Hesperus rougemonti sp. n. (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae) from Borneo

Abstract

The genus Hesperus Fauvel is, in its current concept, an obviously polyphyletic assemblage. One of the species groups that stand out, due to a combination of characters unusual for Hesperus, is the borneensis group. These characters are the subserrate antennae and the paramere bearing numerous peg setae. Otherwise, the members of this group look as typical for a Hesperus as it can be. At present, the group comprises the following species: H. birmanus Cameron, 1932, H. borneensis Bernhauer, 1915, H. javanus Cameron, 1937, H. malayanus Cameron, 1932a, H. susannekontrusae Schillhammer, 2005, H. temburong Schillhammer, 2002, H. watanabei Shibata, 2002, and H. wemmeri Schillhammer, 2002.

Phylogeny of the hyper‐diverse rove beetle subtribe Philonthina with implications for classification of the tribe Staphylinini (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae)

“…(A. F. Newton, unpublished database). Except Neobisnius , the monophyly of Philonthus , Gabrius , Bisnius , Gabronthus (Smetana, ; Solodovnikov and Schomann, ; Chani‐Posse, ), Belonuchus , Hesperus (Schillhammer, , ; Li and Zhou, ; Chani‐Posse, ), Cafius (Jeon et al., ) and Paederomimus (Chani‐Posse, ) has been questioned. Current diagnoses for those genera are based on a combination of plesiomorphies for Philonthina involving the structure of front tarsi (sexually dimorphic or not), pronotum (superior marginal line distinctly deflected or not, position of the lateral puncture relative to the superior marginal line), last segment of maxillary and labial palpi (shape and length), mesoventrite (transversely carinate or not, shape of apical portion), hind tarsi (relative length of tarsomeres 1 and 5) and sternum 9 (basal portion symmetric or asymmetric).…”

“…Although Smetana () found that the six Nearctic species of Hesperus formed a natural group, he recognized that characters defining this group ‘may pose difficulties for specimens from tropical areas, particularly from New Guinea, due to certain variability and/or absence of some character states’. Schillhammer () also noticed that characters defining Hesperus were not enough to clearly define the genus and considered it to be ‘a polyphyletic assemblage’ (Schillhammer, ). Still, he decided to maintain that concept until a revision covering at least the Palaearctic and Oriental regions is achieved.…”

“…database), has been largely suspected for some time (Smetana, ), especially with respect to the related genera Bisnius and Gabrius . More recently, morphology‐based phylogenies have questioned the monophyly of Hesperus (Schillhammer, , ; Li and Zhou, ) and Belonuchus (Chani‐Posse, , ). Using molecular data, Jeon et al.…”

“…database), has been largely suspected for some time (Smetana, 1995), especially with respect to the related genera Bisnius and Gabrius. More recently, morphology-based phylogenies have questioned the monophyly of Hesperus (Schillhammer, 2002(Schillhammer, , 2016Li and Zhou, 2011) and Belonuchus (Chani-Posse, 2013, 2014a. Using molecular data, Jeon et al (2012) revealed a conflict between the currently accepted generic limits of the 'Cafius-complex' and phylogeny.…”