The Meloidae (Coleoptera) of the United Arab Emirates with an updated Arabian checklist

Abstract

This is the first contribution on the blister beetles (Meloidae) of the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), but new records from all countries of the Arabian Peninsula are also included, with the addition of some species never recorded before from this region, thus updating the previous checklist. Two species from U.A.E. are described: Hycleus pirata n. sp. (distributed also in Oman) and Hycleus dunalis n.sp., both belonging to different groups of species characterized by an unmodified mesosternum. Mylabris (Mylabris) desertica n.sp., Hycleus pintoi n.sp., and Hycleus fraudulentus n. sp. from Saudi Arabia, are also described. The following species previously referred to different mylabrine genera are here included in the genus Hycleus as new combinations: H. arabicus (Pallas, 1781), H. borchmannianus (Kaszab, 1983), H. gratiosus (Marseul, 1870), H. ligatus (Marseul, 1870), H. pseudobrunnipes (Kaszab, 1983), H. scabratus (Klug, 1845), H. scapularis (Klug, 1845). Coryna pitcheri Kaszab, 1983 is doubtfully referred to Hycleus. The new synonymies Deridea notata minor Kaszab, 1960 = Deridea notata Thomas, 1897, Mylabris bimaculata Klug, 1845 = Hycleus sexmaculatus (Olivier, 1811), and Zonabris rugosissima Pic, 1909 = Hycleus aestuans (Klug, 1845), are proposed. New information on the relationships of several species, particularly of the genera Lydomorphus and Hycleus, are also provided.

Meloidae of Namibia (Coleoptera): taxonomy and faunistics with biogeographic and ecological notes

“…In this species the mesosternum is smooth and without distinct "scutum". The elytral pattern is similar to that of H. arabicus (Pallas, 1872), a species from the Arabic peninsula, belonging to the same macrolineage (see Bologna & Turco 2007). Possible relationships between these two species need additional study.…”

“…Several well defined groups of species can be recognized inside each macro-lineage according to the shape of head and mandibles, that of male maxillae and palpomeres, the structure of antennomeres, pronotum and mesopleures, the number and position of penis hooks. Some Palaerctic and Afrotropical groups of species were defined and discussed by Pardo Alcaide (1954, 1955, 1958a, 1958b, 1963, 1966, 1968, 1969), Bologna (1978Bologna ( , 1979Bologna ( , 1990Bologna ( , 1991Bologna ( , 1994, and Bologna & Turco (2007). We define here new Afrotropical groups of species.…”

“…Three sections of the genus were described in the literature (Pardo Alcaide,1954, primarily based on the shape of the mesosternum: without (Mesogorbatus), or with a small (Mesotaeniatus) or wide (Mesoscutatus) modified fore area, usually named "mesosternal scutum". These sections are greatly heterogeneous and were not considered as subgenera by Bologna & Pinto (2002) and Bologna & Turco (2007), who preferred consider them as phyletic macro-lineages. In particular, the distinction between the species having a wide (Mesoscutatus) or a narrow (Mesotaeniatus) modified fore area of mesosternum is very scarce.…”

“…Within this lineage are included some greatly distinct groups of species differing in several features of body setation, antennal structure (number and shape of antennomeres), mesosternum shape and male genitalia (number and length of aedeagal hooks). Bologna & Turco (2007) analysed in detail some Afrotropical and Palaearctic groups of species of this lineage.…”

“…This southern African group of species is well distinct by the reduced number of antennomeres (eigth) and molecular analyses (Pitzalis 2007) pointed out its division in some sub-groups. Because of the antennal feature, the species of this group were erroneously referred to the genus Actenodia (see Bologna et al 2008a), but actually they belong to Hycleus, as pointed out by Bologna & Pinto (2002), and by Pitzalis (2007) Two other eastern African and Arabic species, namely H. afrotropicus (Kaszab, 1983) and H. yemenicus (Kaszab, 1983) have a similar reduced number of antennomeres (Bologna 1990;Bologna & Turco 2007) and for this reason they were erroneously described as Actenodia (Kaszab 1983). Relationships between these two assemblages of species are not defined, but probably the reduction of antennomeres is only a parallelism more than a synapomorphic condition.…”