Catalogue, distribution, taxonomic notes, and conservation of the Western Palearctic endemic hunchback beetles (Tenebrionidae, Misolampus)

Natalia Rosas-Ramos; Paloma Mas-Peinado; Diego Gil-Tapetado; Ernesto Recuero; José L. Ruiz; Mario García-París

doi:10.3897/zookeys.963.53500

Research Article

Catalogue, distribution, taxonomic notes, and conservation of the Western Palearctic endemic hunchback beetles (Tenebrionidae, Misolampus)

Natalia Rosas-Ramos^‡§, Paloma Mas-Peinado^§|, Diego Gil-Tapetado^§¶, Ernesto Recuero^§, José L. Ruiz^#, Mario García-París^§

‡ Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

§ Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain

| Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

¶ Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

# Instituto de Estudios Ceutíes, Ceuta, Spain

Corresponding author: Mario García-París ( mparis@mncn.csic.es )

Academic editor: Aaron Smith

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Citation: Rosas-Ramos N, Mas-Peinado P, Gil-Tapetado D, Recuero E, Ruiz JL, García-París M (2020) Catalogue, distribution, taxonomic notes, and conservation of the Western Palearctic endemic hunchback beetles (Tenebrionidae, Misolampus). ZooKeys 963: 81-129. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.963.53500

ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7D9006BB-8323-4F73-8A41-D487EBEA297A

Abstract

Hunchback darkling beetles of the Ibero-Maghrebian genus Misolampus Latreille, 1807 (Tenebrionidae, Stenochiinae) encompass six species: M. gibbulus (Herbst, 1799), M. goudotii Guérin-Méneville, 1834, M. lusitanicus Brême, 1842, M. ramburii Brême, 1842, M. scabricollis Graells, 1849, and M. subglaber Rosenhauer, 1856. Previously known distribution ranges of the species were delineated using many old records, the persistence of such populations being questionable under the current situation of global biodiversity loss. Additionally, the status of geographically isolated populations of the genus have been the subject of taxonomic controversy. An exhaustive bibliographical revision and field search was undertaken, and the Misolampus collection of the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN-CSIC) was revised. The aims are to (i) provide an updated geographic distribution range for the species of Misolampus; (ii) to determine the taxonomic status of controversial populations; (iii) to provide a catalogue for Misolampus; and (iv) to discuss the conservation status of these saproxylic beetles. As a result, a catalogue including synonymies and type localities, geographical records, diagnoses, and information on natural history for all species of Misolampus is presented. The results reveal that the distribution ranges of the species of Misolampus have not undergone a reduction in the last century, and indicate the presence of the genus in areas where it had never been recorded before. The morphological variability of M. goudotii drove the proposal of different taxa that are here formally synonymised as follows: M. goudotii Guérin-Méneville, 1834 = M. erichsoni Vauloger de Beaupré, 1900, syn. nov. = M. peyerimhoffi Antoine, 1926, syn. nov.

Keywords

Coleoptera, geographic range, morphological variability, new synonymies, population persistence, saproxylic, scientific collections, Stenochiinae

Introduction

Species identification is an essential process for almost all biodiversity studies and can constitute a major constraint for conservation evaluation and legislation due to the inherent difficulty of identifying many of the groups, the long time needed for processing the samples, and the extensive taxonomic experience that this process requires (Gauld et al. 2000; Guerra-García et al. 2008; Wheeler 2013; de Oliveira et al. 2020; Saoud 2020). Meeting this goal for megadiverse groups such as insects is often arduous considering the vast number of species that must be identified and the limited number of taxonomists, which make correct identification a very time-consuming process (De Carvalho et al. 2005; Evenhuis 2007; Wheeler 2008; Moore 2011; Yang et al. 2015). It is therefore necessary to create easy-to-use identification tools, such as visually enhanced guides, to overcome the difficulties involved in the identification process (Kirchoff et al. 2011). Easy-to-use tools are also a key instrument for biodiversity study and conservation, since they can be used by both specialists and non-specialists and their implementation improves outcome, thereby facilitating decision-making for conservation actions (Norton et al. 2000; Yang et al. 2015; Rosas-Ramos et al. 2019).

