Antennal morphology of the endogean carabid genus typhlocharis (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Anillini): Description of sensilla and taxonomic implications

Abstract

The antennal morphology and chaetotaxy were studied in 52 species of the endogean carabid genus Typhlocharis, using scanning electron microscopy and light microscopy. The antennae are composed of 11 antennomeres (scape, pedicel, and nine flagellomeres). We found considerable variation between species in the third antennomere, with short-stem and long-stem forms, and flagellomere morphology, distinguishing two morphs: rounded (subovoid, subspheric and subquadrate, morph 1) and reniform shapes (morph 2). Antennal sensilla are grouped in six types of sensilla trichodea, three types of sensilla basiconica, one type of sensilla coeloconica, and one type of sensilla campaniformia. The distribution of sensilla along the antennomeres is described. The "rings" of trichoid sensilla in the antennomere body are affected by its shape and there is interspecific variation in the pattern of sensilla coeloconica in antennomere 11°, a novelty for the genus. The types of sensilla found in Typhlocharis are compared to those described in other Carabidae and the potential functionality and taxonomic interest of those variable antennal features are discussed. A correlation between the flagellomere morphology and the presence/absence of a stridulatory organ is suggested. The study also allowed comparing the observation of antennal features by SEM and light microscopy.

Commercial Sex-Pheromone Lures Facilitate Collection of Skin and Carpet Beetles (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) in Natural and Urban Environments

“…As a result, these differences are sufficient to allow the correct identification of these species, and this overcomes the disadvantage of having to identify these 2 species based on other morphological characters, which differ very little. Some other reports also showed using micro structure characters of antenna in taxonomy was accurate and efficient, especially in some closely related species which were very similar in morphologies (Tan et al 2012;González & Zaballos 2013).…”

The genusTyphlocharisDieck 1869 (Coleoptera: Carabidae): description of a new species from Portugal and remarks on the external microsculpture of the last abdominal sternum “belt”

“…However, we do not follow this nomenclature for the anterior margin of the prosternum due to its constancy and lack of relevance in terms of sexual dimorphism. Nomenclature of antennal features follows Pérez-González & Zaballos (2013c).…”

“…Monophyly, morphotypes of female genitalia and hydrochory dispersion, tarsal tetramery, intraspecific variation and antennal morphology and chaetotaxy were studied and discussed within the Typhlocharis genus (Ortuño & Gilgado 2011;Pérez-González & Zaballos 2012, 2013b, 2013cPérez-González et al 2013). Most of the Typhlocharis species present a special trait that, until the works of Zaballos & Banda (2001) and Zaballos & Pérez-González (2011b), was not highlighted enough within the plethora of morphological characters that has been provided by different authors to describe and diagnose the Typhlocharis species (see e.g.…”

Hidden biodiversity: total evidence phylogenetics and evolution of morphological traits in a highly diverse lineage of endogean ground beetles,TyphlocharisDieck, 1869 (Carabidae, Trechinae, Anillini)

“…Cranioprothoracic stridulatory organs are unknown in any other Anillini and not frequent in Carabidae (Forsythe, ). In Typhlocharis this structure is widespread, but not present in all the species, and has been associated with the shape of antennomeres, implying a potential role in communication methods (Pérez‐González and Zaballos, ). The life cycle is still unknown, with no information about lifespan, eggs or pupae; only one larval stage has been registered (Arndt et al., ; Andújar et al., ).…”

“…Zaballos and Ruíz‐Tapiador, ; Zaballos and Wrase, ; Zaballos and Banda, ; Serrano and Aguiar, ). Some of these characters, such as antennae or tarsomeres, turned out to be good taxonomic tools (Pérez‐González and Zaballos, ,c); others are probably diagnostic, too, but this remains to be evaluated. This complexity is reaching a critical point that makes a phylogenetic approach necessary.…”