Mimiocurus camerunus (Hagedorn, 1909)

Araptus camerunus Hagedorn, 1909: 743, orig. spelling

Pseudomicracis camerunus (Hagedorn, 1909), combination by Wood and Bright, 1992

Type material. Holotype: Kamerun, leg. Conradt. Holotype lost (Hamburg), not examined.

Diagnosis (transcribed, inferred). Body length 3.5 mm, colour light shiny brown, vestiture of mixed shorter and longer setae. Antennal scapus as long as funiculus and club combined, with scant setae; club without sutures. Pronotum narrowly rounded in front, subconical, sides carinate, anteriorly rugose with rough asperities, on posterior part with sparse, deep punctures. Elytra with striae distinctly punctured, declivity steep, with several distinct round spines, posterior margin elevated, suture inside heavily punctured. Protibiae broad, lateral edge evenly curved, with three lateral denticles.

Distribution. Cameroon.

Remarks. The type was lost during the World War II bombing of Hamburg and no other material is known (Wood and Bright 1992). It will therefore likely remain as a ghost species for all future studies. However, the illustration of the antenna and protibia (Hagedorn, 1909) refute any association with Micracidini.

The description is very poor on details. Except for the rather large size, it is notable for its rounded spines on the declivity and it has an elevated rim along the posterior margin of the elytra. The antennal scapus is elongated and the club is without sutures (Hagedorn, 1909: figure 42; reprinted in Schedl, 1962). The protibiae are laterally broadly rounded, with three presumably socketed denticles along its margin (Hagedorn 1909: figure 43). These three features are similar in shape to some species of Mimiocurus, especially the type species M. acuminatus Schedl, 1957 and related species. It is also possible that M. camerunus is related to a species group in Acanthotomicus Blandford, 1894 where the antennal club bear few traces of sutures and where some species have only a few rounded spines on the declivity. However, Hagedorn was sufficiently familiar with Mimips Eggers, 1932 (the more frequently used named at that time) to know the difference.