taxonID	type	description	language	source
03ED87BAFFFBFFE68FAAFF54B5CEFA52.taxon	discussion	Comments. After providing a brief description of A. vividus, Motschulsky (1855) simply separated this species from B. rivularis by commenting that both were very similar, but that B. vividus was slightly smaller in size. While not helpful, this is a comparative statement separating the two species, and is judged to validate Motschulsky’ s description of B. rivularis. Schaufuss (1874), believing that both of Motschulsky’ s descriptions were invalid due to the briefness of their descriptions, described both species as new and based the names on labeled Motschulsky specimens that he had obtained from the collection of L. J. Reiche. In doing so, Schaufuss (1874: 285) selected and described a specimen as B. rivularis that had two basal spines on the pronotum, which led Raffray (1898: 439) to place this species in the then subgenus Oxarthrius Reitter of Batrisus Aubé. Since Motschulsky sometimes mounted specimens of different species or even genera on his cards with a single identification label below (see syntypes discussed for species above), this may explain Schaufuss’ error in selecting a specimen of Oxarthrius for his description of B. rivularis. Reitter (1883) also believed that Motschulsky’ s names were invalid and that Schaufuss may have had specimens of a different species before him when he discussed B. vividus, and proposed the name Batrisus coronifer based on Motschulsky specimens that were labeled as B. vividus. Raffray (1898: 505 – 506) straightened out this mess when he examined specimens that the others had or had not seen, but continued the dismissal of Motschulsky’ s authorship of the two names. He synonymized B. coronifer Reitter with B. vividus Schaufuss and recognized Schaufuss’ description of B. rivularis as a valid description, but also that it was not proposed in the sense of Motschulsky’ s name, which he maintained as invalid. Chandler (1992) recognized Motschulsky’ s authorship of B. vividus (now a member of the genus Arthmius LeConte), while B. rivularis was maintained as Oxarthrius rivularis (Schaufuss). In examining the available syntype series of both species from the ZMUM and ZIN, specimens placed as B. vividus are slightly smaller than B. rivularis as Motschulsky stated, but males are present in the series for both species, and their vertexal modifications and all other features are identical, supporting Raffray’ s conclusion that both species in the sense of Motschulsky are synonyms. The two species names are briefly characterized and differentiated by Motschulsky, so the names are available. Batrisus rivularis Motschulsky is here finally formally placed as a junior synonym of B. vividus Motschusky, and Batrisus vividus Schaufuss is similarly placed as a junior synonym (new synonymies). Males of this species may be identified by using the key in Park (1942). A male specimen from Madden Forest Preserve in the former Canal Zone (14 km NE of Obispo) has been labeled as favorably compared with the male type of B. rivularis, and a male from Las Cumbres (near Lago en Las Cumbres, 17 km E of Obispo) has been labeled as favorably compared with the male type of B. vividus. Both specimens are currently held in my collection.	en	Chandler, Donald S. (2013): Further Notes on the New World Pselaphinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) Described by Victor Motschulsky. The Coleopterists Bulletin 67 (3): 321-327, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-67.3.321, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-67.3.321
03ED87BAFFFBFFE78C61F9AEB416FA48.taxon	discussion	Comments. Batrisus rivularis Schaufuss, 1874 is a primary junior homonym of B. rivularis Motschulsky, 1855. Both names resided in the genus Batrisus until Raffray (1904) treated Oxarthrius at the generic level. This conflict extended past 1900, and a replacement name is needed. There is an available name based on the synonymy established here. Park (1942) described O. escharus from Panama, and designated it as the type species of his new subgenus Baroxarthrius Park. Members of this subgenus lack basal elytral foveae, while members of the nominate subgenus have a single basal fovea on each elytron, and the locations of the male characters are different. The holotype female of B. rivularis Schaufuss is clearly a member of the subgenus Baroxarthrius, and with the exception of the sexual characters it is similar to a male specimen identified as and compared with the holotype male of O. escharus by myself in 2000. The sculpturing of the body, antennal proportions, indistinctness of the antennal club, and elevation and density of the setae are similar, with the antennal proportions being slightly shorter — a common feature when comparing males and females of the same species. Members of this subgenus are uncommon in the Panama Canal area, with only one species (O. escharus) being present in my extensive material from Panama, while this subgenus is diverse in Costa Rica. The two names are here synonymized, and the available name Oxarthrius escharus Park is selected as the replacement name for Batrisus rivularis Motschulsky. A female specimen from Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo in Costa Rica, a near sea-level site close to the border with Panama, compares favorably with the female holotype of B. rivularis and has been so labeled.	en	Chandler, Donald S. (2013): Further Notes on the New World Pselaphinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) Described by Victor Motschulsky. The Coleopterists Bulletin 67 (3): 321-327, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-67.3.321, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-67.3.321