Tenebrionidae is one of the most species-rich families of beetles, with approximately 20,000 species worldwide and many more taxa yet to be described (Bousquet et al. 2018). The large number of species, combined with the high morphological diversity that this family exhibits (Matthews et al. 2010), can hinder species identification of tenebrionids. Thus, providing easy-to-use, photographically illustrated identification tools can greatly facilitate data acquisition on this group of beetles (e.g., Matthews and Bouchard 2008; Pérez-Vera and Ávila 2012). The problem represented by the local absence of taxonomists and lack of adequate identification tools for non-specialists, is often reflected in a general lack of appropriate identifications, use of not-actualised names, or worst, inclusion of misidentified specimens in scientific collections or databases (Vilgalys 2003; Guerra-García et al. 2008; Kholia and Fraser-Jenkins 2011; Shea et al. 2011). This situation renders Tenebrionidae collections of little use for any scientific purpose, as it can be easily recognised by their poor representation in biodiversity databases (e.g., GBIF – Gaiji et al. 2013). One example of this problem is represented by the saproxylic hunchback darkling beetles of the genus Misolampus Latreille, 1807, paradoxically one of the better studied genera of Tenebrionidae at taxonomic and phylogenetic levels in the Western Palearctic Region (Palmer 1998; Palmer and Cambefort 2000).

The genus Misolampus [type species: Misolampus hoffmannseggii Latreille, 1807 (= Pimelia gibbula Herbst, 1799), by monotypy], currently included within Cnodalonini Oken, 1843, in the subfamily Stenochiinae Kirby, 1837 (= Coelometopinae Schaum, 1859; = Cnodaloninae; see Bouchard et al. 2005, 2011), encompasses six species: M. gibbulus (Herbst 1799), M. goudotii Guérin-Méneville, 1834, M. lusitanicus Brême, 1842, M. ramburii Brême, 1842, M. scabricollis Graells, 1849, and M. subglaber Rosenhauer, 1856 (Löbl et al. 2008; Martínez Fernández 2018), all of them linked to woodlands (Español 1949, 1954b; Molino Olmedo 1996; Palmer 1998). Five of them are endemic to the Iberian Peninsula, while M. goudotii is distributed throughout Morocco, Algeria and the Balearic Islands (Löbl et al. 2008). Reitter (1917), Antoine (1949, 1954), and Español (1949) provided identification keys for the species of Misolampus, and Palmer (1998) illustrated the female genitalia and specific diagnostic characters. Palmer (1998) and Palmer and Cambefort (2000) presented analyses of their geographic distribution and phylogenetic relationships, based on morphological traits. However, a search in the GBIF database (https://www.gbif.org; searched 22-mar-2020), only retrieved a total of 49 records for Misolampus (once records for other genera were discarded), three of them identified at genus level, and at least one misidentified species; 14 of 49 had geographic coordinates data, eleven of which corresponded to a single locality. Excluding all additional specimens with imprecise locality data, fewer than 30 specimens remained available for scientific use.

Despite database records shortfall, the distribution ranges of the species of Misolampus are relatively well known (Palmer 1998). Nevertheless, a few new eccentric geographical records have recently been published, suggesting that the distribution areas might be larger than what is currently recognised (Ibáñez Orrico 2002; Pérez and López-Colón 2010; Novoa et al. 2014). Regretfully, many of the specimens used to delineate the distribution areas of the species were collected between 50 and 100 years ago (Palmer 1998). The continuity of those populations through time, under the current scenario of drastic increase in land-use and climate change is, however, questionable (Vanwalleghem et al. 2017), all the more so given the saproxylic nature of these species, which often can lead to conservation issues (García-López et al. 2016).

