196,313 research outputs found
Cerámica arqueológica de San Cristóbal Ecatepec.. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Num. 31 Tomo III (1947-1948) Sexta Época (1939-1966)
No full textAcosta, Jorge. 1940. Exploraciones en Tula, Hgo., 1940. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos, Vol. 4, pp. 172-194. México, 1940.Anderson, A. E. 1932. Artifacts of the Rio Grande Delta Region. Bulletin, Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 4, pp. 29-31. Abilene, 1932.Caso, A. 1938. Exploraciones en Oaxaca, Quinta y Sexta Temporadas, 1936-.1937. Instituto Panamericano de Geografía e Historia, Publicación 34. México, 1938.Caso, A. 1941. El Complejo Arqueológico de Tula y las Grandes Culturas Indígenas de México. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos, Vol. 5, pp. 85-95. México, 1941.Du Solier, Wilfrido Massieu. 1935. Cabezas de barro cocido del Valle de México y de las Huaxtecas en los períodos arcaicos. Archivo de Monumentos Prehispánicos, I.N.A.H. (Inédito). 1935.Du Solier, Wilfrido Massieu. 1939a. Principales conclusiones obtenidas en la cerámica arqueológica del Tajín. Contribución al XXVII Congreso Internacional de Americanistas.Du Solier, Wilfrido Massieu. 1939b. Una representación pictórica de Quetzalcóatl en una cueva. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos, tomo III, N° 2, pp. 129-141.Du Solier, Wilfrido Massieu. 1941. Principales conclusiones de estudios sobre los problemas arqueológicos de Tula, Hgo. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos, tomo V, Núms. 2-3.Du Solier, Wilfrido Massieu. 1943. A Reconnaissance on Isla de Sacrificios, Veracruz, México. N° 14. Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology. Carnegie Institution. March 30, 1943.Du Solier, Wilfrido Massieu. 1944. Indumentaria Antigua Mexicana. (Inédito.)Du Solier, Wilfrido Massieu. 1945. La cerámica arqueológica del Tajín. Sobretiro del tomo III. 5ª época de los Anales del Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia y Etnografía. S. E. P.Du Solier Wilfrido Massieu. 1945. Estudio arquitectónico de los edificios huaxtecos. Sobretiro del tomo I, período 1939-1940, de los Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.Du Solier Wilfrido Massieu. 1946. Estudio de los sistemas diferentes de entierros en las Huastecas. XXVIII Congreso de Americanistas de Paris. 1946. 1er. tomo.Du Solier Wilfrido Massieu. 1946. Estudio de los Frescos de Tamuín, S.L.P. Cuadernos Americanos. N° 6, Vol. XXX. 1946.Ekholm, Gordon F. 1942. Excavations at Guasave, Sinaloa. Antropological Papers, American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 38, Part. 2. New York, 1942.Krickeberg, Walter. 1918-25. Die Totonaken. Baessler-Archiv., bd. VII, pp. 1-75.Linne, S. 1934. Archaeological Rescarches at Teotihuacan, Mexico. The Ethnographical Museum of Sweden New Series, Publication N° 1, Stockholm, 1934.Gamio, Manuel y otros. 1921. Album de Colecciones Arqueológicas seleccionadas y arregladas por Franz Boas. México, 1921.Gamio, Manuel y otros. 1922. La Población del Valle de Teotihuacán. S.A.F. Tomo I, Vols. 1-2 y tomo II. México, 1922.Marquina, Ignacio. 1939. Exploraciones en la Pirámide de Cholula, Puebla. (Mimeographed, 1939.)Moedano, Hugo. 1941. Estudio Preliminar de la Cerámica de Tzintzuntzan. Temporada III. 1939-1940. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos, vol. 5, pp. 21-42. México, 1941.Mullerried, F.K.G. 1924. Algunas observaciones entre los Cues en la Huasteca. El México Antiguo, tomo 2, pp. 20-29. México, 1924.Muir, Jonh M. 1926. Data on the Structure of Pre-Columbian Huastec Mounds in the Tampico Region, Mexico. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 56, pp. 231-238. London, 1926.Noguera, Eduardo. 1931. Ruinas de Cebadilla, Ver., Probables Vestigios Huaxtecos. Quetzalcóatl, vol. I, pp. 12-17. México, 1931.Noguera, Eduardo. 1935a. Antecedentes y Relaciones de la Cultura Teotihuacana. El México Antiguo, vol. 3, pp. 3-90. México, 1935.Noguera, Eduardo. 1935b. La cerámica de Tenayuca y las excavaciones estratigráficas. Tenayuca capítulo VIII. México, 1935.Noguera, Eduardo. 1937. Conclusiones principales obtenidas por el Estudio de la Cerámica Arqueológica de Cholula. Dirección de Monumentos Prehispánicos. México, 1937.Palacios, Enrique Juan and Meyer, Enrique E. 1932. La ciudad arqueológica del Tajín. Biblioteca de Estudios Históricos y Arqueológicos Mexicanos. Vol. 1. México.Payón, J. García. 1941. La Cerámica del Valle de Toluca. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos, vol. 5, pp. 209-238. México, 1941.Pollock, H.E.D. 1936. Round Structures of Aboriginal Middle America. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 471, Washington, 1936.Ricketson, Oliver G., Jr. & Edith B. 1937, Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E, 1926-1931. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 477, Washington, 1937.Rodríguez, Blas E. 1932. Tampico, Datos para la Historia de la Huasteca. México, 1932.Saville, Marshall H. 1900. A Shell Gorget from the Huasteca, Mexico. Bulletin, American Museum of Natural History, vol. 13. pp. 99-103. New York, 1900.Schuller, Rudolf. 1924. Notes on the Huaxteca Indians of San Luis Potosí, Mexico. El Mexico Antiguo, tomo II, núms. 5-8, pp. 129-140. México.Smith, R. E. 1936a. Rreliminary Shape Analysis of the Uaxactun Pottery. Carnegie lnstitution of Washington. Guatemala, 1936.Smith, R. E. 1936b. Ceramics of Uaxactun: A Preliminary Analysis of Decorative Techniques and Design. Carnegie Institution of Washington. Guatemala, 1936.Spinden, Herbert J. 1937. Huastec Sculptures and the Cult of the Apotheosis. The Brooklyn Museum Quarterly, vol. 24, pp. 179-188. Brooklyn. 1937.Staub, W. 1921a. Pre-Hispanic Mortuary Pottery Sherd Deposits and Other Antiquities of the Huasteca. El México Antiguo, tomo 1, pp. 218-236. México, 1921.Thompson, J. Eric. 1927a. Civilization of the Mayas. Field Mus. Nat. His., Anthrop. Leaflet, N° 25. Chicago.Thompson, J. Eric. 1939. Excavations al San Jose, British Honduras. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 506. Washington, 1939.Thompson, J. Eric. 1941. A coordination of the History of Chichen ltza with Ceramic Sequences in Central Mexico. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos, tomo V, núms. 2-3. 1941. México.Tozzer, Alfred M. 1930. Maya and Toltec figures at Chichén ltzá. Proc. 23 d. Int. Cong. Americanists, pp. 155-164. New York.Vaillant, G. C. 1938. A Correlation of Archaeological and Historical Sequences in the Valley of México. American Anthropologist, n. s. vol. 40, pp. 535-573, Menasha, 1938.Vaillant, G. C. 1930. Excavations at Zacatenco. Anthropological Papers, American Museum of Natural History, vol. 32, part 1. New York, 1930.Vaillant, G. C. 1931. Excavations at Ticoman. Anthropological Papers, American Museum of Natural History, vol. 32, part. 2. New York, 1931.Vaillant, G. C. 1941. Aztecs of Mexico. New York, 1941
Chiasognathus latreillei Solier 1851
No full text<i>Chiasognathus latreillei</i> Solier, 1851 <p>Figs 9, 11, 13, 30</p> <p> <i>Chiasognathus latreillei</i> Solier, 1851: 42, original combination. Type material: Lectotype female (MNHN) labeled a) green circular label with underside “15 / 43”; b) “MUSEUM PARIS / CHILI / GAY 15–43”; c) red letters “TYPE”; d) handwritten “ <i>Chiasognathus</i> / <i>rufipennis Latreillei</i> / Gay-Sol.”; e) “MUSÉUM PARIS / [Type. 290D.]”; f) bordered label “Southern Neotropical Scarabs / database # AS 2618224 / <i>Chiasognathus latreillei</i> / Solier, 1851 [female symbol] / DET: A.B.T. SMITH 2009”; g) red label “ <i>Chiasognathus</i> / <i>latreillei</i> [female symbol] / Solier, 1851 / LECTOTYPE / Det. M.J. Paulsen”. Lectotype designated by Chalumeau and Brochier (1995) by inference under ICZN Article 74.6 when they referred to the specimen as the holotype. Solier (1851) gave no definitive indication that there was only one specimen in the type series. Type locality: “ Chile.”</p> <p> <i>Chiasognathus imberbis</i> R. Philippi in F. Philippi, 1859: 657. Type material: Lectotype male (MNNC) designated by Chalumeau and Brochier (1995) labeled a) handwritten “261.”; b) “ CH. [<i>schönemanni</i>] male symbol / #2 det. J. Numhauser. VII- 1993 / genitalia dissect. J.N.”; c) handwritten “ <i>Chiasognathus</i> / <i>imberbis</i> PHIL. / dét. F. Chalumeau / & B. Brochier ‘94”; d) red paper “ LECTOTYPE ”; e) “ <i>Chiasognathus latreillei</i> / Solier / Dét. F. Chalumeau & B. Brochier / [‘94]; f) red, bordered label “ <i>Chiasognathus</i> / <i>imberbis</i> / Philippi, 1859 [male symbol] / Lectotype / A.B.T. Smith. Two male paralectotypes (MNNC). Type locality: “ Chile.”