03ED87BAFFFAFFE78FD8F989B292FBF3.taxon	description	However, Reitter (1882: 130) provides a thorough description and a habitus illustration of A. muelleri, such that synonymy of Circocerus and the more junior Apharus can be confidently proposed. A complication is that the other species in this genus, C. batrisioides from North America, is the only well-known species, but it is not congeneric. A generic junior synonym, Upoluna Schaufuss, 1886, is available for placement of this species. Both genera are redescribed below, and problems in separating Upoluna from the nominate subgenus of Hamotus Aubé are discussed.	en	Chandler, Donald S. (2013): Further Notes on the New World Pselaphinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) Described by Victor Motschulsky. The Coleopterists Bulletin 67 (3): 321-327, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-67.3.321, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-67.3.321
03ED87BAFFFAFFE08C7DFBCEB471F9B0.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Circocerus is here characterized as having: head with two faint vertexal foveae, antennal club formed by apical three antennomeres, antennomeres IX-X transverse, X approaching basal width of large, apical antennomere; maxillary palpi with apical palpomere enlarged, apical half with large, ovoidal, shallow impression with carinate margins on dorsum. Pronotum with faint, nude, median, antebasal fovea and setose, lateral, antebasal foveae, lacking antebasal, transverse sulcus. Forks of lateral mesosternal foveae elongate and similar in size. Elytra with two basal foveae. First visible abdominal tergite longest, as long as remaining tergites together or longer.	en	Chandler, Donald S. (2013): Further Notes on the New World Pselaphinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) Described by Victor Motschulsky. The Coleopterists Bulletin 67 (3): 321-327, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-67.3.321, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-67.3.321
03ED87BAFFFAFFE08C7DFBCEB471F9B0.taxon	description	Description. [Based on two specimens cleared and mounted in glycerin in a slide mount: a probable male of C. perplexus from Costa Rica and an unplaced species from Brazil] Head: With 2 faint vertexal foveae; antennomeres II-X transverse, antennal club formed of apical 3 antennomeres, IX-X increasing in width to approach width at base of XI, XI enlarged, asymmetrical in lateral view, slightly humped dorsally, slightly flattened laterally; ocular-mandibular carinae present; gular foveae close in short, transverse impression; fourth maxillary palpus with large, dorsal, ovoidal impression with distinct margins on apical half. Thorax: Pronotum with small, nude, median antebasal fovea, with setose, lateral, antebasal foveae; disc convex, lacking antebasal, transverse sulcus; lateral prosternal foveae present. Median mesosternal foveae with origins close, elongate internally; lateral mesosternal foveae with anterior and posterior forks long, equal in size; lateral mesocoxal foveae present; with single median metasternal fovea. Elytra with 2 basal foveae, lacking discal stria. Abdomen: With tergite 1 elongate, as long as remaining tergites combined, paratergites distinct on tergite 1, variably present / distinct on tergites 2 – 3, very narrow when present; tergite 1 with deep basal sulcus, with large mediobasal foveae positioned near lateral margins; tergites 2 – 4 with very small basolateral foveae or foveae lacking. Ventrite 2 with deep basal sulcus, large mediobasal foveae positioned laterally, ventrites 3 – 4 with small basolateral foveae. Aedeagus: Symmetrical, with diaphragm; parameres elongate and symmetrical.	en	Chandler, Donald S. (2013): Further Notes on the New World Pselaphinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) Described by Victor Motschulsky. The Coleopterists Bulletin 67 (3): 321-327, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-67.3.321, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-67.3.321
03ED87BAFFFAFFE08C7DFBCEB471F9B0.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Members of this genus are found from Mexico to Brazil. Notes. Six species of Apharus listed by Hlaváč and Chandler (2005) are transferred here, for a total of seven described species. Hamotus clavicornis Reitter (1882) from Venezuela was cited twice by Park (1942): once as H. clavicornis Reitter from Venezuela (p. 329) and also erroneously as Apharus clavicornis Raffray, 1891? from Ceará, Brazil (p. 307). This species was subsequently listed as a member of Apharus in Hlaváč and Chandler (2005) and Newton and Chandler (2007), based on confusion in determining generic placements within the Circocerus / Apharus / Upoluna complex and the nominate subgenus of Hamotus. This species is here placed back in the nominate subgenus of Hamotus.	en	Chandler, Donald S. (2013): Further Notes on the New World Pselaphinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) Described by Victor Motschulsky. The Coleopterists Bulletin 67 (3): 321-327, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-67.3.321, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-67.3.321