In the light of these considerations, first, we aimed to provide an updated geographic distribution range for all the species of Misolampus, to evaluate their persistence in the areas where they were reported. For this purpose, we undertook a thorough bibliographical revision, an exhaustive field search, and we revised the Misolampus collection of the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN-CSIC) in Madrid (Spain). Secondly, and as a result of the field data collection, we aimed to determine the taxonomic status of geographically isolated populations of the genus, including those that have been the subject of taxonomic controversy (Reitter 1917; Español 1949; París García et al. 2011). Thirdly, with all that information, we aimed to provide an easy to use, photographically illustrated catalogue for Misolampus, and to discuss the potential threats and conservation status of the species of the genus.

Materials and methods

Field work to locate Misolampus was carried out by members of the research team for two periods, a non-intensive period from 1982 to 2000 in which specimens were collected, georeferenced, and dry-mounted for their morphological study, and a more intensive period from 2001 to 2013, with additional collections in 2019–2020, aimed to detect changes in populations previously known from records dating from the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Field data collection was carried out along most of the areas where the presence of the genus was documented (Spain, Portugal, and Morocco). Information on the location of previously known populations was obtained by undertaking an exhaustive bibliographic revision and by reviewing the Misolampus collection held at the MNCN (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain).

We studied 1304 specimens representing all known taxa of Misolampus (812 collected before 1945, and 492 collected after 1982). Of those, 355 specimens are preserved in ethanol, and 949 specimens dry-mounted (Table 1), all forming part of the entomological collections of the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN-CSIC, Madrid). The list of examined specimens is included in the corresponding paragraph of the species catalogue. Collectors are specified when different from authors or members of the research team; collector name is indicated for old collections only when printed in the labels; “ex.” or “exx.” is used to abbreviate “specimen” or “specimens”.

Table 1.

Download as

CSV

XLSX

Specimens of Misolampus studied. Number of specimens by preservation mode (ethanol or dry-mounted) and date of collection (before 1945 or after 1982). The total number of specimens of each species is also provided.

Species	Before 1945	After 1982	Dry-mounted	Alcohol	Total
Misolampus gibbulus	339	163	392	110	502
Misolampus goudotii	108	66	145	29	174
Misolampus lusitanicus	1	27	1	27	28
Misolampus ramburii	11	26	32	5	37
Misolampus scabricollis	310	178	328	160	488
Misolampus subglaber	43	32	51	24	75

Unresolved taxonomic issues, such as the validity of subspecies within the North African taxon, the specific assignation of the populations from Algarve (Reitter 1917; Español 1949), and taxonomic status of the isolated population from Ifni (Morocco) (París García et al. 2011), were addressed by comparing these problematic populations with specimens from near type localities, or from areas of undisputed taxonomy.

Distribution maps based on current data represent the extent of occurrence of each species following a relaxed modification of IUCN criteria (IUCN 2012). We performed species distribution models (SDMs) to obtain the potential distribution of each species (Kamiński et al. 2017). We used Maximum entropy algorithm (MaxEnt) (Elith et al. 2006, 2011) and the set of WorldClim v 2.0 environmental variables, with a resolution of 30 s (~ 1 km) (Fick and Hijmans 2017). The SDMs were modelled considering the studied specimens as presences and generating pseudo-absences following Gil-Tapetado et al. (2018). This methodology creates a preliminary presence-only coverage model based on the maximum and minimum values of each variable. Areas with environmental values that fall out of the maximum and minimum range were considered liable to be pseudo-absences. This is considered as a more reliable approach than generating pseudo-absences entirely at random. SDMs were run 50 times, with random test percentage set to 25 and “subsample” as the sampling technique. The model was validated by estimating the area under the curve (AUC) value (Fielding and Bell 1997). All SDMs have AUC > 0.95 (M. gibbulus: 0.958; M. goudotii: 0.965; M. lusitanicus: 0.998; M. ramburii: 0.963; M. scabricollis: 0.964; M. subglaber: 0.958).