</p> <p> <i>Chiasognathus reichei</i> Thomson, 1862: 407. Type material: Lectotype male, <b>HERE DESIGNATED</b> (MNHN) labeled a) black-bordered “Th. / TYPE”; b) handwritten “Reichei / Type Thoms. / I, 1862 Chile ”; c) “ Ex-Musaeo / JAMES THOMSON”; d) “MUSÉUM PARIS / [291D]; e) handwritten “ <i>Chiasognathus</i> / <i>latreillei</i> Solier / Det: JP. Lacroix”; f) “ <i>Chiasognathus latreillei</i> / Solier / Dét. F. Chalumeau & B. Brochier [‘94]”; g) red label “ <i>Chiasognathus reichei</i> / Thomson, 1862 [male symbol] / LECTOTYPE / Det. M.J. Paulsen”. The length was given as a range in the original description indicating that more than one specimen was used (Thomson 1862), thus the MNHN specimen is considered the lectotype. Type locality: “ Chili.”</p>Published as part of <i>Paulsen, M. J. & Smith, Andrew, 2010, Revision of the genus Chiasognathus Stephens of southern South America with the description of a new species (Coleoptera, Lucanidae, Lucaninae, Chiasognathini), pp. 33-63 in ZooKeys 43 (43)</i> on page 53, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.43.397, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/576657">http://zenodo.org/record/576657</a>
Tentyria peiroleri subsp. peiroleri Solier 1835
No full text<i>Tentyria peiroleri</i> ssp. <i>peiroleri</i> Solier, 1835 (Figs. 17, 52, 85, 122, 151, 170, 203, 238) <p> <i>Tentyria peiroleri</i> Solier, 1835: 357.</p> <p> <b>Types examined:</b> Syntype (♁?) (Fig. 238), bearing the following labels: “ <i>Peirolerii</i> / Type Solier / MUSEUM PARIS, Coll. Solier, COLL. DE MARSEUL, 2842-90 / TYPE” (MNHN).</p> <p> <b>Additional material:</b> Almeria: Hispania, Seidlitz leg. / Riksmuseum Stockholm (1♀, NHRMS); <i>prolixa</i>, Pto. Bacares / <i>T. prolixa</i> Rosenh. / <i>T. prolixa</i> / MNCN, MADRID (1♁, MNCN); S. de Bacares, <i>rev.</i> Yieru? / MNCN_Ent., Nº Cat. 70834 (1♀, MNCN); 16, Filabres / MNCN_Ent., Nº Cat. 70870 (1♁, MNCN). Granada: Llanos de Guadix, 30SVG92, 25.VI.1991, F.S. Piñero leg. (8♁♁ and 4♀♀, CFSP / 2♁♁ CJF); idem, 7.VI.1991 (1♁, CFSP); idem, 7.VI.1990 (1♁, CFSP); idem, 9.VI.1991 (2♀♀, CFSP); idem, 8.VII.1991, (1♀, CFSP); idem, 7.III.1990 (1♁and 1♀, CFSP / 1♁ and 1♀, CJF); idem, 7.XI.1990 (1♀, CFSP). Ladihonda, Guadix, 30SVG9730, 7.VI.1991, F.S. Piñero leg. (1♀, CFSP); idem, 25.VI.1991 (1♀, CFSP); idem, 7.VI.1991 (1♀, CFSP); idem 6.III.1992 (1♁, CFSP). Hernán Valle, Guadix, 30SVG9335, 7.III.1990, F.S. Piñero leg. (1♀, CFSP). Charches, Sª de Baza (SB9), 6.VI.1994, F.S. Piñero leg. (4♀♀, CFSP); idem, 20.VI.1994 (1♀, CFSP); idem, 26.III.1995 (1♀, CFSP). (21 exx in CFSP).</p> <p> <b>Diagnosis:</b> Oval elongated body, black and shiny tegument (Fig. 203); broad head (Fig. 17), slightly angled or sub-rounded epistome, somewhat sinuous on the sides and slightly dentate at the apex; gular groove (Fig. 52) slightly deep and frequently in the form of open “V”; convex and slightly transverse pronotum (Fig. 85), with the sides in curve somewhat closed towards the base, obtuse but not well-defined rear angles; almost straight basal margin, barely sinuate before the posterior angles; punctures fine but dense and noticeable, similar to those of the head; prosternal apophysis (Fig. 122) depressed in the middle, widened between the coxae and tapering towards the apex which is generally slightly bent upward (in ventral view), barely extends beyond the procoxae; elytra very finely punctured, short and ovate, particularly in females, with the sides sub-parallel, scarcely narrowed toward the base and the apex, sometimes with signs of striation; the base is straight and well margined; rounded humeri and with the last abdominal sternite slightly sinuate at the apex (Fig. 151). Aedeagus (Fig. 170) about 3.5 mm long on average, with the parameres just longer than the phallobase, with the sides parallel until the apex.</p> <p> <b>Comments:</b> The specific epithet “ <i>peiroleri ”</i> instead of “ <i>peirolerii</i> ” is a transcription error since it does not correspond to the handwritten text of label attached to the type. <i>T. peiroleri</i> Solier, 1835 was a misinterpreted species since its description, because the types of Solier were not examined and the locality was not certainly known (Solier 1835).</p> <p> The record from “Málaga” (Rosenhauer 1856) is a mistake as Kraatz (1865) mentioned; at the same time, this last author confounded this species with another undescribed species coming from “Castilla la Nueva” (<i>T. castiliana</i> Koch 1945 <b>stat. nov.