Andinocopris buckleyi Génier & Darling 2024, gen. et comb. nov.

Andinocopris buckleyi (Waterhouse, 1891) gen. et comb. nov. Figs 3–4, 15–16, 26, 32, 40, 42, 51, 65 Pinotus Buckleyi Waterhouse, 1891: 359 (original description). [Pinotus] simulator Luederwaldt, 1936: 209 (original description). Pinotus Buckleyi – Gillet 1911: 59 (catalogue). Pinotus (P.) Buckleyi – Luederwaldt 1929: 652 (monograph). Pinotus (P.) buckleyi – Luederwaldt 1936: 208 (diagnosis, distribution). Pinotus buckleyi – Blackwelder 1944: 206 (checklist). Dichotomius simulator – Vulcano & Pereira 1967: 584 (distribution, identification key). Homocopris buckleyi – Vaz-de-Mello et al. 2010: 192 (new combination). — Chamorro et al. 2018: 96 (distribution); 2019: 159 (catalogue, faunistic). Dichotomius buckleyi – Saavedra et al. 2017: 111 (faunistic). Differential diagnosis Body length 15–20 mm. Dorsal ocular width greater than one quarter of interocular distance. Lateral pronotal carina and pronotal edge distinctly forking anteriorly then merging posteriorly, forming a closed carinated ellipse. Interstriae convex and impunctate. Meso-metasternal suture posteriorly arcuate. Visible abdominal ventrites laterally setose. ♂ cephalic horn emerging centrally from clypeofrontal surface, parallel-sided with horizontal apex, curved throughout, flattened apically and length up to twice the interocular distance. Name-bearing type data Pinotus buckleyi Waterhouse: holotype ♂ (BMNH) (Fig. 51): “Chiguin | -da | 80.14” [handwritten]; “Type” [white disc with red border]; “ Pinotus | Buckleyi | (Type) Waterh.” [handwritten]. Pinotus simulator Luederwaldt: holotype, by monotypy, ♂ (BMNH) (Fig. 56): “Amazon”; “Degand”; “17140” [handwritten]; “Fry Coll. | 1905-100”; “ Copr. | simulator ” [handwritten]; “ Pinotus ♀ | Buckleyi Wat.? | illegible | Lüderw. det. 1934” [Luederwaldt’s handwriting]; “ HOLOTYPE ” [black border on red card]; “WORLD | SCARAB. | DATABASE | WSD00001803” [barcode label]; “ Homocopris | buckleyi ♂ | dét. F. Génier, 2008” [partly handwritten]; “ Pinotus Holot | simulator Lued. | des. F. Vaz-de-Mello, 2011” [partly handwritten]. The number ‘17140 corresponds in Fry’s notebooks in BMNH to ‘ Copris, Brazil, Upper Amazon, Degand’ (M.V.L. Barclay pers. comm.). Type locality Pinotus buckleyi: Chiguinda, Morona-Santiago, Ecuador; Pinotus simulator: Amazonas. Type material Holotype of Pinotus buckleyi ECUADOR • ♂; Morona-Santiago, Chiguinda; [3°18′ S, 78°41′ W]; [no date]; Buckley ”; BMNH. Holotype of Pinotus simulator UNSPECIFIED COUNTRY • ♂; Amazon; [no date]; Degand; BMNH. Material examined (16 ♂♂, 9 ♀♀) ECUADOR • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; [unspecified locality]; [no date]; Buckley; BMNH • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; MNHN. – Loja • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; Bosque Natural Huashapamba, Saraguro; [3°40′ S, 79°16′ W]; 2920 m; 10 Dec.2005; [anonymous]; CEMT • 1 ♂; Loja; [3°59′30″ S, 79°11′36″ W]; [no date]: Abbé Gaujon; CMNC • 6 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ (one of these was used for the descriptions of both sexes); same collection data as for preceding; MNHN. – Pastaza • 1 ♂; Sarayacu; [1°44′ S, 77°29′ W]; 1879; Buckley; MNHN. PERU – La Libertad • 1 ♀; Cumpang, above [Río] Uctubamba on trail to Ongón; [8°20′ S, 76°59′ W]; 2625 m; 16 Oct. 1979; J.L. Barkley; cloud forest; BDGC. – Piura • 1 ♂; Ayabaca; [4°38′ S, 79°43′ W]; 3000 m; Jan. 2016; Roja and Gonzales; CMD • 1 ♂; Provincia de Ayacaba, Bosque de Chin Chin, San Juan, Distrito de Pacaipampa; [4°59′59″ S, 79°39′29″ W]; 3055 m; 16 Apr. 2009; D. Saavedra; cloud forest, bovine dung; CEMT • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; PMOC • 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀; Bosque de Ramos, Comunidad Campesina de Samanga del Sector Espíndola; [4°42′4″ S, 79°27′43″ W]; 2834 m; 16 Feb. 2009; D. Saavedra; cloud forest, pitfall trap: fish; CEMT • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; same locality as for preceding; 27 May 2009; D. Saavedra; cloud forest, pitfall trap: fish; CEMT. Description The holotype was previously studied, but is not available for a detailed description. Male specimen (Figs 3, 15, 26, 32, 40, 42) MEASUREMENTS. Body length 16.4 mm. HEAD. Clypeal edge broadly arcuate, lacking teeth. Anteroventral clypeal tooth acute. Clypeal and genal surface rugose, clypeogenal suture ill-defined. Posterior genal angle obtuse. Frontal