Chilocorus canariensis Crotch, 1874

Romanowski, Jerzy, Ceryngier, Piotr, Zmuda, Christian, Větrovec, Jaroslav & Szawaryn, Karol, 2020, The Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) from El Hierro, Canary Islands, Bonn zoological Bulletin 69 (2), pp. 249-261 : 250-251

Chilocorus canariensis Crotch, 1874

Fig. 2A–F

Material examined. Valverde (30.I.2017), 1 ex. (leg. J. Krátký); Las Puntas (29.I.2017), 2 exx. (leg. J. Krátký); El Chirgo (29.I.2017), 1 ex. (leg. J. Pelikán); Tamaduste (30.I.2017), 1 ex. (leg. J. Krátký); Árbol Garoé, Echedo, El Juan, El Mocanal, Guarazoca, Hoya del Morcillo, La Caleta, La Dehesa, Las Playas, Mirador de Isora, Montaña de la Casilla, Pozo de las Calcosas, Punto de la Dehesa, Sabinar, Tigaday, Valverde (6–12.IV.2019), total of 57 exx. (55 adults, 2 larvae) collected from various plants, including Yucca sp. , Euphorbia sp. , Juniperus sp. , Nerium oleander L. (leg. J. Romanowski and C. Zmuda).

Distribution. Endemic Canarian species.

Remarks. Wollaston (1864) examined specimens of this species from the Canary Islands and stated that they belong to the common European species Ch. renipustulatus (Scriba, 1790) . However, Crotch (1874) in his revision of the ladybird beetles of the world, recognized it as a separate species. Since that time various authors treat- ed it as a subspecies of Ch. renipustulatus ( Franz 1995; Eizaguirre 2007; Nicolas 2010; Nicolas & Rae 2012) or as a distinct species ( Kovář 2007; Hernández et al. 2009). To confirm the status of the Canarian specimens we com- pared the genitalia of both sexes with those of Ch. re- nipustulatus collected in Poland ( Fig. 2G–K ). Without a doubt, Ch. canariensis should be treated as a distinct, endemic Canarian species, and Ch. renipustulatus should be excluded from the list of ladybird beetles of the Canary Islands.

Differential diagnosis. Chilocorus canariensis can be separated externally from Ch. renipustulatus by the shape of red maculae on elytra ( Fig. 2A ). In Ch. canariensis elytral maculae form a transverse band in the central part of each elytron, while in Ch. renipustulatus maculae are almost rounded with a regular border. Differences in male genitalia: in Ch. canariensis penis guide asymmetrical ( Fig. 2D–E ), about as long as parameres, parameres shortly setose, apex of penis with screw-shaped carina with more dense coils ( Fig. 2F ); in Ch. renipustulatus penis guide symmetrical ( Fig. 2I–J ), distinctly shorter than parameres, parameres with longer setae, apex of penis with screw-shaped carina more loose ( Fig. 2K ). Differences in female genitalia: in Ch. canariensis ( Fig. 2C ) spermatheca with apical projection more sclerotized and twice longer than in Ch. renipustulatus ( Fig. 2H ).

Figures

Fig.2. A–F. Chilocorus canariensis Wollaston. A. Habitus. B. Abdomen, male. C. Spermatheca, spermduct and accessory gland. D. Tegmen, lateral. E. Tegmen, inner. F. Penis, lateral. G–K. Chilocorus renipustulatus (Scriba). G. Abdomen, male. H. Spermatheca, spermduct and accessory gland. I. Tegmen, lateral. J. Tegmen, inner. K. Penis, lateral.