</b>); Reitter (1900), included it among the unknown, as from “Hispania?”; Gebien (1937), misinterpreted it as a species from the Iberian Levante; Koch (1944a), following Gebien (1837) and Kraatz (1865), established two subspecies, one of the Spanish East (nominal form) and the subspecies <i>T. peiroleri castiliana</i> Koch, from the Peninsular Centre. Español (1960) accepted the conclusions of Koch (1944a); Viñolas (1986) and Viñolas & Cartagena (2005), refused the validity of the subspecies proposed by Koch (1944a) and considered the whole of them (including <i>T. aragonica</i> Koch 1944) as synonymy, establishing a “variable species”, which would extend for much of the eastern half of the Iberian Peninsula, from Lleida to Seville. As it will be seen below, none of these taxa corresponds to the Solier type (1835), which, as this author believed, comes from southern Spain, and more specifically from the interior of the provinces of Granada and Almeria. <i>T. peirolei</i> Solier is a very variable species; the typical forms are in the Hoya de Guadix, being the specimens coming from the Sierra de Baza, somewhat bigger (especially the elytra) and with a more transverse pronotum, while those of Sª de los Filabres (Almería) are smaller and brighter.</p> <p> <b> Designation of the Lectotype of <i>Tentyria peiroleri</i> Solier, 1835, present designation:</b> The unique syntype fitting the Solier’s description (1835) is designated Lectotype (Fig. 238). It bears the following labels: handwritten label “Peirolerii” / label “ Type Solier ” / MUSEUM PARIS, Coll. Solier, COLL. DE MARSEUL, 2842-90 / red label “TYPE”.</p> <p> <b>Geographic distribution:</b> Andalusian species, typical of the interior of Betic chains, specifically from the “Hoya de Guadix”, extending eastward through the Sierra de Baza and the Sierra de Filabres.</p>Published as part of <i>Bujalance, José L., Ferrer, Julio & Cárdenas, Ana M., 2023, A taxonomic revision of the genus Tentyria Latreille, 1802 in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), pp. 1-88 in Zootaxa 5320 (1)</i> on pages 33-34, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5320.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/8203747">http://zenodo.org/record/8203747</a>
Eleodes connatus Solier 1848
No full text<i>Eleodes connatus</i> Solier, 1848 <p>(Figs. 3, 6, 7)</p> <p> <i>Eleodes connata</i> Solier, 1848. Baudi et Truqui Studi Entomologie 2: 237.</p> <p> <i>Eleodes</i> (<i>Melaneleodes</i>) <i>connata</i>: Gebien, 1938. Katalog der Tenebrioniden Pt. 2, p. 53.</p> <p> <b>Diagnosis.</b> Shiny black, elongate, dorsally flattened; pronotum slightly narrower than elytron. Head trapezoidal, outline of clypeal margin concave from dorsal view, surface densely, shallowly punctate. Terminal three antennomeres globular, abruptly wider than preceding eight antennomeres. Mentum simple, roundly rectangular in outline; surface shallowly bilaterally excavate. Pronotum flat dorsally, widest in anterior half, lateral margins sinuate, anterior margin arcuately concave, posterior margin straight, posterior corners right-angled; surface evenly, finely punctate. Prosternum subhorizontal, roundly angulate apically. Elytron flattened dorsally, surface distinctly punctate, punctations arranged in series. Humeri embracing overlapping posterior pronotum, sides of elytron deflexed more than 90°; truncate posteriorly, the caudal portion essentially vertical. Fold of elytral dorsum at deflection rounded. Epipleuron broad basally, evenly narrowing to apex. Profemur unarmed in both genders. Plantar groove of basal protarsomere bare of spines or setae. Spurs at apex of protibiae stout in females, long and slender in males, the ental spur longer. Length 9–12 mm, width 4–6 mm.</p> <p> <b>Types.</b> Deposited in Museum National d’ Histoire Naturelle (Paris, France): four males, two females, all labeled “ type ” under “ <i>E. connata</i> Solier ” (notes provided to the author by C. A. Triplehorn).</p> <p> <b>Distribution.</b> Mexican states of Estado de México, Michoacán, Tlaxcala, Veracruz, Chihuahua, Durango, Puebla, Morelos, and Distrito Federal (Fig. 8).</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> Pierre (1975) reported finding them at the edge of montane forests and on cultivated ground on volcanic slopes.</p>Published as part of <i>Thomas, Donald B., 2015, Chaseleodes Thomas: A New Subgenus of Eleodes Eschscholtz (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) from the Central Plateau of Mexico, pp. 122-126 in The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 14) (mo 14) 69</i> on page 123, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-69.mo4.122, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/4908254">http://zenodo.org/record/4908254</a>
Tentyria peiroleri subsp. incerta Solier 1835, stat. nov.
