935: 9, syn. n.</p> <p>Leptobelus linearis (Pascoe): Zimmerman, 1991: 57, pl. 28, figs. 7, 8; 1994: 358, fig. 233.</p> <p>Stenobelus (Stenobelus) linearis (Pascoe): Legalov, 2009: 308.</p> <p>Type locality. King George Sound (Albany), Western Australia.</p> <p>Diagnosis. SL 7–8mm; pronotum and elytra without white median stripe (vitta); setae of dorsal vestiture short, directed into punctures (Fig. 7); antennae inserted an eye diameter in front of eyes; front tibiae with single, large spine at distal end of basal emargination (Fig. 9); tarsites of front tarsi elongate, with fine, uniformly pale setae (Figs. 11–12); elytra posteriorly exceeding abdomen by more than length of apical ventrite.</p> <p>Material examined (10 specimens). Types: testaceus, HT ♀, “ Type / H.T. [disc with red margin] // [18]63/44 [blue disc] // Belus testaceus / Waterhouse / King George’s Sound [in G.R. Waterhouse’s hand]” (BMHN); linearis, HT ♀, “ Type [disc with red margin] // Queensland [in Pascoe’s hand on green oval disc] // Belus / linearis / Pasc. / type ” [in Pascoe’s hand] // Pascoe Coll. / B.M. 1893.60 [printed]” (BMNH). Other specimens: 1♂, 1♀ (without abdomen), K.[ing] G.[eorge] S.[ound] // 10947 / Belus / linearis Pasc. / W. Australia [in Lea’s hand] // Belus / linearis / Pascoe / R.T. Thompson det. 1980 / comp. with type [printed in red ink] // Specimen / figured / ECZ // Leptobelus / linearis / (Pascoe) / det. E.C. Zimmerman (ANIC); 1♂, 1♀, 2 exx., K. G. Sound, W.A. (USSA); 1♂ (without abdomen), 1♀, “Nov. Holl. / N.S.W. // Fry Coll. / 1905- 100 // 14639” (BMNH).</p> <p>Distribution. South-western Western Australia, possibly also New South Wales and southern Queensland (Fig. 15).</p> <p>Host plants. Unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. The type of testaceus was received at the BMNH from the Entomological Society in 1863. Smith (1987) tentatively referred Belus testaceus to the number 3556 in Darwin’s Insect Notes, the entry to which reads “Curculio, one of the most abundant insects here [Hobart Town Feby—crossed out] King George’s Sound March”, on the grounds that Waterhouse (1839) appears to have singled it out for description. However, Waterhouse evidently only had a single specimen for description and belids never seem abundant in Australia, least of all Stenobelus. Darwin collected another 11 (smaller) species of weevils at King George Sound (Lea 1926), and probably one or several of these may have been abundant enough for Darwin to record it. The exact provenance of Pascoe’s linearis is uncertain. In his description of the species, Pascoe (1870) gave the locality of the single type as “ Queensland ”, and the type is labelled as such, but Lea (1908, 1909a) identified specimens from King George Sound as this species and evidently had not seen any specimens from Queensland or New South Wales that agreed with Pascoe’s description or type. Neither had Zimmerman (1994) almost a century later, and he consequently regarded “ Queensland ” as an error and not a correct type locality for linearis. The existence of the two specimens in the Fry Coll. (BMNH) labelled “N.S.W.” lends some credence to the possibility that the provenance of Pascoe’s type specimen may, in fact, have been correct. The entry for the registration number attached to the larger of these two specimens reads “14639, Belus Australia N.S. Wales Sidney Stevens”. John Crace Stevens was an insect dealer in England, who operated the J. C. Stevens Auction Rooms until his death in 1859, and Alexander Fry obtained the specimens from J. C. Stevens in 1857 or 1858. In 1863 they were received by the British Museum from the Entomological Society. The collector of the specimens in Australia is unknown, and it is therefore not certain