| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| anders |
Posted - 19/05/2017 : 21:01:02
 
Same sp as the former (same collecting data: RSA, Transvaal); this bigger: 13 mm and elytra with diff design.
Chariesthes sp. ? |
| 4 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jérôme Sudre |
Posted - 21/05/2017 : 20:11:21
Ok Anders I do not know schistacea I have only seen the type of which I have the picture and seen the variability of maculosa I remain skeptical about the validity of schistacea but when I have before me it is possible that I totally agree with you and I could be wrong !. Good evening Anders and see you soon.
Jérôme |
| anders |
Posted - 21/05/2017 : 17:43:34
Thank you, Jerome! I'll note the three ex here as P. (A.) schistacea. I have here 4 ex of P (P.) maculosa (det. Francois Rousset). They differ from the specimens above in having nearly no lateral spines on pronotum, having slightly shorter scapus, and they all lack the bluish tinge. Besides all the maculosa have two black dots near anterior margin of pronotum. This is lacking in the schistacea. If Francois' ID is correct, I would say maculosa and schistacea are specifically distinct. |
| Jérôme Sudre |
Posted - 21/05/2017 : 13:05:02
Bonjour
Cette bête m'a tout l'air d'être Prosopocera (Alphitopola) schistacea Jordan. Il me semble que Pierre Téocchi considérait cette espèce comme une simple variété (in litteris) de P (Paralphitopola) maculosa Pascoe. Par ailleurs il est à noté que le Prosopocera (Alpitopola) schitaceoides Breuning, 1981 est très certainement la même chose que P schistacea !! J'ai la photo des deux types et à mes yeux il n'y a aucun doute là dessus.
Bonne journée |
| Xavier |
Posted - 19/05/2017 : 21:24:48
Hello,
Could you add all data please ? The "former one" is not enough 
Edit: it is done. |