No full text<i>Tentyria peiroleri</i> ssp. <i>incerta</i> Solier, 1835 stat. nov. (Figs. 18, 86, 123, 152, 204, 239, 240) <p> <i>Tentyria incerta</i> Solier, 1835: 359.</p> <p> <i>Tentyria incerta</i> ssp. <i>pseudolaevis</i> Koch, 1944a: 231 <b>syn. nov.</b> (Types from Almería).</p> <p> <i>Tentyria levis</i> Solier, 1835: 358 <b>syn. nov.</b></p> <p> <b>Types examined:</b> Syntype (♁) (Fig. 239), bearing the following labels: <i>T. incerta</i> Sol., Barb? (old rectangular label) / <i>Incerta</i> (Solier’s typical label from) / <i>Tentyria incerta</i> Sol., Barba. T., Du 64 (rounded label) / TYPE (red letter) / MUSEUM PARIS, COLL. DE MARSEUL, 2842-90 / TYPE (red label) / <i>Tentyria incerta</i>, Type Solier / label with the aedeagus (MNHN). In the MNHN there are other two specimens labelled as Types which really are not syntypes of Solier. Contrarily, there are two specimens of the misinterpreted <i>Tentyria prolixa</i> Rosenhauer. These two false syntypes bear the following labels: <i>incerta</i> Kr., Type / Kraatz, 866 (small, square label) / TYPE (red label) / MUSÉUM PARIS (Fig. 252); <i>Tentyria incerta</i> Sol., Andal. “Titf 86” (?) (rounded label) / MUSEUM PARIS, Coll. Solier, COLL. DE MARSEUL, 2842-90 / <i>Tentyria incerta</i> Solier, Type? /? SYNTYPE (red label).</p> <p> <i>Tentyria incerta</i> ssp. <i>pseudolaevis</i> Koch, 1944: Almería: Sierra Gádor, Prov. Almería, G. Frey, C. Koch, V. 1943 (two syntypes, NHMB); Umg. Almería, Hisp. m. V. 1943, G. Frey, C. Koc (two syntypes, NHMB); ALMERÍA, Roquetta (Roquetas), Hisp. m. V. 1943, leg. G. Frey, C. Koch (one syntype, NHMB). Málaga (one syntype, in NHMB): <i>Tentyria incerta</i> ssp. <i>pseudolaevis</i>, C. Koch, 1944, TYPUS / Málaga, J. Ardois / Winkler / <i>laevis</i> / Sammlung Adr. Schuster (NHMB).</p> <p> <i>Tentyria levis</i> Solier 1835: The type described by Solier (1835) has not been found in the MNHN, but we found a specimen labelled as type having the following tags: rounded label, “ <i>Tentyria laevis</i> Sol., Espan. T, Du 64” (Dupont 64) / rectangular label “ <i>Laevis ”</i> / “MUSEUM PARIS, Coll. Solier, COLL DE MARSEUL, 2842-90” / modern red label “TYPE”. However, this and other specimens determined as <i>T. laevis</i> Sol., cannot be considered syntypes since it does not match with the Solier’s description (1835). On the other hand, in the MNHUB we have located a possible syntype, or “type comparavit”, of <i>T. laevis</i> Solier, with the following labels (Fig. 254): <i>Tentyria laevis</i> Sol., Carthag. Dej. (old label) / 45575 (old label) / Hist.-Coll. (Coleoptera), Nr. 45575, <i>Tentyria laevis</i>..., Carthagena, Dej. Zool. Mus. Berlin.</p> <p> <b>Additional Material:</b> Almería: El Playazo, Valle de Rodalquilar, Níjar, 30S0588539 4079456, 3.V.2006, A. Castro Tovar leg. (2♁♁ and 1♀, CACT); Cabo de Gata, VII.2000, A. Castro Tovar leg. (1 ex, CACT); Coto de Vera, Pto. Rey, 24.IV.2011, J.C. Martínez leg. (2♁♁ and 2♀♀, CJF); idem, 23.IV.2011 (15 exx, CJLB); Cuevas de Almanzora, 12.II.2011, J.C. Martínez leg. (18 exx, CJLB); Mata Gorda, El Ejido, 23.IV.2011, J.C. Martínez leg. (17 exx, CJLB); El Palmar, Aguadulce, 27.XII.1955, F. Español leg. (1♁, CJF); Playa de Almerimar, V.1981, B. Lassalle leg. (3 exx, CJF); Tabernas, 1230m, 8.II.1987, Bastazo & Vela leg. (2 exx, CB &V); Níjar, 26.X.1991, Bastazo & Vela leg. (7 exx, CB &V); El Alquián, 9.I.2011, J.C. Martínez et al leg. (4♁♁ and 1♀, CJLB); Punta del Sabinar, Roquetas, 1989, M.A. Alonso Z. leg. (1♀, MNCN _ Ent Nº Cat. 70872); Salinas de Cabo de Gata, 14- 16.IV.2006, Pérez de Gregorio and M. Bravo leg. (MCNB).</p> <p> <b>Diagnosis:</b> The description of <i>Tentyria incerta</i> Solier fully fits the syntype preserved in Paris (MNHN). This species differs from <i>T. peiroleri</i> f.t. in the somewhat smaller average size, narrower head and usually more angled or subtriangular epistome (Fig. 18); less transverse but more convex pronotum (Fig. 86), at least in males, frequently sub-orbicular; narrower and elongated prosternal apophysis (Fig. 123), often more acute at the end and surpassing the procoxae; proportionally shorter and sub-cylindrical elytra (Fig. 204), the last urosternite usually not sinuous at the apex (Fig. 152). Aedeagus like that of <i>T. peiroleri</i> f.t., but of smaller average size.</p> <p> <b>Comments:</b> <i>T. incerta</i> Solier, described from “Barbarie” really is an Andalusian species, common in the coast of Almeria. It was unknown by Rosenhauer (1856) and misinterpreted by all authors after Kraatz (1865), who confused it with <i>T. frigida</i> Rambur in litt. (Fig. 253), identical to <i>T. prolixa</i> Rosenhauer, species unknown by Kraatz (1865). Proof of this is that in the MNHN there is a type of <i>T. incerta</i> designated by Kraatz (= <i>T. prolixa</i> Rosenhauer) (Fig. 252).