03ED87BAFFFDFFE18C41FD0DB286FEBB.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Head with two faint vertexal foveae, antennomeres II-X small, of even widths, apical antennomere abruptly much larger; maxillary palpi with apical palpomere enlarged, with large ovoidal shallow impression with carinate margins on dorsum in apical half to two-thirds. Pronotum with faint, nude, median, antebasal fovea and setose antebasal lateral foveae connected by distinct to faint antebasal transverse sulcus. Posterior forks of lateral mesosternal foveae elongate, anterior forks lacking or represented by short stub. Elytra with two basal foveae. First four visible abdominal tergites subequal in length.	en	Chandler, Donald S. (2013): Further Notes on the New World Pselaphinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) Described by Victor Motschulsky. The Coleopterists Bulletin 67 (3): 321-327, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-67.3.321, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-67.3.321
03ED87BAFFFDFFE18C41FD0DB286FEBB.taxon	description	Description. [Based on U. batrisioides] Head: With 2 faint vertexal foveae; antennomeres II-X transverse, narrow, XI abruptly enlarged, asymmetrical in lateral view, enlarged dorsally, flattened laterally; ocular-mandibular carinae present; gular foveae distant, in shallow, transverse impression; fourth maxillary palpus with large, dorsal, ovoidal impression with distinct margins present on dorsum of apical two-thirds. Thorax: Pronotum with small, nude, median, antebasal fovea, with setose, lateral, antebasal foveae; disc convex, with antebasal, transverse sulcus distinct to faint; lateral prosternal foveae present. Median mesosternal foveae with origins separate, short internally; lateral mesosternal foveae with anterior fork lacking or represented by short stub, posterior fork elongate; lateral mesocoxal foveae present; with single, median metasternal fovea. Elytra with 2 basal foveae, lacking discal stria. Abdomen: With tergites 1 – 4 subequal in lengths, paratergites distinct on tergites 1 – 4; tergite 1 with deep basal sulcus, with large mediobasal foveae positioned near lateral margins, 2 small, basolateral foveae adjacent to paratergites of tergites 1 – 3, tergite 4 with single lateral fovea. Ventrite 2 with deep basal sulcus, 2 – 5 with large mediobasal foveae positioned laterally. Aedeagus: With apex slightly asymmetrical, with diaphragm; parameres elongate and symmetrical. Males with ventral carina on protrochanters and acute basal tubercle; protibiae with small preapical quadrate flange on mesal margin.	en	Chandler, Donald S. (2013): Further Notes on the New World Pselaphinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) Described by Victor Motschulsky. The Coleopterists Bulletin 67 (3): 321-327, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-67.3.321, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-67.3.321
03ED87BAFFFDFFE18C41FD0DB286FEBB.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Upoluna batrisioides is common in the midwestern and southeastern United States, and specimens have been examined from Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Undescribed species represented by single specimens have been examined from Mexico, Trinidad, and Brazil. CONCLUDING COMMENTS The key to the genera of Tyrini of the world (Hlaváč and Chandler 2005) can be easily annotated to accommodate the changes made herein by replacing Apharus Reitter with Circocerus Motschulsky (p. 90), and replacing Circocerus with Upoluna Schaufuss (p. 91), now with seven species in Circocerus and a single species in Upoluna. However, Park (1942) discussed the problems of separating Upoluna (as Circocerus) from the nominate subgenus of Hamotus, with only the small ninth and tenth antennomeres plus the abruptly large apical antennomere of Upoluna separating members of this genus from those of Hamotus, which are characterized by having a three-segmented antennal club. Members of Upoluna also have the antebasal pronotal sulcus weakly present to distinct, while members of the subgenus Hamotus lack this sulcus. Park (1942) correctly pointed out that when the entirety of the large genus Hamotus is inspected, this character clearly grades from absent to distinct. Species in both genera also have an identical foveal pattern of the body. To complicate matters, I have seen a number of unplaceable and undescribed species close to the generic complex of Hamotus, Upoluna, and Pseudohamotus Raffray, that are really only separable by differences in the form of the maxillary palpi and distinctness of the antennal club. Resolution of the generic concepts for this diverse complex will require a careful study.	en	Chandler, Donald S. (2013): Further Notes on the New World Pselaphinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) Described by Victor Motschulsky. The Coleopterists Bulletin 67 (3): 321-327, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-67.3.321, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-67.3.321