To obtain morphological data, dry-mounted specimens were examined under a stereomicroscopy. Specimen length was measured in dorsal view as the distance between the anterior margin of the pronotum and the elytral apex (ignoring elytral convexity). The head was excluded from measurement since it is usually directed ventrally. Maximum width was measured as the distance between the outer edges of the elytra at approximately three-fourths of the elytral length, also in dorsal view. Photographs of live specimens were taken with a Nikon digital camera. Extended depth-of-focus images of dry-mounted specimens, were taken on a Leica M165C stereo-microscope, with a digital camera Leica DFC450, using the LAS X software from Leica Microsystems.

Results

Species catalogue, distribution, notes on natural history, and taxonomy

Misolampus gibbulus (Herbst, 1799)

Pimelia gibbula Herbst, 1799: 51. Terra typica: unknown: “Das vaterland ist mir unbekannt”.

Misolampus hoffmannsegii Latreille, 1807: 161. Terra typica: “e Lusitania allatus”. Latreille’s (1807) species name has been often misspelled. Guérin-Méneville (1829–1838: 115, pl. 29; 1834: 27) spelled it as: “M. hoffmansegii” and “M. hoffmanseggii”, respectively, Solier (1848: 185): “M. hoffmanseggii”, and Laporte de Castelnau (1850: 204): “M. hoffmansseggii”. Synonymy with M. gibbulus proposed by Solier (1848).

Misolampus gibbulus (Herbst, 1799): Solier 1848: 185.