</p> <p> Reitter (1900) recorded this species from “Hispania” and Koch (1944a), following the Kraatz’s (1865) criterium, cited it from Sierra Nevada, typical locality of <i>T. prolixa</i> Rosenhauer, and which this author confused with <i>T. platyceps</i> Steven (Koch 1944a). Hence, he did not detect the Kraatz’s error and described <i>T. incerta</i> ssp. <i>pseudolaevis</i> Koch with specimens from Almeria (Koch 1944a), true provenance of <i>T. incerta</i> Solier. Español (1960) followed Koch’s criterium, and finally, Viñolas (1986) established the synonymy between <i>T. incerta</i> sensu Kraatz (non <i>T. incerta</i> Solier) and <i>T. incerta</i> ssp. <i>pseudolaevis</i> Koch, and made the iconography of this taxon with a specimen identical to the specimens from Málaga of <i>T. incerta</i> ssp. <i>pseudolaevis</i> Koch (= <i>T. kochi</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>).</p> <p> <i>T. incerta</i> ssp. <i>pseudolaevis</i> Koch, is in fact a synonymy of <i>T. incerta</i> Solier (= <i>T. peiroleri</i> ssp. <i>incerta</i> Solier, <b>stat. nov.</b>) since the specimens from the typical localities (Almería) are like the Solier’s type. However, the specimens later cited by Koch (1944a) from Malaga (Sierra de Ronda) and Algeciras and labelled as “Tipus” (NHMB) belong to another hitherto unpublished taxon, <i>T. kochi</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>, and cannot be considered Types of <i>T. incerta</i> ssp. <i>pseudolaevis</i> Koch, since Koch (1944a) did not include them in the typical series.</p> <p> On the other hand, Solier (1835) described <i>T. levis</i> with a specimen from “Carthagène” sent by “M. Widmann” which has not been found in the MNHN of Paris. Instead, as already indicated, there is a specimen labelled as “Type” from the Solier collection, which cannot be considered a syntype of <i>T. levis</i> Solier, since it does not agree with the Solier’s description (1835) because it shows a wide and deep gular groove. According to this characteristic and following the key of Solier (1835), it should be placed into the group of <i>T. goudoti</i> (= <i>T. platyces</i>) – <i>T. grossa – T. orbicollis</i>, and not in that of <i>T. peiroleri – T. levis – T. incerta</i>.</p> <p> In addition, it does not correspond to the species coming from Cartagena, supposed original locality. The syntype from Paris is a specimen corresponding to the unpublished <i>T. kochi</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> (= <i>T. incerta</i> ssp. <i>pseudolaevis</i> Koch, specimens from Malaga), typical of the Costa del Sol, but not of Cartagena. As consequence of this historical confusion, all the specimens <i>in litt</i>. of Rambur, tagged “ <i>T. laevis</i> Solier, Andalus Rambur ” (MNHUB) corresponds to the previously mentioned unpublished species. Rosenhauer (1856) dragged the erroneous record of Malaga; Kraatz (1865), considering authentic the syntypes of Paris and comparing them with material from Cartagena, realized that they are different, considering the locality of <i>T. levis</i> Sol. wrong. Hence, he described <i>T. sublaevis</i> Kraatz, 1865 with specimens from Cartagena, and cited Andalusia, specifically Malaga, as the true origin of <i>Tentyria levis</i> Solier, making a description of this taxon (Kraatz 1865) that does not agree with that of Solier (1835). Reitter (1900) followed the Kraatz’s criterion placing <i>T.</i> “ <i>laevis ”</i> in group 3 of his key, next to T. <i>platyceps</i> Stev., which corresponds to the <i>Tentyria</i> species with transverse gular groove, very deep and well developed. Koch (1944a) realized that the authors who preceded him (Reitter, Kraatz, Rosenhauer, Rambur,...) had confused <i>T. levis</i> Solier with an unpublished taxon, which he described as <i>T. incerta</i> ssp. <i>pseudolaevis</i>. However, Koch considering <i>Tentyria sublaevis</i> Kraatz synonymy of <i>T. levis</i> Solier, guided only by the typical locality that Solier cited, without considering that the specimens that inhabit Cartagena do not fit the description of <i>Tentyria levis</i> Solier. Therefore, <i>T. sublaevis</i> Kraatz should be considered a valid species to assign the specimens from Cartagena.</p> <p> In the MNHUB, there is a specimen labelled “ <i>T. laevis</i> Sol., Carthag. Dej. ” which exactly matches the description of <i>T. levis</i> Solier (1835), and therefore different from the specimens coming from Cartagena (<i>T. sublaevis</i> Kraatz). Probably, this is the lost type of Solier because it is very unlikely that there were two specimens from two different collectors with the same mistake in the label of locality. <i>T. levis</i> Solier was cited by Eschscholtz (1831) and later included in the Catalogue of the collection of Dejean (1833) “Laevis. Solier – Hisp. Orient.”, before Solier’s description (1835), which indicates that this taxon was transferred to Solier for study.