S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 49. (Budapest, 1988)

FOLIA ENTOMOLOGICA HUNGARICA ROVARTANI KÖZLEMÉNYEK 10Q0 p. 197-203 XLIX 1988 v Contribution to the knowledge of some Palaearctic Coprophilus Latreille, 1829 species (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae, Oxytelinae) By L. TÓTH (Received November 1, 1987) Abstract: Contribution to the knowledge of some Palearctic Coprophilus Latreille, 1829 species (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae, Oxytelinae) - Redescription of Coprophilus pennifer Motschulsky, C. reitteri Luze and C. schuberti Motschulsky based on the examination of the types, an identification key and some remarks on their relationship are given along with 17 figures. C. reitteri Luze is a valid species. Lectotypes of C. pennifer Motschulsky and C. schuberti Motschulsky are designated. Locality data of C. striatulus (

Fabricius) and C. piceus Solsky are listed from the Carpathian Basin. The original purpose of the present study was to identify the Coprophilus collection deriving from the Carpathian Basin, housed in the Hungarian Natural History Museum (Budapest). Naturally, I simultaneously studied our Palearctic Coprophilus collection. The greater part of our Coprophilus material deriving from the REITTER's collection had been inspected by the most famous specialists of the genus: BERNHAUER (1908), FAUVEL (1897) and REITTER (1894a, 1894b), but unfortunately I could find only a few specimens and types labelled originally by them. I concluded that the majority of old descriptions are based only external features, without either illustrations or the designation of types, so they are almost useless in modern studies. I have to suppose that the earlier determinations and the published identification keys have not been based on the examinations and the comparison the types or type-series. Having recognized this, I think it is necessery to study the types of the examined species, so I discuss three very problematic species hereunder. First of all concerning the classification of the genus Coprophilus* Latreille, 1829 it can be easily divided to the following subgenera whether on the base of external features or by the structure of the aedoeagus: 1 (2) Pronotum with a deep longitudinal furrow and large depressions on disc (Fig. 1). Aedoeagus with a strongly sclerotized and laterally depressed rnedian lobe ^without membranous portions (Figs 3-5) Subgenus: Coprophilus s. str. 2 (1) Pronotum with only two small foveae in the middle, near base (Figs 2 and 15-17). Aedoeagus with a feebly sclerotized and dorsoventrally depressed median lobe, with membranous portions (Figs 6-8 and 9-11) Subgenus: Zonoptilus Motschulsky, 1845 The greater part of the Zonoptilus species is hardly distinguishable and problematical, but the species form three well-recognizable groups: I am of the same opinion as HERMAN(1970) regarding the name of the genus, I keep to Coprophilus Latreille, 1829 instead of to Elonium Leach, 1819. Species belonging here are well known and distinct (partly revised by WATANABE and SHIBATA /1961/).