Hans Reichardt.
Revisionary Notes on the Genera of Eucheilini (Coleoptera. Carabidae).
Psyche 73(1):8-16, 1966.

This article at Hindawi Publishing: https://doi.org/10.1155/1966/38928
CEC's scan of this article: http://psyche.entclub.org/pdf/73/73-008.pdf, 532K
This landing page: http://psyche.entclub.org/73/73-008.html

The following unprocessed text is extracted automatically from the PDF file, and is likely to be both incomplete and full of errors. Please consult the PDF file for the complete article.

REVISIONARY NOTES 'ON THE GENERA
OF EUCHEILINI
(COLEOPTERA, CARABIDAE)
BY HANS REI~~ARDT~
Departamento de Zoologia, Secretaria da Agricultura, ,520 Paulo, Brazil
In the course of my studies on Neotropical Carabidae I have dis- covered several interesting taxonomic novelties about the endemic tribe Eucheilini which seem to be important enough to be reported on. Even though I have examined the types of the species of Euchei- lini which are preserved in the Museum National dlHistoire Naturelle, Paris, in July, 1964^', it is as yet irnposible to revise the tribe at the species level, since the species of Inna, one of the two genera of Eucheilini, are very poorly understood at present. Material in collections is very scarce. I hope that in the near future accu- mulation of enough specimens will allow a specific revision of this interesting tribe of Carabidae.
The material on which this revision is based has been borrowed (and partly also studied in loco) from the Departamento de Zoologia, S5o Paulo (CDZ), the Museu de la Universidad de La Plata, Argentina (MLP), the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cam- bridge, Mass. (MCZ) , the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN) and the United States National Museum, Wash- ington, D. C. (USNM). The loan of this interesting material is gratefully acknowledged.
The tribe and the genera included in this revision are not formally sedescribed, since it seems to me that for the time being the char- acterization presented below is enough.
Tribe Eucheilini
Eucheilinae Bates, 1883, Biol. Centr. Amer., Col., 1 (1) :168. Periglossinae Liebke, 1929 Ent. Anz., 9:247. NEW SYNONYMY. Euchilini ; Csiki, 1932, Col. Cat., 124 :I585 ; Blackwelder, 1944, Bull. U.S.N. Mus., 185 :70.
Periglossini; Csiki, 1932, Col. Cat., 124:1585; Blackwelder, 1944, Bull. U.S.N. Mus., 185 :70.
Eucheilini; Ball, 1960, Beetles of the U.S.:164. 'Currently at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University Manuscript received by the editor December 1, 1965, 'A trip supported by the Evolutionary Biology Committee at Harvard University; this support is gratefully acknowledged.



================================================================================

-9651 Reichardt - Eucheilini 9
This small Neotropical tribe includes only two genera of small, Lebiini-like Carabidae, Their systematic position has been uncertain for a long time. Even though Eucheila, the type-genus, was described as early as 1829 (in Lebiini), the true relations to Helluonini were only recognized in 1883, when Bates erected the subfamily Eucheilinae to incorporate Eucheila and Innu (the latter also described in Lebiini, and at first considered as related to Eucheila by Bates), and placed it in the vicinity of the Helluonini.
In 1929 Liebke described the subfamily Periglossinae for a new Central-American genus, Periglossium. From his description and illustrations of this beetle, it is evident that Periglossivm is a synonym of Inna, and consequently the name Periglossinae has to be suppressed. The characters which link the Eucheilini to the Helluonini are the strangely modified mouthparts (Figs. 1-8). In spite of sim- ilarities, the Eucheilini are undoubtedly a distinct tribe, easily dis- tinguished from the Lebiini by the completely different mouthparts and from the Helluonini by their general Lebiini-habitus, as well as by the antennae which are pubescent from the 4th segment on in Eucheilini (pubescent from base in Helluonini). The aedeagus of the Eucheilini was unknown up to now. I was able to dissect one male of Eucheila strandi (Liebke) and one of Inna boyeri (Solier) (see Figs. 11 and 12). The two aedeagi are very similar, and this fact strengthens the supposed relation between the two genera. The left paramere of the aedeagus is reduced, but still present, being somewhat lobate in the two species. The genitalia of Neotropical Helluonini are also unknown, so that no comparison can be made now.
Geographic distribution: The tribe is typically Neotropical, ex- tending from Argentina to the southern United States (Texas). No species has yet been reported from the Antilles. Key to genera
I.
Labrum convex, covering apex of mandibles, with short setae only on lateral margins (Fig. 8) ; lateral margins of pronotum smooth, not crennkted; pronotum with basal setae only; tarsal claws pectinate ..... ., ... .... . ... . ........... .... ....... . .. ... Eucheila Dejean Labrum flat, not covering apex of mandibles, with 4 long setae on anterior margin, 2 longer ones and a series of short ones laterally (Fig. 3) ; lateral margins of pronotum crenulated; pronotum with basal and latero-median setae; tarsal claws simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . lnna Putzeys