</p> <p> On the other hand, comparing this specimen with others belonging to <i>T. peiroleri</i> and <i>T. incerta</i> Solier from Granada and Almería, respectively, they are practically indistinguishable. The same occurs when the descriptions of <i>T. peioleri</i>, <i>T. levis</i> and <i>T. incerta</i> are compared. This implies that Solier (1835) described three different species with variable specimens belonging to the same specific taxon. Hence, <i>T. levis</i> Solier must be considered a synonym of <i>T. peiroleri</i> ssp. <i>incerta</i> Solier, and the Carthagena provenance is a labeling mistake.</p> <p> <b>Geographic distribution:</b> Known from the Almería littoral and nearby mountains: Sª de Gádor and Sª de Alhamilla.</p> <p> <b> Designation of Lectotype of <i>Tentyria incerta</i> Solier, 1835, present designation:</b> </p> <p> Given the confusion about this taxon since its description and after detecting two false syntypes next to the type described by Solier (1835) we consider necessary to designate Lectotype to the specimen that carries the following labels: <i>T. incerta</i> Sol., Barb? (old rectangular label) / <i>Incerta</i> (typical label of Solier) / <i>Tentyria incerta</i> Sol., Barba. T., Du 64 (rounded label) / TYPE (red letter) / MUSEUM PARIS, COLL. DE MARSEUL, (Fig. 239).</p> <p> <b> Designation of Lectotype of <i>Tentyria incerta</i> ssp. <i>pseudolaevis</i> Koch, 1944, present designation:</b> </p> <p> In the NHMB there is, at least, one specimen labelled “ <i>Typus</i> ” coming from Málaga (described above), which cannot be considered type, since Koch (1944a) explicitly indicated the typical series (4♁♁ and 4♀♀, Sierra Gádor), together with other specimens from other localities in the province of Almería. For this reason, we believe it necessary to designate one of the specimens bearing the following label Lectotype: Sierra Gádor, Prov. Almería, G. Frey, C. Koch, V. 1943 (Fig. 240a). The other specimens in the typical series are designated Paralectotypes (Fig. 240b).</p>Published as part of <i>Bujalance, José L., Ferrer, Julio & Cárdenas, Ana M., 2023, A taxonomic revision of the genus Tentyria Latreille, 1802 in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), pp. 1-88 in Zootaxa 5320 (1)</i> on pages 34-36, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5320.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/8203747">http://zenodo.org/record/8203747</a>
Odontocarus Solier 1835
No full textGenus Odontocarus Solier, 1835 Odontocarus asiaticus (Chaudoir, 1852) Citations: 40 km North west of Kasri-Shirin, 1800 m (Prov. of Kermanshah; Mandl, 1967 b). Odontocarus iranicus Jedicka, 1968 Citations: Dashte-Argan (Prov. of Fars; Jedlička, 1968). Odontocarus zarudnianus (Semenov & Znojko, 1929) Citations: Province Lurestan (Semenov & Znojko, 1929); Without exact locality (Wrase, 2003).Published as part of Azadbakhsh, Saeed & Nozari, Jamasb, 2015, Checklist of the Iranian Ground Beetles (Coleoptera; Carabidae), pp. 1-108 in Zootaxa 4024 (1) on page 82, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4024.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/24049
Oogenius virens Solier. Mas 1851
No full textOogenius virens Solier, 1851 (Fig. 2, 4, 42, 57–58, 65, 72) Combinación original. Oogeneius virens Solier, 1851: 98. Localidad tipo: “ Chile ”. Material tipo: Lectotipo macho (Fig. 38–40) en MNHN etiquetado: a) “MUSÉUM PARIS / Ancienne / collection” (etiqueta manuscrita e impresa), b) “126” (etiqueta blanca manuscrita), c) “ Oogeneius / virens Sol. / Chili ” (etiqueta blanca manuscrita), d) “15” / “45” (circulo de cartulina blanca manuscrito), e) “ O. virens. / Solier. / Chili. / M. Gay” (etiqueta verde manuscrita), f) “TYPE” (etiqueta roja impresa), g) “Southern Neotropical Scarabs / database # AS 2617868 / Oogenius virens / Solier, 1851 ♂ / DET: A.B.T. SMITH 2008” (etiqueta blanca impresa), h) “ Lectotype ♂ / Oogenius / virens Solier / J. Mondaca E. 2016” (etiqueta roja impresa), i) “MNHN / EC6725” (etiqueta blanca impresa). Diagnosis. Longitud corporal, largo 16–19 mm. Esta especie se distingue de todas las otras especies de Oogenius por la siguiente combinación de caracteres: color general verde brillante con reflejos cobrizos (Fig. 57–58). Clípeo redondeado, con el margen anterior elevado; superficie densamente rugoso-punteada, ligeramente setosa (Fig. 42). Labro con el margen anterior redondeado, dorsalmente punteado y setoso; epifaringe con abundantes setas sensoriales y espinas (Fig. 2). Mandíbulas redondeadas, con el borde interno sinuoso y el ápice romo. Labio semicircular, convexo, punteado y setoso, con el margen anterior emarginado (Fig. 72). Maxila con lacinia provista de pequeñas dientes y espinas (Fig. 4). Pronoto densamente punteado, glabro, con reborde marginal incompleto basomedialmente; puntuación moderada. Élitros