Ce magnifique spécimen que j'ai photographié est identifié comme Chalcolepidius sulcatus par le SEAG (
SHLNH (http://www.shnlh.org/galerie_photos/pic ... ategory/56).
Cependant en étudiant une parution scientifique brésilienne (http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbent/v46n3/a07v46n3.pdf) dans laquelle il est décrit en page 75/166, je me suis aperçu qu'il y avait sans doute une confusion possible avec Chalcolepidius validus.
Le chauvinisme me pousserait à faire confiance aux deux sociétés scientifiques pré-citées, mais l'argumentaire proposé par ce chercheur Brésilien tient la route.
The identified material of C. sulcatus (Fabricius) and C.
validus Candèze are messed because the redescriptions of
these species are contradictories. This problem started, before
the description of C. validus, when OLIVIER (1790), treating of
C. sulcatus, presented the redescription of this species and an
illustration of one specimen, with pronotum bicolor (that does
not correspond to C. sulcatus, which has pronotum unicolor).
From this time, C. sulcatus was interpreted as having the
pronotum bicolor, like C. validus Candèze, 1857, later described.
Consequently, these two species have been considered as the
same, but here, they are treated as distinct species.
CANDÈZE (1857) gave continuation to the confusion and
described C. validus, including it in the key before C. sulcatus,
in a subdivision with pronotum unicolor, without lateral bands,
separated from the latter only by hind angles of pronotum more
divergent. He described/redescribed both species as having
pronotum bicolor, with lateral whitish stripes narrowed apicad.
He stated that both species are very similar, differing especially
by larger body and the bands of pronotum yellowish-white in
C. validus, and white in C. sulcatus. In fact, he was treating of
the OLIVIER’s (1790) illustration of C. sulcatus that corresponds
to C. validus, described in the following page, and both
“species” treated by him correspond to C. validus.
FLEUTIAUX (1911) did not note the previous misleading and
synonymized C. validus Candèze, 1857 under C. sulcatus
(Fabricius, 1777), which is revalidated and redescribed. He
recorded this species from Martinique and Guadeloupe, but
considered the last locality as doubtful. I studied several
specimens of Fleutiaux collection, identified by him as C.
sulcatus that really belong to C. validus
Les illustrations dans le document confirme cette thèse : voir Figs. : 83, 155, 217, 268, 348, 416, 451, 487, 527, 663, 690.
N'ayant aucune compétence ni prétention particulière, je laisserai aux spécialistes du forum le soin de trancher.
Par prudence, j'ai nommé ce spécimen Chalcolepidius SP. sur les fiches destinées à la galerie où il était absent. Un correctif sera toujours possible par un administrateur, n'est-ce pas ?
1.
Jacques-Alexis REAL : Antilles françaises : Fort de France : 97200 : 5/8/2012
Altitude : 403m - Taille : 35/40mm
Réf. : 89725
2.
Jacques-Alexis REAL : Antilles françaises : Fort de France : 97200 : 5/8/2012
Altitude : 403m - Taille : 35/40mm
Réf. : 89726
3.
Jacques-Alexis REAL : Antilles françaises : Fort de France : 97200 : 5/8/2012
Altitude : 403m - Taille : 35/40mm
Réf. : 89727
Qu'en pensez-vous ?