Studied material

Portugal – Beja: Beja: 1 ex.; Beja, V-1909 (exp. del Museo): 1 ex.; São Martinho das Amoreiras, 200 m, 37°36'57.4"N, 08°27'57.3"W, 4-I-2013: 10 exx. – Evora: Evoramonte, 17-X-1992: 1 ex.; Monte São Bento, 353 m, 38°34'54.33"N, 7°56'12.10"W, 11-III-2010: 1 ex.; Valverde, 232 m, 38°31'39.8"N, 8°00'25.4"W, 4-X-2002: 1 ex.; – Faro: Alferce: 1 ex.; Alferce, V-1909 (Exp. del Museo): 2 exx.; carretera Monchique-Laranjeira [Gil Bordalo], 21-X-1992: 6 exx.; Foia, 742 m, 37°18'29.4"N, 08°35'56.2"W, 4-I-2013: 1 ex.; Monchique, 439 m, 37°21'40.3"N, 08°32'23.6"W, 4-I-2013: 8 exx.; San Marcos da Serra [São Marcos da Serra]: 2 exx.; San Marcos da Serra [São Marcos da Serra], V-1909 (exp. del Museo): 23 exx.; São Marcos da Serra, 140 m, 37°21'02.5"N, 08°22'48.4"W, 3-I-2013: 24 exx.; Sierra de Monchique, V-1909 (exp. del Museo): 1 ex.; Portalegre: Santo Antonio de Alcorrego, 150 m, 38°58'59.5"N, 7°56'54.1"W, 18-IV-2013: 6 exx. Spain – Andalucía: Córdoba: Córdoba (Col. del Sr. Pérez Arcas): 2 exx.; Córdoba: 2 exx.; Córdoba, IV-1901 (Escalera leg.): 4 exx.; Córdoba, VI-1909 (Exp. del Museo): 3 exx.; Manueles, 30SUH82, 7-V-1982 (M.A. Alonso Z. leg.): 1 ex.; Huelva: Barranco Riofrío [La Nava], 28-XII-1985: 1 ex.; Cala (C. Bolívar leg.): 15 exx.; Cortegana, Puerto del Corzo (hacia Gil Márquez), 664 m, 37°52'56.1"N, 06°50'42.3"W, 3-I-2013: 7 exx.; Patrás, 397 m, 37°48'04.4"N, 6°43'30.8"W, 1-V-2004: 3 exx.; Jaén: [3 km al SO de] Aldeaquemada, 25-IV-1992: 3 exx.; Lugar Nuevo, 24-X-1991: 2 exx.; Santa Elena, carretera hacia La Aliseda, 795 m, 38°20'53.1"N, 03°33'20.6"W, 28-XII-2010: 14 exx.; Santa Elena, 12-III-1901: 2 exx.; Santa Elena: 2 exx.; Sierra Morena: 1 ex.; Sevilla: Constantina: 1 ex.; – Castilla –La Mancha: Ciudad Real: Almadén (Belbeze leg.): 1 ex.; Navas de Estena: 1 ex.; Pueblo Nuevo del Bullaque, 7-XII-1992: 2 exx.; Puerto Madrona, 20-XI-1992: 8 exx.; Saceruela (Paz leg.): 1 ex.; Solana del Pino: Puerto Madrona, 38°25'07.3"N, 4°03'33.1"W, 06-III-2012: 1 ex.; Toledo: Santa Cruz del R. [Retamar] (Paz leg.) (Col. del Sr. Pérez Arcas): 1 ex.; – Castilla y León: Ávila: Candeleda, XI-1933: 1 ex.; 8 km NE Hoyo de Pinares, 40°31'40.6"N, 4°20'04.5"W, 1-IV-2013: 2 exx.; Mombeltrán – Navalperal [de Pinares]: 1 ex.; Extremadura: Badajoz: Aljucén (Pacheco leg.): 2 exx.; Cáceres: Alcuéscar: I-1894: 3 exx.; Belvís de Monroy, 373 m, 39°48'04.8"N, 5°37'01.1"W, 24-XII-2011: 6 exx.; Castillo de Trevejo, 714 m, 40°10'20.9"N, 6°46'48.9"W, 17-IV-2011: 1 ex.; Valdemorales, 420 m, 39°12'08.1"N, 06°03'57.8"W, 2-I-2012: 2 exx. Madrid: Brunete (Bolívar leg.): 2 exx.; Cadalso [de los Vidrios] (J. Ardois leg.): 120 exx.; Cadalso de los Vidrios, hacia Almorox, 12-IV-1992: 1 ex.; Cerro de San Pedro, 29-X-2004: 4 exx.; Collado Mediano (C. Bolívar leg.): 1 ex.; Collado Mediano: 13 exx.; Collado Mediano (G. Schramm leg.): 4 exx.; Collado Mediano (Moróder leg.): 5 exx.; Fresnedillas de la Oliva, 941 m, 40°29'38.57"N, 4°10'12.90"W, 14-III-2001: 14 exx.; Galapagar (Col. del Sr. Pérez Arcas) (Misolampus gibbulus Hbst.): 1 ex.; Manzanares [El Real], 30-III-1928: 1 ex.; Moralzarzal: Cerro del Telégrafo, 23-IV-2017: 1 ex.; Navas del Rey, 2-XII-1990: 2 exx.; Pelayos de la Presa, 799 m, 40°20'19.40"N, 4°21'34.84"W, 3-III-2001: 1 ex.; [3 km al S de] Quijorna, 5-II-1992: 1 ex.; Robledo de Chavela: 7 exx.; Santa María de la Alameda (estación), 1-IV-1991: 10 exx.; Sierra de Guadarrama (J. Lauffer leg.): 1 ex.; Torrelodones, 7-XI-1992: 4 exx.; Valdemaqueda, 40°30'30.0"N, 4°17'00.1"W, 1-IV-2013: 2 exx.; Valdemorillo, 12-IV-1992: 7 exx.; Villa del Prado (J. Ardois leg.): 105 exx.; Villa del Prado: 4 exx.; Villa del Prado, Encinar del Alberche, 742 m, 40°17'29.7"N, 04°21'11.9"W, 4-I-2009: 5 exx.; Villalba: 1 ex.

