Pinocolis capensis ( Erichson, 1840 ) -, 2024

Struyve, Tim, 2024, Revision of the Afrotropical Pinophilina (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Paederinae) Part 1: genera, Pinachenium, Pinoplanus, Pinobelus and Pinocolis, Belgian Journal of Entomology 152, pp. 1-75 : 43-45

Pinocolis capensis ( Erichson, 1840) - comb. nov.

Figs 9 B , 15 E-H

Pinophilus capensis ERICHSON, 1840: 673

Pinophilus punctatus BOHEMAN, 1848: 291 , syn. nov.

Pinophilus capensis var. rhodesianus BERNHAUER, 1934: 502 , synonymized by BERNHAUER, 1934: 502

Pinophilus rugicollis CAMERON 1950: 184 , synonymized by FAGEL, 1963: 181

NON TYPE MATERIAL EXAMINED

Congo-Kinshasa: P.N.U., Lusinga (1760 m.), 18/VIII/1947, mis. G.F. de Witte: 1 ♂ ( RBINS) ; P.N.U. Lusinga, 1760 m, 18/VII/1947, Miss. G.F. de Witte; Kivu: Lemera, terr. Uvira , 1600 m., XII/1956, N. Leleup leg.: 1 ♀ ( RMCA) ; P.N.U. Lusinga (1760 m.), 18/VII/1947, Mis. G.F. de Witte: 2 ind. ( RMCA) ; Kenya: Escarpment , Brit. E. Afr., 6500-9000 feet, IX/00-IV/01, W.Doherty:1ind.( MNHN) ; SouthAfrica: Johannesburg , 6.000ft.,1896, J.P.Gregoe: 2 ind ( RBINS) ; Pretoria , 10/1917: 1 ind. ( RMNH) ; Natal, Estcourt , Haviland: 1 ♂ ( RBINS) ; frere Natal , Marshall coll., 1910-1942: 1 ind ( RBINS) ; Natal: Bergville distr., Drakensberg , Mhiwazeni , riv. 1200 m, (ZA,25) N. Leleup leg. X/1960: 1 ind ( RBINS) ; KwaZulu-Natal, Cathedral Peak NR, Didima (camps.), 28°57.4’S, 29°14.4’E, 1420m, 19-20/XI/2006, J. Janák lg.: 3 ind. (cJan) ; Natal, 29°37’S, 29°25’E, Underberg-Mkomazana lodge, 1400-1800 m, Dr.R. Fencl lgt. 11/XI/2001: 1ind. (cJan) ; Natal: Lions Riv.Distr., Howick , Umgeni Riv.Tamisage talus argileux, X/1961, N. Leleup leg.: 1 ind. ( RMCA) ; Mpumalanga Prov. R555, 43.5km after Middelburg to Stoffberg , 22/XI/2002, leg. P. Schüle: 3 ind. ( SMNS) ; Mpumalanga, Middelburg to Stoffberg , 43.5 km after Middelb. , 16/XI/2001, P. Schüle leg: 1 ind. ( SMNS) ; Eastern Cape, Silaka Nat. Res. 31.39°S, 29.30°E, 7-8/I/2009, P. Schüle leg: 1 ind. ( SMNS) ; KwaZulu-Natal, Cathedral Peak Park , 1500 m, 24-27/XI/2003, leg. W. Schawaller: 1 ind. ( SMNS) ; Transvaal , Pretoria, X /53: 1 ind. ( NHMW) ; Natal : 1 ind. ( MNHW) ; Transvaal , Pretoria, G. Botto, 1940: 1 ind. ( MSNG) ; Tanzania: Langenburg (now called Tukuyu), V-X/1898, leg. Fulleborn: 1 ♂ ( ZMHB) ; Prairie à immortelles, Tanganyika Terr.: Mt. Hanang , versant sudd, 2400 m, 22- 30/V/1957: 1 ♀ ( RBINS) ; Tanganyika Terr. Kilimanjaro, Marangu , versant s.e., 1800-2200m, 20-27/VII/1957, P. Basilewsky & N. Leleup leg.: 1 ♂ ( RBINS) ; Tanganyika Terr.: Kilimanjaro, Marangu , Versant S.E. 1800-2200 m, 20-27/VII/1957, P. Basilawsky & N. Leleup leg.: 3 ind. ( RMCA) ; Zambia: 1400m, Hillwood , Ikelenge, S 11°16’02”, E24°18’59”, 21-28/X/2013, light trap, leg. Smith, R., Takano, H., Chmurova, L. & Smith I.: 1 ind. ( NHMUK) ; 1080m, Mayukuyuku , Kafue NP, S14°54’55”, E26°03’47”, 21-26/XI/2013, Light trap, leg. Smith, R., Takano, H. & Oram, D.: 1 ind. ( NHMUK) ; NW Rhodesia, Nama-Ula , 19/VIII/1914, H.C. Dollman ( FMNH) ; Zanzibar: without data: 1 ind. ( RBINS) ; Zimbabwe: Melsetter , 1700 m, VII/1960, savane boisée, N. Leleup leg.: 1 ind. ( RMCA) ; Broken-Hill , savane boisée, 1100 m, VII/1960, N. Leleup leg.: 1 ind. ( RMCA) ; Without country: Afr. Mer. Péringuey: 1 ind ( RBINS) .