débilmente estriados; estrías elitrales formadas por puntos moderados ligeramente profundos; interestrías moderadamente punteadas, puntuación pequeña a moderada; borde lateral con arrugas transversales, ápice ligeramente rugoso. Maza antenal más larga que el funículo en ambos sexos. Protarso del macho con la uña interna dentada, dorsalmente estriada. Pigidio convexo en ambos sexos, con el ápice redondeado; superficie modernamente punteada, setosa. Parámeros subtrapezoidales, con los bordes laterales curvos, distalmente truncados y separados en el medio (vista dorsal), lateralmente sinuosos (Fig. 65). Distribución geográfica (Fig. 12). Chile, Región de Coquimbo (Provincia de Elqui) a Región de Valparaíso (Provincia de San Antonio). Material examinado. CHILE (42). Región de Coquimbo (35). Caleta Hornos (1 MNNC); Los Vilos (3 CMBC, 3 MNNC); Pichidangui (1 MNNC); Quereo, Los Vilos (18 CJME, 5 CVMD, 1 MNNC, 3 PVGH). Región de Valparaíso (7). Algarrobo (6 CMBC); Huaquén (1 CMNC). Datos temporales. Junio (20), Julio (2), Agosto (1), Septiembre (7), Octubre (3), Noviembre (3), Diciembre (4). Biología. Los adultos de O. virens son de hábitos crepusculares; los machos vuelan de madrugada entre fines del invierno y comienzos de la primavera (julio-septiembre); habitan las planicies costeras arenosas situadas entre las regiones de Coquimbo y Valparaíso. En este tramo predomina una vegetación arbustiva y herbácea propia de los ambientes costeros de Chile central (Fig. 15). Las larvas de esta especie se alimentan de raíces y restos vegetales en descomposición de Baccharis spp. (Asteraceae), Puya spp. (Bromeliaceae) y Schinus polygamus (Cav.) Cabrera (Anacardiaceae). Los estados inmaduros de esta especie (Fig. 20–23) son conocidos, pero hasta el momento no han sido descritos. Comentarios. Las citas que le atribuyen a esta especie una distribución en la cordillera de los Andes por sobre los 2000 m (Gutiérrez 1949, 1951) son erróneas, ya que éstas se basaron en ejemplares de O. chilensis incorrectamente identificados como O. virens (Gutiérrez 1949).Published as part of Mondaca, José, 2016, Revisión del género Oogenius Solier, 1851 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae: Rutelini), pp. 1-24 in Insecta Mundi 2016 (515) on pages 13-14, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.517092
REVISIÓN TAXONÓMICA DE LAS ESPECIES CHILENAS DEL GÉNERO A rth robrach u s SOLIER, 1849 (COLEOPTERA: MELYRIDAE)
No full textA taxonomic revisión of the chilean species o í Arthrobrachus is made. Through the study o f types 9 valid ñames and 17 synonymies are recognized: A. nigromaculatus Solier, 1849 (= scutellaris Phil. y Phil., 1864; =subaeneus Phil. y Phil., 1864; = nigromaculatus var. solieri Pie, 1919; =vicinus Pie, 1919; =impressithoraxPie, 1919); A. quadriguttalus Pie, 1919; A. rufitarsis Phil. y Phil. 1864 (=gennaini Pie, 1919; =minutus Pie, 1919); A.rufipennis Solier, 1849; A. tibialis Solier, 1849; A. maestus (Blanehard, 1843) (=quadripunctatusPhil. y Phil., 1864); A. Jlavipennis (Laporte, 1836) (= luteus (Blanehard, 1843); =varians Solier, 1849; =nigripenrtis Solier, 1849; =serratim argo Phil. y Phil., 1864; =puncticulatus Phil. y Phil. 1864;= tibialis var. inlineatus Pie, 1919); A. brasiliensis Pie, 190.3; A. limbatus Solier, 1849 (=ruficornis Phil. y Phil., 1864; =marginatus Phil. y Phil., 1864;= limbatus var. inlimbatus Pie, 1919). A new speeies is deseribed: A.latefasciatus n. sp.A new combination is established: Astylus subacuminatus (Solier, 1849) n. comb.A redescription o f the species using the male genital charaters is made. The distributional ranges o f every species is established and a key is provided
NUEVA ESPECIE CHILENA DEL GÉNERO ARTHROBRACHUS SOLIER, 1849: DESCRIPCIÓN DE ARTHROBRACHUS EPUMENKIN. SP. (COLEOPTERA : MELYRIDAE
No full textA new species of the genus Arthrobrachus Solier is described, A. epumenki n.sp. The specific ñame, based on mapudungun language allude to a pair of short bristles tufts on metasternal surface of male. Geographic distribution is provided.Se describe una nueva especie del género Arthrobrachus Solier, A. epumenki n.sp. El nombre específico, en lengua mapudungun, alude a un par de penachos de cerdas cortas metasternales del macho. Se entrega información sobre distribución geográfica
Saint-Paulien – Notre-Dame de Haut-Solier, rue Estruscille
No full textSaint-Paulien est situé à une quinzaine de kilomètres au nord du Puy-en-Velay, dans le département de la Haute-Loire. L’emprise de la fouille correspond à l’étude des élévations du bâtiment situé dans la parcelle AN 121 (surface : 650 m2), dans le quartier du Haut- Solier, qui se situe dans la partie septentrionale de l’agglomération, à une altitude (822 m) légèrement supérieure à celle du centre-ville. Cette fouille préventive de bâti est motivée par le projet de rénovation du bâtiment...
- …
