Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 98. (Budapest 2006)

Makranczy, Gy.: Systematics and phylogenetic relationships of the genera in the Carpelimus group (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Oxytelinae)

mentation purposes (e.g. for particularly important type specimens), rather than for illustration of diagnostic features. While the amount of time required to take a photograph is much less than preparing a good quality line drawing, the latter is usually superior in terms of emphasis on the relevant details and comparability. The relevant details (diagnostic features) differ greatly often even between closely related taxa. For this reason, the illustration styles developed for the different groups emphasize different structures and achieve that by a variety of techniques. Line drawings. Illustrations of mouthparts are a standard for modern taxonomic works on staphylinids. Great difficulty was encountered here, because for this subfamily there was no developed style for detailed mouthpart illustrations, so it had to be created in the course of this study. The works used for reference are GUSAROV (2003) and HANLEY (2003) on Aleocharinae, where the mouthpart structures are so critical that the illustrations and naming of structures are far more developed than for any other staphylinid group. One of the greatest novelties of this work is the extensive use of a female genital structure here called the ring structure, most likely homologous to the accessory sclerite of female omaliines (and some other subfamilies) (ZANETTI, pers. comm.) and possibly derived from sternum X. The name ring structure refers to the usually ring-like shape of this structure in many species, although in some cases it is more complicated, barely resembling a ring. The significance of this structure is that in many groups, where the females could not be reliably identified, this structure gives a reasonable (although quite laborous) means of identifying them. It is also useful in associating unique female-only type series with the correct species, therefore fixing the identity of a species. This feature is now extensively used in those groups (Carpelimus, Thinodromus) where the ring structure is more complicated and therefore provides good characters for distinguishing closely related species. Because of its relative simplicity, for many genera treated herein, the spermatheca is of limited use in differentiating species. The situation is different for the Thinobius group of genera, where the spermathecal duct has a longer sclerotized part and is often good for identification of species. For most of the taxa treated in this work, a novel illustration approach for the aedeagi was used. (1) The taxa that have complicated, multi-layered inner structures are shown in 3 drawings: side view, outer shell of aedeagus from frontal view and inner structures of aedeagus from frontal view. (2) The taxa in which certain parameral structures have importance, and also those in which the internal structures and the base of the parameres tend to be at the same spot from frontal view, are shown with about 15° tilt. This helps to avoid the overlap and gives the viewer an impression of the three dimensionality of the structures. The words dorsal, ventral and lateral are abandoned in favor of frontal view (which means seen from the side of basal pore) and side view. Some issues regarding the use of these terms are discussed by GUSAROV (2002), but more importantly, many oxyteline groups tend to have their genitalia rotated in the abdomen and the degree of this often differs between specimens. For specimens already dissected, the original position of the genitalia could not be determined. Mostly these disadvantages required change to new terminology. An effort has been made to name and homologize the sclerites of the internal sac of the median lobe. This was a novel approach, although similar work has been done in the Aleocharinae by BRUNDIN (1944) and YOSII & SAWADA (1976), who were notable for investigating an enormous depth of structural detail (but especially the latter author's work focuses on the setation in mouthparts rather than the morphology and homologies of the aedeagi). Some terminology was also borrowed from the works of KL1MASZEWSKI (1984) and GUSAROV (2003). The dissections themselves were made using a Wild M8 dissecting microscope, but investigations of surface sculptures, mandibular structures and other tiny details were carried out with Olympus microscopes (SZ60, SZH). Most drawings were made using an Olympus BH-2 compound microscope with drawing tube (camera lucida). This microscope was extensively used for examination of very small details, it offers the feature of Nomarski differential interference. Although this feature cannot be fully used with non regular microscope slides, the quality and detail of the picture is still excellent.