Oxytelus meinanderi Scheerpeltz, 1974

(Figs 1–3, 6–7, 10–13, 18–22)

Oxytelus (Anotylus) meinanderi Scheerpeltz, 1974: 7.

Oxytelus meinanderi; Herman, 2001: 1442.

Material examined – “ ♂ \ Sudan; Erkowit [18°46’N, 37°70’E] \ 18.4.1964; M. Meinander \ Oxytelus; Meinanderi; n. sp. \ Typus; Oxytelus; Meinanderi; O. Scheerpeltz [dark red card] \ ex coll.; Scheerpeltz [light blue label] \ Meinanderi; Schp. [light blue bottom card] \ Oxytelus; meinanderi Scheerpeltz; det. Makranczy, 2013 ” (major ♂ without abdomen, NHMW); “ ♂ \ Sudan; Erkowit \ 18.4.1964; M. Meinander \ Cotypus; Oxytelus; Meinanderi; O. Scheerpeltz [pink card] \ ex coll.; Scheerpeltz [blue label] \ Oxytelus; meinanderi Scheerpeltz; det. Makranczy, 2013 ” (minor ♂, NHMW); “ ♀ \ Sudan; Erkowit \ 18.4.1964; M. Meinander \ Oxytelus; Meinanderi; n. sp. \ Typus; Oxytelus; Meinanderi; O. Scheerpeltz [dark red card] \ ex coll.; Scheerpeltz [blue label] \ Oxytelus; meinanderi Scheerpeltz; det. Makranczy, 2013 ” (1 ♀, NHMW).

Redescription – Measurements (in mm, ♂): HW = 0.97; TW = 1.00; PW = 1.00; SW = 0.94; AW = 1.00; HL = 0.61; EL = 0.28; TL = 0.31; PL = 0.73; SL = 0.90; SC = 0.82; FB = 2.53; BL = 4.83; (♀): HW = 0.76; TW = 0.73; PW = 0.82; SW = 0.82; AW = 0.95; HL = 0.50; EL = 0.26; TL = 0.22; PL = 0.63; SL = 0.81; SC = 0.73; FB = 2.13; BL = 4.53. Body moderately lustrous, mostly testaceous, reddish with darker head and elytra yellowish. Head reddish dark brown, supra- antennal ridges and clypeus somewhat lighter, pronotum reddish medium brown, elytra yellowish medium brown, rest of body medium brown. With a few stronger setae not differing markedly from body colour.

Male (Fig. 1). Head surface dominated by strong and dense punctation intermixed with costate microsculpture (sometimes with rugulose parts), with only the elevated parts of supraantennal tubercles and most of clypeus free of it: these with colliculate microsculpture. Clypeus side and indistinct posterior borders form an almost perfect circle marked by darker colour. A more or less longitudinal line connecting upper/posterior edge of eye with the neck. Anterior margins of supraantennal ridges straight and oblique, meeting straight anterior edge with two tiny, shallow incisions. Vertex with conspicuous midlongitudinal suture connecting tip of reverse V-shaped occipital suture (os) with impressed V-shaped area behind clypeus; latter transversally impressed on anterior part. Nuchal ridge (nr) inconspicuous, slightly darker, paralateral sutures (ps) absent. Antenna of type II: antennomere 4 with basal dish (Fig. 3); first antennomere insignificantly twitched.

Pronotum 3-sulcate, median sulcus (ms) and paramedial sulcus (pms) medium strongly impressed, the latter wider, paralateral depressions (pld) medium strongly depressed along a curved, oblique line, lateral marginal bead (lmb) apparent on posterior and side margins, marked by a dark brown line. Surface only moderately glabrous with costate microsculpture, more shiny on elevated areas, in sulci and depressions with rough and irregular microsculpture.

Elytra moderately glabrous, dominated by medium coarse costate microsculpture, in the outer 1/3 a few thin but slightly elevated thread-like costae. Epipleural ridge (er) present, continues dorsally in a posterior marginal bead, stronger in outer half, membranous lobe apparent in outer half pulled out at 3/5 width from suture. Lateral longitudinal ridge (llr) apparent and marked by a slightly darker line.

Legs with three-segmented tarsi (tarsal formula 3–3–3) with second article just a little shorter than first, third elongate but not flattened. Tibiae with rows of spinules and more acute, darker spines mostly along two longitudinal keels. Protibia distinctly constricted in outer 1/4, the double row consists of some 5 and 6 spines, interrupted at pre-apical emargination. Mesotibia slightly emarginate in outer 1/4, double row consisting of some 5 and 9 spines, interrupted pre-apically. Metatibia with two longitudinal keels, row of some 7 smaller spines on one while the other bears a longitudinal ctenidium of spinules in outer 3/5 of tibial length. All tibiae with a distinct spur at 2/5 of length.

Abdomen not pubescent (except sparse spurs), somewhat constricted at base but rather parallel-sided, tergites with very fine coriaceous microsculpture of isodiametric cells.

Primary and secondary sexual characters. Male temples rather enlarged and broadened, strongly developed specimen as on Fig. 2. Female temples much shorter, not exceeding half the length of the eye, their width less than head width at eye. Male sternite VII (Fig. 18) with posterior margin very gently sinuate in middle without other peculiar modifications. Male sternite VIII (Fig. 19) with basal ridge (br) more or less straight and thin, subbasal ridge (sbr) gently produced (anteriorly incurved) in middle, these of the same formation in females (Fig. 21). Male sternite VIII (Fig. 6) with apical median plate (Fig. 7) fully developed, bordering incisions with length 1/3 of total plate length, transverse carina (tc) present, mid-longitudinal internal ridge (mlir) like a closed ring, rather elongate, about 1/4 of plate length. Male tergite X as on Fig. 20, female tergite X as on Fig. 22. Aedeagus as on Figs 10-12, spermatheca (Fig. 13) hook- like, rightly angulate in middle, basal portion (bsp) bulbous, apical portion (app) slightly curved.

Distribution – The hereby mentioned locality in Sudan is the only known record.

Remarks – Scheerpeltz (1974) lists 1 male holotypus, 1 female allotypus, 1 male paratypus, 1 female paratypus and a further male paratypus with slightly different data: “ Sudan, Erkowit, 19.IV.1964, leg. J. Kaisila ” as type material. It is clear from the labelling that the only complete (minor) male was not meant to be the holotype; it could have been the major male that is now without abdomen (when still intact), but there is a further male indicated in the description as well as another female, their whereabouts or fate unknown. Treating the incomplete major male as holotype has to be done with caution as Scheerpeltz was known to give false information in some of his papers and in a great many of cases labelled type specimens very confusingly, so it cannot be taken for granted that one of the missing specimens is not in fact the holotype. The present author has recently dealt with type material from the same publication and it appeared there (Makranczy 2013) that the primary type specimen indicated to be in Helsinki was simply not sent there although it is stated to be in the collection according to the list of Silfverberg (1988). The situation with the type material of O. meinanderi seems to be different as two of the originally listed specimens appear to be absent – could be either sent and lost or misplaced in Helsinki (Muona, pers. comm.), but there is still chance that the missing material eventually turns up somewhere, either in Wien or Helsinki. In the present situation – pending further information – the type material surviving in NHMW is best left ‘as is’. The major and minor males do not differ in their morphology significantly, only in their sizes.