================================================================================

10 Psyche [March
E ucheila Dej ean
Eucheyla Dejean, in Dejean and Boisduval, 1829, Icon. Col. Eur., 1 :60, 176- 177 (type-species, by monotypy, Eucheyla fiadlabris Dejean) . Eucheila; Dejean, 1831, Spec. gen. Col., 5:455-456; Chaudoir, 1848, Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscow, 21 (1) :124; Lacordaire, 1854, Gen. Col., 1:148. Euchila Dejean (nec Euchila Billberg) ; Agassiz, 1846, Nomencl. 2001. (em- mendation) ; Gemminger and Harold, 1868, Cat, Col.. 1 :I55 ; Csiki. 1932, Col, Cat., 124:1585; Blackwelder, 1944, Bull. U.S.N. Mus., 18590. The genus was originally spelled Eucheyla by Dejean, who in the original description gave the Greek derivation of the name. It is
obvious that this spelling was an incorrect transliteration. Dejean himself must have realized this, and in 1831 used the name Eucheila instead, without any mention of Eucheyla. According to article 32 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Eucheyla should be accepted as the "correct original spelling", since incorrect transliteration is not to be considered an inadvertent error (article 32, section a, ii).
However, Eucheyla has remained unused as a senior synonym since 1829, and must, therefore, be considered a nomen oblitum (article 23, section b). Eucheila Dejean must, there- fore, be considered the correct and valid name for the genus. Elucheyla Berlese, 1913, proposed as a subgenus of Cheyletia Haller, 1884 (Arachnids, Acari, Chryletidae) is a junior homonym of Eucheyla Dejean, and has been replaced by Neoeucheyla Radford, 1950. Agassiz (1846) emmended the name to Euchila, which is, however, a junior homonym of Euchila Billberg, I 820 ( Insecta, Lepidoptera) . Eucheila Dejean is easily distinguished from Inna Putzeys by the characters given in the generic key. The genus was described for a single species, @ilabris Dejean ; however, material of Inna strandi Liebke from the type-locality, proves that Liebke's species is congenic with flavilabris.
Key to species of Eucheila
I.
Metallic-brown species with dark brown appendages and lighter labrum ; elytra 9-carinate ................................ strandi (Liebke) Metallic-green species (sometimes very dark), with yellow ap- pendages and labrum ; elytra with vestigial carinae ................ flavilabris Dejean
........................................................................ Eucheila strandl (Liebke) , new combination. (Figs. 5-8, I I)
Inna strandi Liebke, 1939, Festschr. Emb. Strand, 5 :I21 (type from Jatai,
Brazil, in Liebke's collection ; probably destroyed).



================================================================================

19661 Reichnrdt - Eucheilini I I
Figs. 1 - 4, Inna boyeri (Solier) : Fig. 1, maxilla; Fig. 2, labium; Fig. 3, labrum; Fig. 4, mandibles; Figs. 5 - 8, Eucheila strandi (Liebke) : Fig. 5, mandibles; Fig. 6, maxilla; Fig. 7, labium; Fig. 8. labrum.



