Craspedophorus muata

21. Craspedophorus muata (Harold, 1879)

(Plate 10, Figs 73–75, Plate 14, Fig. 115)

Eudema muata Harold, 1879: 20 (type locality “Innern der Lunda-Reich [=north-eastern Angola, northwestern Zambia]”). Craspedophorus muata Burgeon 1935a: 387. Lorenz 2005: 321, Häckel and Farkač 2012: 80.

Craspedophorus gabonicus Chaudoir 1879: 95 (nec. Thomson) (type locality “ Gabon ”).

Compared and type material. 1♂: “Comp. typ. / Basilewsky [printed in black on red circumscribed label]// Musée du Congo [printed in black]/ Angola: Bimbi / - X - 1932 {don Monard} [handwritten in black on white label]// Mus. Berlin / IX. 54 [handwritten in black on red label]// Craspedophorus / muata Harold / P. Basilewsky det., 19[printed in black] 54[handwritten in black on white label]// Bimbi / Oct. 1932 [printed in black on white label]// Angola / Miss. sc. Suisse / 1928–1929 [printed in black and lined through by hand in black]” (Plate 10, Fig. 73, MRAC).

1♂ (lectotype of “ C. gabonicus ” established by Chaudoir 1861: 342): “ Gabon [handwritten in black on upper white pinned label]// Ex Musaeo / Mniszech [printed in black on lower white pinned label]”/// “ Gabonicus / Chaudoir / Thomson? [handwritten in black on white box label in Chaudoir's Collection]” (Plate 10, Fig. 75, MNHN).

Additional material examined. Angola. 1♂: “Ex Musaeo H.W.Bates, 1892” (MNHN). Cabinda. 1♀: “Cabinda” (MRAC). Cuanza Sul. 1♀: “Calulo” (MRAC). Huila. 1♂: “ 30 km n Cacula” (Plate 10, Fig. 74, cPS). Malanje. 1♂: “Bimbi / oct 1932 // Angola / Miss. sc. Suisse / 1932–1933 // Museum Paris / Coll. Ch. Alluaud // Verisim / Eudema / muata / Har.” (Plate 14, Fig. 115, NMPC); 1♂ same labeled (MRAC).

Note. This species is based on a single specimen, labeled “Innern der Lunda-Reich”. The Kingdom of Lunda (c. 1665–1887), was a pre-colonial African confederation of states in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo, northeastern Angola and northwestern Zambia. Description (in part, see Harold 1879: 20). “Length 19 mm. Black, pronotum semicircular-shaped, elytra ovoid, each with two yellow maculae, humeral macula near base, posterior macula before apex” [from Latin]. “Black weakly glossy, each elytron with two yellow maculae, one before apex, second near base, almost squared, elongated externally, medially with a small residual spot on III interval. Pronotum rounded, but weakly wider than long, posteriorly narrowing directly, margins regularly rounded, lateral rims widely flattened and elevated, mostly near each posterior angle, which weakly indentated; surface grossly punctured, rugate. Elytra regularly ovoid, deeply striated, intervals convex, finely and densely punctured, almost squamous. Legs and antennae black, prosternum and venter grossly punctured laterally. At eye it resembles C. nobilis (Boheman, 1848), mainly because of yellow humeral macula, located as well very close to base. But humeral macula covers all adjacent elytral margin in C. nobilis [in contrary to that in C. muata, reaching farthest to VII interval], furthermore body more convex and pronotum, markedly smaller, resembles that in the genus Tefflus. If we consider these morphological characters so important for relationships in panageites, we have to find similarly shaped body between the other species of the genus [Craspedophorus], and we find C. pretiosus (Chaudoir, 1837) as the most relative species. Anyway, pronotum is markedly wider than long in C. pretiosus, posterior angles, each indentated by a small incision, preceded by marked convexity of lateral margins. Also humeral macula located more behind base, reaching from IV to VIII interval only. Furthermore elytra punctured markedly less densely in C. pretiosus ” [from German]. I have not seen the type, my conclusions are based on the Basilewsky’s compared type in his collection in MRAC.

Distribution. Angola: Caninda, Cuanza Sul, Huila, Malanje Provinces.