Achilia frontalis Jeannel 1962

Achilia frontalis Jeannel, 1962

Figs 27, 33, 37, 38-40, 45, 50, 71-76, 84

Achilia frontalis Jeannel, 1962: 409, 413 fig. 161 (aedeagus).

Achilia foveifrons Jeannel, 1962: 409, 414 fig. 165 (aedeagus) syn. nov.

Type material (8 ex.): CENTRAL CHILE: Región Los Lagos: Llanquihue prov.: MHNS; 1 ♂ (holotype of Achilia foveifrons n° 1777); Frutillar; 20.IX.1954; G. Kuschel. – MNHN; 1 ♂ and 1 ♀ (paratypes of Achilia foveifrons); Frutillar; 41° 08’S; 20.IX.1954; G. Kuschel. – Región Bío Bío: Ñuble prov.: MHNS; 1 ♂ (holotype of Achilia frontalis n° 1703); Chillàn; P. Germain. – MNHN; 1 ♂ and 3 ♀ (paratypes of Achilia frontalis); Chillàn; 36° 54’S; P. Germain.

Description: Body 1.35-1.55 mm long, generally bicolored with head, pronotum and abdomen blackish, elytra, antennae, and legs reddish, and palpi yellowish, or entirely reddish with darker abdomen, sometimes also entirely reddish with darker head. Head with eyes slightly longer than temples. Pronotum slightly wider than head, with maximal width on anterior half; median antebasal fovea as large as lateral ones. First abdominal tergite with basal striae slightly diverging, extending to about one-third of paratergal length, and separated at base by about one-third of tergal width.

Male: Head as in Figs 71-74; on each side with deep lateral pit with outer edge forming small tooth at level of eyes (Fig. 75), the latter occasionally absent (Fig. 76); frontal protuberance very swollen at base and anteriorly flattened to vertexal sulcus. Antennae (Fig. 33) with scape and pedicel longer than wide; antennomeres III- VIII slightly transverse; antennomeres VII-VIII with mesal margin protruding; antennomeres IX-X strongly transverse, with mesal margin protruding; antennomere X wider than IX; antennomere XI elongate, longer than VII-X combined, bearing long and thin subbasal seta inserted in deep depression. Metasternum with ovoidal median impression, posterior edge of the impression pubescent. Legs with trochanters simple; all femora (Figs 38-40) strongly thickened and sinuate, particularly metafemora; protibiae (Fig. 45) distinctly thickened on distal half, bearing small subapical tooth; mesotibiae (Fig. 50) at middle slightly bulging and bearing tuft of short setae; medial edge of metatibiae (Fig. 37) densely pubescent on apical half and distinctly narrowed subapically. Abdominal tergites unmodified; first abdominal ventrite impressed at middle, remaining ventrites flattened at middle; ventrite I with median carina extending from posterior margin to posterior edge of median impression. Aedeagus (Fig. 27) 0.325 -0.335 mm long; dorsal plate ovoid with dorsal longitudinal struts divergent; copulatory pieces consisting of pair of long medial recurved sclerites strongly sclerotised basally and apically pointed. Parameres wide with long seta on poorly developed outer lobe; tips recurved posteriorly and bearing wide subapical seta.

Female: Similar to male except: head with occipital protuberance less developed and lacking lateral pits; antennomere XI shorter than VII-X combined; disc of pronotum less convex; metasternum, abdomen, and legs unmodified.

Collecting data: Collected from November to March, mainly in mixed forests at elevations ranging from 100 m to 700 m. Most specimens came from sifted samples of leaf and log litter, but some were also collected by flight intercept and carrion traps.

Distribution: Achilia frontalis is distributed in Central Chile from Chiloé to Ñuble Provinces (Fig. 84: blue triangles).

Comments: According to Jeannel (1962) the males of A. foveifrons differ from those of A. frontalis by their short and wide head for the anterior region (while being subtriangular in A. frontalis), the anterior part of the occipital protuberance occupying almost the entire width of the frons (while with a comparatively narrower vertex for A. frontalis), and the aedeagus with divergent dorsal longitudinal struts and thickened and sinuate copulatory pieces (while for A. frontalis the dorsal longitudinal struts are attached to each other, and the copulatory pieces are thin and not sinuate). However the aedeagal conformation of their types appear to be very similar, and after examination of extensive material it appears that these differences (when really present) have been strongly exaggerated by Jeannel and fall, in our opinion, within the intraspecific variation of this taxon. Therefore we conclude that A. foveifrons Jeannel, 1962 must be considered to be the junior synonym of A. frontalis Jeannel, 1962 (syn. nov.).