================================================================================

I mm'
,
,
#
J
,
3
J 1
1
s
. 1
^'.--/
right paramere
11




================================================================================

The pectinate claws, the very typical labrum and labium and the non-crenulated margin of the pronotum put this species without doubt in the same genus as flavilabris. It is easily distinguished by the dif- ferent color and the well developed elytral carinae. Examined specimens (6) : Brazil: SGO Paulo, Guatapari (I ex., CDZ) ; Go&, Jatai (3 exx., CDZ, MCZ) ; Bahia, no locality ( I ex., MNHN) ; Cearb, no locality (I ex., USNM). Euchila flavilabris Dej ean
(Fig. 9)
Eucheyla f.avilubris Dejean, in Dejean and Boisduval, 1829. Icon. Col. Eur., 1:178, pi. 8, fig. 3 (type from "environs de Rio-Janeiro", MNHN; examined).
Eucheila fiavilabris; Dejean, 1831, Spec. gen. Col., 5 :456-457 ; Lacordaire, 1854, Gen. Col., 1, pi. 4, fig. 4; Putzeys, 1863, Mem. Soc. Sci. Liege, 1892. pi. 2, figs. 75-77.
Euclzeila flavilubris is easily distinguished from strandi by the com- pletely different color, especially that of the appendages. A few specimens are very dark, almost as brown as strandi; however, the clytral carinae are always vestigial and the appendages always yellow. Examined specimens (14) : Brazil: Bahia, ~alibro (I ex., MNHN) ; Mmas Gerais, Matusinhos (I ex. MNHN) ; Serra do Caraca (I ex., MNHN); Rio de Janeiro, Nova Friburgo (6 exx., MNHN) ; Gnanabara, Rio de Janeiro (I ex., MNHN) ; 860 Paulo, Estac~o Biologica de Boraceia, Sales6poIis (2 exx., CDZ) ; Santa Catarina, no locality ( I ex., MNHN ) . Argen- ima: Santiago del Estero, near Icafio ( I ex., MNHN) . Inna Putzeys
h a Putzeys 1863, Mem. Soc. Sci. Liege, 18:71 (type-species, by monotypy, Inna punctata Putzeys) ; Chaudoir, 1872, Rev. Mag. Zool., (2) 23 219- 221 (redescription).
Periglossium Liebke, 1929, Ent. Anz., 9 :246-247 (type-species. by original designation, Periglossizm nevermunni Liebke) . NEW SYNONYMY. Ten species of Inna are presently known, their distribution ranging from Argentina (atrata Dejean) to southern Texas ( texana Schaef- fer).
My notes on the types .suggest that some of the described species are synonyms, e.g., Inna costulata Chaudoir is differentiated froin gramdata Chaudoir only by color: costulata is coppery-metallic, EXPLANATION OF PLATE 1
Fig. 9, Eucheila fiav'ilabris Dejean, head and pronotum; Fig. 10, Inna megala, n. sp., head and pronotum;
Fig. 11, aedeagus of Euchezla. strand'
(Liebke) ; Fig. 12, aedeagus of Inna boyeri (Solier).



================================================================================

i4 Psyche [March
while granulata is very dark brown, almost non-metallic. This color difference seems to be a very weak character, but since only the types are known, further decisions cannot be made now. It is also possible that nevermanni, from Costa Rica, is a synonym of costulata, which ranges from Colombia to Guatemala. The type of Inna nevermanni (Liebke) has probably been destroyed with part of Liebke's collection and no material is ~resentl~ available from Costa Rica so that nothing else can be said here,
The generic description of Periglossium Liebke does not differ1 in any respect from that of Inna Putzeys. There seems to be no reason to maintain Periglossium, which was probably described by Liebke when he did not know Inna.
Inna is easily distinguished from Eucheila by the characters given in the key.
Even though I have seen the types of most species, as mentioned above, I am presenting below new data only on two of the older species, of which material was available and could be identified. The recognition of the new species is based on comparison with the orig- inal descriptions of all the older species as well as on my notes on their types.
Ina boyeri ( Solier)
(Figs. 1-4, 12)
Polystichus boyeri Solier, 1835, Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 4:111 (holotype male from "Colombia", MNHN ; examined).
Inna boyeri; Chaudoir, 1872, Rev. Mag. Zoo}., (2) 23 :241-242 (redescrip- tion).
I am referring to this species, originally described from Colombia, a series of 10 specimens from Barueri in the state of Siio Paulo, Brazil (CDZ MCZ), which agree with the description and my notes on the type. Inna boyeri is very similar to costulata; however, it has more densely punctate pronotum and head, and is slightly larger in size.
Inna atrata ( Dej ean )
Cymindis atrata Dejean, 1831. Spec. gen. Col., 5 :327 (holotype from "Buenos- Ayres", MNHN ; examined).
Inna atrata; Chaudoir, 1872, Rev. Mag. ZooL, (2) 23 :243-244. The type-specimen in the Paris Museum is very damaged: the left elytron and the left antenna are missing, as well as parts of several legs. The species is very characteristic, having a densely punc- tate head and being the smallest species of the genus.



