Euboeus ( Pelorinus ) vicinus ( Allard, 1876 )

Nabozhenko, Maxim V., 2022, A taxonomic review of the genus Euboeus Boieldieu, 1865 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Helopini) of the Caucasus, Iran and Turkmenistan, Zootaxa 5159 (4), pp. 451-486 : 458

Euboeus ( Pelorinus) vicinus ( Allard, 1876)

( Fig. 6 )

Helops vicinus Allard, 1876: 14 , 34;

Helops vicinus: Allard, 1877: 26 , 91;

Helops vicinus: Seidlitz, 1895: 706 ;

Probaticus ( Pelorinus) vicinus: Reitter, 1922: 33 , nota 28.;

Probaticus ( Pelorinus) medvedevi Abdurakhmanov et Nabozhenko, 2011 , syn. nov.;

Euboeus ( Pelorinus) medvedevi: Nabozhenko et al., 2021b: 441

Type material. Syntypes of Helops vicinus were not found by curators in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle Paris. Holotype, ♀ ( ZIN) of Probaticus medvedevi with labels: Cyrilliс “Арм. ССР Алаверди 25.04.86 Мелях С.В.” ( Armenian SSR, Alaverdi , 25.iv.1986, leg. S.V. Melyakh), “ Probaticus ( Pelorinus) medvedevi Nabozhenko et Abdurakhmanov 2011 ” .

Material. 1♂, 2♀: “Kaukasus Leder”, “Allard type”, “ Coll. Reitter ”, “ Paratypus 1877 Helops vicinus Allard ” (curator’s label) .

Notes. This very rare species was described in 1876 based on the specimen(s) from the collection of Reiche ( Allard 1876) and redescribed in 1877 using the type specimen(s) and beetles collected by Leder ( Allard 1877). Later, Schneider & Leder (1878) again published Allard’s redescription 1877 and added the species’ type locality: “Elisabetthal”. It was a settlement of German colonists, which is now called Asureti ( Georgia, 41°35′45″N, 44°40′00″E). Both description and redescription ( Allard 1876, 1877) have differences, and the latter is more consistent with specimens from Georgia and northern Armenia, as mentioned by Abdurakhmanov & Nabozhenko (2011). In addition, the Russian authors erroneously interpreted species from South Armenia and Nakhchivan as E. vicinus (described below as E. kalashiani sp. nov.) since Bogachev (1938). As a result, Abdurakhmanov & Nabozhenko described a new species Probaticus medvedevi , from northern Armenia ( Figs 6D, F ). Allard examined the specimens of Leder and confirmed that they belong to his species Helops vicinus , as he wrote in redescription ( Allard 1877). The Leder’s specimens ( Figs 6A–C, E, G–K ) are not syntypes (as marked on the labels) because the original description was based on other specimens from the Reiche collection. The females from Georgia are conspecific to the female ( holotype) of E. medvedevi despite the variability. As a result, I propose the following synonymy: Helops vicinus Allard, 1876 = Probaticus ( Pelorinus) medvedevi Abdurakhmanov et Nabozhenko, 2011 , syn. nov.

Distribution. Southern Georgia, northern area of Armenia.

Figures

FIGURE 6. Euboeus vicinus, habitus, labels, details of structure. A = male dorsally (Georgia, Asureti); B = female dorsally (Georgia, Asureti); C = female dorsally (Georgia, Asureti); D = female dorsally (Armenia, Alaverdi), holotype of Probaticus medvedevi; E = labels of non-type specimens from Georgia, Asureti (HNHM); F = labels of the holotype of Probaticus medvedevi; G = male inner sternite VIII, ventrally; H = spiculum gastrale; I = median lobe of aedeagus, ventrally; J = tegmen, ventrally; K = apical piece of aedeagus, dorsally.