| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Vitali
Member Rosalia
Estonia
994 Posts |
 Posted - 20/10/2023 : 19:11:38
|
249.67 KB
Peru, size 18 mm
Sent to me as a Hypsioma sp., but I suspect it to be Tulcus (no granulation at elytra). What can it be, T. crudus (Erichson, 1847), T. pullus (Dillon & Dillon, 1945) or anything else? |
|
|
Larry Bezark
Member Macrodontia
USA
2238 Posts |
Posted - 20/10/2023 : 21:52:15
|
Vitali, I agree with Tulcus, and the two choices; this is a difficult group. The differences between pullus and crudus listed by Dillon and Dillon are very minor; I would go with the older taxon; in this case Tulcus crudus Erichson, 1847).
from Dillon and Dillon: Charoides pullus (now Tulcus) is closely related to C. cruda but differs in having the pronotum entirely unarmed laterally, and all discal tubercles elongate; the scutellum with the apex much more strongly produced and elevated on each side; the elytra with the basal gibbosities more prominent, the punctation finer and sparser, the median fascia narrow, not attaining suture, the posthumeral carina distinct and attaining the middle; and the entire surface less visibly mottled.
Regards,
Larry B.
|
 |
|
|
Vitali
Member Rosalia
Estonia
994 Posts |
Posted - 23/10/2023 : 18:46:28
|
| Thank you, Larry! I also went through the Dillon and Dillon's paper of 1945, but got rather more confused. The two species we are discussing here seem not to be a good choice as these must have pail 1/3 or 1/5 of the third antennal segment. This is not the case with my beetle. The third segment is dark testaceous in it, whereas this feature and some other like elytral punctuation, colour pattern etc fit T. amazonica (Thomson, 1860), which has not been reported from Peru. By the way, shouldn't it be T. amazonicus, if T. cruda and T. pulla were turned to T. crudus and T. pullus? |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Peru, Tulcus ?