================================================================================

19661 Reichardt - Eucheilini
15
Examined specimens (3) : Argentina: Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires I ex., MLP) ; Isla Martin Garcia (I ex., MLP) ; Misiones, no locality ( I ex., MLP).
Inna megala, n. sp.
(Fig. 10)
Description : Reddish-brown, with light, almost yellow appendages ; elytral margin very light brown. Head - densely punctate dorsally, with longitudinal striation on antenna1 tubercules; whole surface micro-reticulate. Pronotum - wider than long, slightly wider than head; densely punctate on surface, with somewhat granulate aspect; posterior angles more or less square; lateral margins turned upwards, crenulated; median line in a slight depression which continues on each side anteriorly (forming a Y). Elytra- with 8 irregularly punctured sulci; 7 discal interstices more or less smooth, convex; 8th and 9th interstices very slightly indicated only, mainly posteriorly; almost twice as wide as pronotum, less than twice as long as wide; elytral margin with setose punctures. Measurements - holotype, 3.7 X 10.3 mm; paratype, 4.1 X 10.9 mm.
Types: Parqpay: holotype female, Villarrica, I?. Schade col. (MCZ n.
31197) ; paratype female, Amambay, A. Schulze col. (CDZ) .
Inna megala is very similar to planipennis Bates, which is only known from Mexico. The two species are of about the same size; planipmis has a less densely punctured head, especially between the eyes; the pronotum of megala is more transverse than that of plani- pennis.
Specific name: megala is derived from the Greek adjective megas, meaning large.
BALL, G. E.
1960. Carabidae, in Arnett, The Beetles of the United States, pp. 55- 182, 63 figs., Washington, D. C.
BATES, H. W.
1881-1884. Carabidae in Biologia Centrali-Americana, Coleoptera, 1, 299 pp., 13 color plates.
BLACKWELDER, R. E.
1944. Checklist of the Coleopterous Insects of Mexico, Central Amer- ??a, the West Indies and South America. Part 1. Bull. U.S.N. Mus., 185 :I-88.
CHAUBOIR, M.
2
Memoire sur la famille des carabiques. Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscow, 21 :3-134.




================================================================================

16 Psyche [March
1872, Descriptions d'especes nouvelles de carabiques de la tribu des troncatipennes, et remarques synonymiques. Rev. Mag. Zool., (2) 23 :219-221.
CSIKI, E.
1932. Carabidae, Harpalinae VII, in Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 124 :1279-1598.
DEJEAN. P. F. M. A.
1829. In Dejean and Boisduval, Iconographie et histoire naturelle des Col~iopt+res d'Europe, 1, 400 pp., 60 pis., Paris. 1831. Spec. gen. Col., 5, 883 pp., Paris. GEMMINGER, M. AND E. VON HAROLD
1868. Catalogus Coleopterorum . . . , 1, 424 pp., Monachii. LACORDAIRE, J. T.
1854. Genera des Coliopt6res . . . , 1. 486 pp., Paris. LIEBKE, M.
1929. Laufkaeferstudien. VI. Ent. Anz., 9 :245-247, 261-265, figs. 1939. Neue Laufkaefer. Festschr. Embr. Strand, 5 :91-130, 21 figs. PUTZEYS, J. A. A. H.
1863. Postscriptum ad clivinidarum monographiam atque de quibusdam alliis. Mem. Soc. Sci. Liege, 18 :1-78, figs. SOLIER, A. J. J.
1835.
Description de quelques especes nouvelles de la famille des cara- biques. Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 4 :Ill-121.



================================================================================