Tentyria sublaevis subsp. sublaevis Kraatz 1865

Tentyria sublaevis ssp. sublaevis Kraatz, 1865 (Figs. 20, 54, 88, 125, 172, 206, 255)

Tentyria sublaevis Kraatz, 1865: 144; Reitter 1900: 171, Fuente 1934: 30, Gebien 1937: 629.

Tentyria laevis Solier sensu Koch 1944a: 229, Español 1960: 406, Viñolas 1986: 104, Viñolas & Cartagena, 2005: 82, 276 (specimens from Murcia, Alicante and Albacete?), Grimm & Aistleitner 2009:71 (part.).

Tentyria levis Solier sensu L̂bl & Smetana 2008: 206, Martínez 2018: 58.

Types examined: Syntype: sublaevis Kr. / sublaevis mi. Andalus. Frend/ sublaevis Kr. Type det. Schuster / Syntypus / coll. DEI Müncheberg / SDEI Coleoptera # 300632.

This specimen of T. sublaevis Kraatz (Fig. 255), catalogued syntype (Gaedike 1986) cannot been considered as such because Kraatz (1865) only mentioned three syntypes from “Carthagena (Handschuch u. A.)” which hitherto have not been found. However, this specimen, labelled as type, belonging to the Kraatz collection, fits his description (Kraatz 1865), and does not present substantial differences with respect to the specimens from Cartagena and neighbouring areas.

Additional material: Historical material: One specimen bearing the following labels: handwritten label “ Carthagena ” / sublaevis Kraatz det. Schuster (1♁, NRMS); two specimens with one handwritten old label “ Hispania ” (1♁ and 1♀, NRMS).

Alicante: Los Arenales del Sol - El Alted, 20.VIII.1996, nov. de Ferrer leg. (1♀, CJdeF in CJLB); Guardamar, 15.V.2000, A.C. Luque leg. (4♁♁ and 5♀♀, CACL); idem, VI.1997, idem (1♁, idem); Rojales, 15.VI.2001, idem (2 exx, idem); Laguna Bonmati, 13.6.1996, M.C. Cartagena leg. (1 ex, idem); Isla de Tabarca, 27.5.2001, A. C. Luque leg. (1 ex, idem); Benidorm, 5.V.1982, J. Ferrer leg. (2♁♁ and 1♀, CJF); Torrevieja, G. Schramm leg., (1♁, NRMS); La Encina – Albacete (Alicante, not Albacete), sublaevis, (1♁, NRMS). Murcia: VIII.1972, Mª Luisa Mariné leg. (1 ex, CJF); Sª Carrasco, 25.III.1957, Tentyria laevis, Español det., Palau leg. (2 exx, CJF); La Manga del Mar Menor, V.1980 (1 ex, CJF); Águilas, 13.IV.2008, J.C. Martínez leg. (ex, CJCM); idem, 30. X.2010, idem (3♁♁ and 1♀, idem); Albanilla, 9.VII.2006, idem (1♁ and 4♀♀, idem); Alcantarilla, 26.I.2002, idem (2♁♁ and 3♀♀, idem); Casas Nuevas, 6.IV.2011, idem (3♁♁ and 2♀♀, idem); Fortuna, 15.VII.2006, idem (1♁ and 2♀♀, idem); Garres, 2.III.2001, idem (1♀, idem); Jumilla, La Alquería, 20.III.2007, J. C. Martínez leg. (idem); idem, 24.VI.2002, idem (2♀♀, idem); Mazarrón, 17. X.2010, idem (3♁♁ and 5♀♀, idem); idem, 25.VI.2011, idem (4♀♀, idem).

Diagnosis: Black body, slight bright, oblong, smooth tegument, slightly convex, weakly punctate (Fig. 206); small head (Fig. 20), somewhat convex eyes, slightly backward converging temples, sub-rounded epistome, with the sides sinuate, provided with a tooth hardly perceptible, gular groove (Fig. 54) consisting in a depression in the middle, and often two lateral notch poorly bounded; moderately convex and slightly transverse pronotum (Fig. 88), more in females, finely punctured, the sides curved and commonly narrowed towards the base, obtuse and not well noticeable rear angles, particularly in males; nearly straight base.

The prosternal apophyses (Fig. 125) non-exceeding the procoxae and rounded at the end; graceful protibiae and with the inner margin sinuate in males; those of the females hardly different and relatively graceful compared with those the congeners; usually smooth elytra, exceptionally with marks of stria or roughness, variably oval elongated, barely narrowed towards the humeri that are rounded, the base straight and completely margined, almost imperceptible punctures, generally flattened or even somewhat depressed in the suture; smooth abdominal sternites, brighter like the ventral surface of the body, and with the imperceptible punctures, the last sternite truncated at the end; aedeagus (Fig. 172) with slightly fusiform parameres, almost as wide and barely longer than the phallobase.

Comments: T. sublaevis Kraatz, described from Cartagena, is a valid species, and not a synonym of T. levis Solier (= T. peiroleri ssp. incerta Solier stat. nov.). Koch (1944a) established this synonymy supported on the identical provenance of the types of both species (see comments of T. peiroleri ssp. incerta Solier).

Geographical distribution: species described from Cartagena, spread by the Levantine region, known in the coast as in the inland of the provinces of Alicante and Murcia. All existing records since Koch (1944a), referred to “ T. laevis ”, included in the distribution area above indicated, must refer to T. sublaevis. The remaining records should be disregarded until verified, due to the historical confusion with other taxa already argued.