whether they where indeed collected in Sydney or even in New South Wales. However, S. tibialis is recorded from both south-western and south-eastern Australia, and it is possible that S. testaceus may also occur on both sides of the Australian continent. No other specimens unequivocally collected in south-eastern Australia have, however, been located, nor in fact any from anywhere other than King George Sound, and the species may thus be geographically restricted to the Albany region in south-western Australia and the locality records of Pascoe’s type and the two Fry specimens both be erroneous. The lack of possible authentic specimens from south-eastern Australia also precludes a proper investigation assessing whether linearis may perhaps denote an eastern taxon distinct at species or subspecies level from S. testaceus in the west. Our comparison of the available specimens revealed no evidence to suggest such a distinction, and we therefore here treat linearis as a synonym of testaceus. In addition to the 10 specimens we have examined, another was deposited in the Zoological Museum of the University of Hamburg in Germany, labelled just “ Australia ” (Lea 1909a). This museum and its beetle collection were destroyed during the Second World War (Weidner 1976). It is possible that the specimen had been collected on J. W. Michaelsen’s and R. Hartmeyer’s expedition to south-western Australia in 1905, which visited Albany between the 16 th and 21 st August, although nothing to this effect is contained in the expedition report (Michaelsen &amp; Hartmeyer 1907) and Lea (1909b) did not record such a specimen in his study of the weevils taken on that expedition.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/58359F68FFB427643884FA1A4A2D919C	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	Oberprieler, Rolf G.;Thompson, Richard T.;Peterson, Magnus	Oberprieler, Rolf G., Thompson, Richard T., Peterson, Magnus (2010): Darwin’s forgotten weevil. Zootaxa 2675: 33-46
58359F68FFB327653884F8C84DB19039.text	58359F68FFB327653884F8C84DB19039.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stenobelus tibialis (Blackburn)	<div><p>Stenobelus tibialis (Blackburn)</p> <p>(Figs. 5–6, 8, 10, 13–14)</p> <p>Belus tibialis Blackburn, 1893: 190–191, 192 (in key); Lea 1908: 230; 1909a: 197; 1909c: 5; 1917: 597; von Dalla Torre &amp; Voss 1935: 12; Alonso-Zarazaga &amp; Lyal, 1999: 39.</p> <p>Leptobelus tibialis (Blackburn): Zimmerman 1991: 58, pl. 29, figs. 1, 2; 1994: 358, fig. 233.</p> <p>Stenobelus (Stenobelus) tibialis (Blackburn): Legalov, 2009: 308.</p> <p>Type locality. not specified but probably Perth, Western Australia (see Zimmerman 1994: 358).</p> <p>Diagnosis. SL 7.4–11.2mm in male (n=11), 7.7–10.4mm in female (n=8); pronotum and elytra with distinct white median stripe (vitta) composed of dense setae; setae of dorsal vestiture longer, directed over punctures (Fig. 8); antennae inserted less than eye diameter in front of eyes; front tibiae with a series of 2–4 spines at distal end of basal emargination (Fig. 10); tarsites of front tarsi subquadrate, with stout, dicolorous setae (white on outside, black on inside, Figs. 13–14); elytra posteriorly exceeding abdomen by less than length of apical ventrite.