COMMENTS

The type of this species can be considered lost. In the revision of FAGEL (1963), it was already not found and causing problems. Fagel made a comparison of what the species could be based on the original description and ended up with P. punctatus . The additional data from this study can add support to this choice.

ERICHSON (1840) started his description by saying that it is about the same size and stature as P. aegyptius , which he described in the same publication. So Pinoplanus punctatulus and P. spathulatus , both also present in South Africa, are very similar to P. aegyptius but larger in size. If he had a small form, it would have rather been declared the same species as P. aegyptius . The very rugose punctation of the head of Pinobelus opacifrons excludes this species. Some Pinogalus have a similar habitus as a Pinocolis but are smaller. Other genera like Pinoritus and Phinopilus are less similar. Thus, I could assume it is truly a Pinocolis . The other species occurring in South Africa of this genus are P. semiopacinus , P. lividipes , P. wenzeli and P. punctatus . P. semiopacinus has very dense micropunctation, and can be excluded.

The location of P. capensis is described as “dom. Drège”, which refers to the house of Johann Frantz Drège, a mainly botanical collector, who lived in Cape Town in the south-west of South Africa. P. wenzeli is currently only known from the nort-eastern part of South Africa.

P. lividipes and P. punctatus are known from the Cape provinces. There are two differences between them that can be found in the description of ERICHSON (1840) that direct towards P. punctatus . First, the pronotum: widest near the front angles and straight sides which is more pronounced in P. punctatus ; and the whole head with scattered micropunctation while P. lividipes with a denser part on the posterior part of the head. For both, it is a weak proof, but the best that can be found.

BOHEMAN (1848) defines P. punctatus a little bigger than P. capensis , while ERICHSON (1840) describes P. capensis with the same size of Pinoplanus aegyptius . All three species are about the same size. It is unclear if Boheman has seen the type of P. capensis .

I conclude that the description of P. capensis most likely is a synonym of P. punctatus . Despite the fact that South Africa is one of the countries with more data available, it remains poorly known and all arguments listed here can not make a completely solid decision possible. This is only possible if the type is found back. To prevent empty names from being dragged along even 60 years after it was already considered lost, I think it is justified to synonymize these species.

One individual of Zambia (cJan) has the parameres remarkably smaller, but without other clear differences ( Figs 15 G and 15 H ). If this would appear in several individuals, it could be considered a different species, but with the only individual now available, it could be an aberrant form, so I would keep it the same species for now. Pictures of the type of Pinophilus capensis var. rhodesianus (Iziko Museums of South Africa) were sent to me that confirm it is the same species.

Figures

Fig. 9. A-F, Head, dorsal view. A, Pinocolis attenboroughi sp. nov. B, P. capensis (Erichson, 1840). C, P. curticeps (Bernhauer, 1937). D, P. dollmani (Fagel, 1963). E, P. frater (Bernhauer, 1937). F, P. ivoriensis sp. nov. Scale bar: 1 mm.

Fig. 15.A-J, aedeagus, ventral and lateral view. A-B, Pinocolis altivagans (Bernhauer, 1934).C-D, P.attenboroughi sp. nov. E-F, P. capensis (Erichson, 1840). G-H, P. capensis (Erichson, 1840): unusual specimen, I-J, P. curticeps (Bernhauer, 1937). Scale bar: 1 mm.