surface reduced, smooth. Dorsal ocular width greater than one-quarter interocular distance. Interocular surface smooth. Cephalic horn emerging centrally from clypeofrontal surface, parallel-sided with quadrate apex, curved throughout, apically flattened, 5.7 mm in length. PROTHORAX. Carina along anterior pronotal edge broad medially, narrowing laterally. Anterolateral pronotal lobe smooth, sectioned posteriorly by abrupt shelf. Lateral pronotal carina and pronotal edge distinctly forking anteriorly then merging posteriorly, forming closed carinated ellipse. Pronotal surface smooth anteriorly, transitioning posterolaterally into chagrined texture. Centrally raised projection bifurcated with deeply excavated anteroventral surface defined by uneven texture. Propleuron and prosternum broadly setose; with long (~ 1 mm) dark setae. Anterior prosternal apex rounded. ELYTRA. Glossy overall. Striae 1–6 widest anteriorly; narrowing posteriorly. Elytral stria eighth absent. Elytral striae nine absent on basal sixth. Interstriae convex, impunctate. HINDWING (Fig. 40). Membrane edge between AP and AA lobed. AP vein reduced. VENTRITES. Meso-metasternal suture posteriorly arcuate. Surface of median metasternal lobe (Fig. 42) finely punctate and convex, with scarce setigerous punctation along mesocoxae. Lateral metasternal lobe densely setose. Visible abdominal ventrites 1–6 laterally setose. Pygidium finely punctate. PROTHORACIC LEGS. Anterior and posterior surface of profemur with dense row of long dark setae. Ventral profemoral surface finely punctate, lacking setae. Protibia with four distinct teeth. Protibial forespur straight with apex tapering inward. MESOTHORACIC LEGS. Posterior surface of mesotrochanter with dense tuft of long rufous setae. Anterior and posterior surface of mesofemur with dense row of long dark setae. Outer surface of mesotibia serrate. Width at mesotibial apex one-third mesotibial length. METATHORACIC LEGS. Posterior surface of metatrochanter with tuft of long dark setae. Anterior and posterior surface of metafemur with dense row of long dark setae. Outer surface of metatibia serrate. Width at metatibial apex one-quarter metatibial length. MALE GENITALIA. Aedeagus length: 3.6 mm. Medially and laterally paired sclerites of genital segment broad, ill-defined. Paramere (Fig.26) laterally flattened, gently tapered; apex broad and slightly inclined with ventral tooth. FLP endophallite (Fig. 32) sigmoidal; broad distally, narrowing and inflecting centrally. Female specimen (Figs 4, 16) Similar to male with the following exceptions: body length 14.7 mm. Clypeal edge slightly sinuous medially. Clypeofrontal carina bi-tuberculate, with width equivalent to dorsal ocular width. Anterolateral pronotal lobe surface smooth, immediately transitioning to fused granulate texture posteriorly. Central pronotal ridge slightly overhanging, with lateral tubercles and shallow anterior excavation. Posterolateral and posterior pronotal surface chagrined. Variation Body length 15–20 mm. Clypeal teeth absent or round and indistinct. Cephalic horn acute in small males; less than 1 mm in length. Pronotal armament in small males limited to notched anterior ridge. Pronotal ridge lacking lateral tubercles in small females. Distribution (Fig. 65) High elevation (2625–3055 m) in the Ecuadorian and northern Peruvian Andes. The single record from “Amazon” is based on an historical specimen, the holotype of Pinotus simulator Luederwaldt with vague data (see Max Barclay pers. com., comment below). Natural history Specimens with data were collected in cloud forest using pitfall traps baited with fish and in bovine dung. Remarks In the original description of Pinotus simulator, Luederwaldt (1936) describes the type specimen as “seeming atrophied, perhaps belonging to [P. buckleyi]”. Luederwaldt goes on to describe the cephalic and pronotal armament of the specimen as “a small quadrate hump” in place of a long cephalic horn, and a “small sinuous carina” instead of a large bifurcating pronotal projection. We suspected Luederwaldt was referring to a poorly developed male representative of A. buckleyi. Upon examination of photographs of the specimen in question, we have confirmed this to be the case; the external morphology of P. simulator matches a typical small male of A. buckleyi in all respects, and the name is therefore considered a new junior synonym of A. buckleyi.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.