Diagnosis

Total length 6.6–12 mm (Reitter 1917; Español 1949; López-Pérez 2014a). Easily recognisable by its general shiny appearance and small size. Misolampus gibbulus presents acutely protruding prothoracic anterior angles, strong pronotal punctation, deep, and densely covering most of its surface; elytra with well-marked deeply excavated striae, with large and deep punctation, and shiny interstriae intervals often with additional series of punctures (Fig. 1A–D). Female genitalia figured by Palmer (1998). The species presents marked variability on the development and depth of the elytral and pronotal sculpture. Pronotal punctation is usually less developed, and elytral striae shallower, not so excavated, in populations of southwestern Portugal (Faro district) (see taxonomic discussion).

Figure 1.

Live specimens and habitat of Misolampus gibbulus A–D live adult specimens of Misolampus gibbulus from Portugal (A Foia; B Monchique; D São Martinho das Amoreiras) and Spain (C Santa Helena, Jaén); specimens A, B, and D represent the diversity of sculptural patterns in elytra and pronotum within the Faro population, see the contrast with typical specimen C; E, F typical habitats of M. gibbulus in Spain (E native Quercus ilex and Pinus plantations at Robledo del Mazo, Toledo F Q. ilex open forest with Cytisus and Retama at Puerto de Santa Cruz, Cáceres). Photographs by MGP.

Geographic distribution

Endemic to Spain and Portugal (Löbl et al. 2008) (Fig. 2). Its general distribution includes most of the southwestern area of the Iberian Peninsula. Published records are however scanty, from central and southern Portugal, and from the Spanish provinces of Cáceres, Ciudad Real, Córdoba, Huelva, Jaén, Madrid and Sevilla (Latreille 1807; von Heyden 1870; Paulino de Oliveira 1894; Reitter 1917; Lindberg 1933; De la Fuente 1934–1935; Español 1949; Cabral 1983; Cárdenas Talaverón and Bujalance de Miguel 1985; Cárdenas 2003; Grimm and Aistleitner 2009; López-Pérez 2014a, 2014c; Bujalance de Miguel 2015; Barreda 2018).

Figure 2.

A Geographic distribution of Misolampus gibbulus. Map of the Iberian Peninsula depicting the geographic distribution range of the Iberian endemic Misolampus gibbulus (orange area). Purple dots correspond to the species’ records, including both recent and old, as well as previously published data B potential geographic distribution of Misolampus gibbulus: Red indicates areas of high suitability, and blue, areas of low suitability. Species distribution model was generated using MaxEnt v 3.4.1 (Elith et al. 2006) and the set of WorldClim v 2.0 (Fick and Hijmans 2017) environmental variables.

Our new records considerably expand the known distribution of M. gibbulus. In addition to previously published data, we add new records for the district of Évora and Portalegre in Portugal, and from the provinces of Ávila, Badajoz, and Toledo in Spain; together with numerous localities for some provinces represented by a few records, such as Cáceres, Ciudad Real, and Madrid. With the addition of these records, the distribution of M. gibbulus seems to be more or less continuous along the southern slopes of the Sistema Central: from Cáceres and Ávila to Madrid, along both slopes of Montes de Toledo and Sierra Morena, and in a more or less extended area in southern Portugal, from Évora to Serra de Monchique in the Algarve region. The Guadalquivir river basin seems to conform the southeastern distribution limit for the species (Fig. 2A). The potential distribution map identifies southwestern Iberia as a high suitable area for the species occurrence, together with some areas where the species does not occur: the Betic Mountain ranges, the Balearic Islands, and northern Africa (Fig. 2B).