</p> <p>Material examined (30 specimens). Types: tibialis, HT ♀, “ Type [disc with red margin] // Australia / Blackburn Coll. / B.M. 1910-236 [printed] // Belus / tibialis Blackb. [in Blackburn’s hand]” (BMHN). Other specimens: 1 ex., Swan River, W.A. (SAMA); 1♂, 8.5km WNW of / <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=116.2&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-32.1" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 116.2/lat -32.1)">Mt. Dale</a> / Western Australia / at 32 o 06’S, 116 o 12’E / 19 November 1989 / M. Peterson // in swampy area / in jarrah forest / at 1415 hrs (ANIC); 1♂, WA / Windy Harbour / 3.XI.1988 / H. &amp; A. Howden (CMNC); 1 ex., S. Australia (SAMA); 1♂, 1♀, “Lucindale, S.A. / A.M. Lea // 47872 / Belus / tibialis Bl. / S. A.; W.A. [in Lea’s hand] // Belus / tibialis / Blackburn / R.T. Thompson det. 1980 / comp. with type [in red ink] // Specimen / figured / ECZ // Leptobelus / tibialis / (Blackburn) / det. E.C. Zimmerman ” (ANIC); 2 ex., Lucindale (SAMA); 2♂, 1♀, Lucindale, S.A. / Feuerheerdt (AMSA, ex A. H. Elston Coll.); 1♀, Kiata, Victoria / Oct. 1928 / F.E. Wilson (MVMA); 4♂, Queensland / Cooloola / 6 Oct. 1979 / G. Kuschel // on swamp plant (ANIC); 2♀, same locality and collector, 5 Oct. 1979 (ANIC); 1♂, Caloundra / 20. 9. [19]58 / M. A. Permiakoff // Leptospermum (UQBA); 1♀, Caloundra / Hacker / 28.10.[19]13 (QMBA); 2♀, Searys Creek Rainforest, / via Tin Can Bay, Qld. / 17– 18.x.1970 / G. B. Monteith (UQBA); 1♂, Teewah Creek, via / Tin Can Bay, Qld. / 17–18.x.1970, T. Weir (ANIC); 1♂, same data except: G. B. Monteith (UQBA); 1♂, Camp Milo / Cooloola, S.E Qld. / 15–18.x.1978 / G. B. Monteith (UQBA); 1♀, Currumundi Lakes / Caloundra, Qld. / 30.ix.1972 / G.B. &amp; S.R. Monteith (ANIC); 1♂, Bribie Island, Qld. / 26 Sept 1984 / M.A. Schneider (UQBA); 1♀, same data except: G. Daniels (UQBA); 1♀, Bribie Island, Qld. / Hacker (QMBA).</p> <p>Distribution. South-western Western Australia, eastern South Australia, western Victoria and southern Queensland (Fig. 15).</p> <p>Host plants. Adults collected on Astartea fascicularis and Leptospermum (Myrtaceae) and probably Leptocarpus sp. (Restionaceae); larval hosts unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. The card on which the type specimen is mounted bears a black letter ‘T’ at the base, a red ‘A’ above it and the number ‘1774’ in red near the apex (Fig. 5). The entry in Blackburn’s catalogue under this number reads: “ Belus tibialis Blackb. W.A. (A) 10-12/[18]86”. It seems that ‘A’ may be a regional code; others in W.A. are ‘P’ and ‘G’. Although this species was evidently described from Western Australia, we have only seen 4 specimens from there (including the holotype), and only two of them recent finds. Barely more have been collected in South Australia, seemingly all at Lucindale, where Lea (1917) recorded it as being “fairly common” nearly a century ago. Three of the Lucindale specimens are labelled as having been collected by [B. A.] Feuerheerdt, who lived in Lucindale at the time and may have collected the other four specimens as well. His name appears in several taxonomic revisions as the collector of others insect specimens taken at Lucindale, though always without a date. A single record from western Victoria has come to light, the specimen collected almost as long ago. All other and recently taken specimens are from a small area in coastal south-eastern Queensland (Fig. 15), which appears to be the only region where the species may still be common. As with S. testaceus, there are no distinct differences between western and eastern Australian specimens, although the aedeagus of the (large, 11.1mm) male from Mt. Dale has a somewhat larger and stouter aedeagus, with a longer tip and the two short, dentate sclerites inside the aedeagal body well separate, not subcontiguous as in specimens from eastern Australia (Lucindale, Cooloola, Tewah Creek).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/58359F68FFB327653884F8C84DB19039	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	Oberprieler, Rolf G.;Thompson, Richard T.;Peterson, Magnus	Oberprieler, Rolf G., Thompson, Richard T., Peterson, Magnus (2010): Darwin’s forgotten weevil. Zootaxa 2675: 33-46