Notes on natural history

Misolampus gibbulus is a low altitude species, ranging from 4 to 1278 m a.s.l., although 81% of the populations recorded are located below 800 m of altitude. Geological substrates are very diverse across its distribution area, but mostly siliceous, including sandstones, gneisses, granites, and schists, which generate acid soils (see Vera 2004; Oliveira and Quesada 2019a, 2019b). It occupies mainly the meso-Mediterranean thermoclimatic belt and, to a lesser extent, the thermo – (at the southermost portion of its range) and supra-Mediterranean (on a narrow northern strip), with ombrotypes from dry to humid (Rivas-Martínez 1987; Rivas-Martínez et al. 2002; Rivas-Martínez 2007). It is found over an extensive variety of forest and subforestry habitats, including both coniferous (Pinus L.) and broadleaved trees (Quercus L., Fraxinus L.), and also dense shrublands of Cistus L. (“jarales”), Retama Raf. and Cytisus Desf. (“retamares”) (Fig. 1E, F). The species also occupies areas densely reforested with native and non-native Pinus and Eucalyptus L’Hér. (Cabral 1983), as well as open man-modified agroforestry systems (“dehesas” of Quercus) and montane agrosystems with olive and chestnuts trees (Olea europaea L. and Castanea sativa Mill.) (see Ladero 1987; Rivas-Martínez et al. 1987; Valle 2003; Costa Tenorio et al. 2005).

Misolampus gibbulus is commonly found under bark or within decomposing dead logs and stumps of pines (mainly of Pinus pinea L. and Pinus sylvestris L.), including reforested areas (especially Pinus pinaster Aiton), where they appear to be particularly common. It is also found in dead or old trunks of perennial or deciduous oaks (Quercus ilex L., Quercus suber L., Quercus pyrenaica Willd. and Quercus faginea Lam.), under the dry layers that cover roots and thick stems of Cistus ladanifer L. and Cistus laurifolius L., and at the base of brooms, mainly Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link and Retama sphaerocarpa (L.) Boiss. Occasionally found under loose bark or at the base, among decaying wood of standing Eucalyptus trees, and also in rotten Eucalyptus stumps (Cabral 1983; López-Pérez 2014a; pers. obs.). Sometimes found also under stones in open areas, near forest or shrub patches. Almost all these habitat locations are coincident to those described by López-Pérez (2014a) for the province of Huelva. Its food source is unknown (as in the other species of the genus), although Barreda (2018) pointed out mistakenly that it is a moss eater (quoting Español 1949 and Bujalance de Miguel 2015); nevertheless, Español (1954b) commented that the species of Misolampus are saprophagous, without further specification.

Misolampus gibbulus has been found in microsympatry with M. scabricollis along western Sierra Morena (Huelva), northern Extremadura (Cáceres), Montes de Toledo (Toledo) (Fig. 1E), and southern slopes of the Sistema Central (Madrid, Ávila, Toledo), and with M. subglaber at the eastern end of Sierra Morena (Jaén) (pers. obs.). Adults can be found across most of the year (Cárdenas Talaverón and Bujalance de Miguel 1985; López-Pérez 2014a; Barreda 2018) but according to our observations they are more easily encountered during the wetter months (October to May).

Misolampus goudotii Guérin-Méneville, 1834

Misolampus goudotii Guérin-Méneville, 1834: 28. Terra typica: “trouvée à Tanger... ...à trois lieues de Tanger, sur les bords d’une rivière, dans le tronc d’un olivier.” Vauloger de Beaupré (1900), Reitter (1917), Antoine (1949), and Español (1949) among others, wrote the species name with a single final -i. Solier (1848) and Vauloger de Beaupré (1900) mentioned the unavailable name: “Misolampus nigrita Dejean”, and Español (1954a): “M. moraguesi”.

Misolampus goudotii Erichson in Wagner, 1841: 184 (non Guérin-Méneville 1834). Terra typica: not indicated, but “von Algier” according to Erichson’s (1841) work title.

Misolampus erichsoni Vauloger de Beaupré, 1900: 674 syn. nov. Terra typica: “Algérie: O., Oran...; Daya...; Tlemcen...; Mascara..., Ammi Moussa; A.: Blidah...; La Chiffa...; Margueritte...; forêt de Boghar...; mont Ouarsenis...; forêts de la Grande-Kabylie...”.

Misolampus peyerimhoffi Antoine, 1926: 257 syn. nov. Terra typica: “Grand Atlas, région du Glaoui: plateau des Aït Rba...”.