 |
 |
 |
 |
Figure Captions.
Fig. 5. Anthonomus robustulus, female, habitus, Limhi Co., ID
Fig. 6. Anthonomus robustulus, female, habitus, Limhi Co., ID
Fig. 11. Anthonomus robustulus, male, aedeagus, Limhi Co., ID
Fig. 12. Anthonomus robustulus, male, metathoracic leg, Limhi Co., ID
Literature.
Anthonomus robustulus (LeConte). LeConte 1876:205. Kansas; three specimens.
Dietz (1891) placed A. robustulus and A. moleculus, along with A. latiusculus Dietz and A. subfasciatus LeConte, in a subfasciatus group.
Dietz 1891:236. Hab [robustulus]. Nebraska, Montana, District of Columbia. A specimen in Mr. Bolter's collection and one in my own, which I received from that gentleman some years ago, differ from the above description in the following points: Larger, the scales are larger, white; antennae entierly testaceous, joints 2-4 of funicle equal in length, fifth and sixth wider. Prothorax depressed each side at the base, punctures smaller and more remote; elytra more finely striato-punctate. Long. 2.2 mm.; .09 inch. Hab. Montana. Both specimens are badly abraded, but what remains of the scales seems to indicate that they arae more dense and more closely adherent to the surface. I do not feel justified in considering it specifically distinct until increased and better material shall prove it to be so.
Dietz 1891:237. Hab [moleculus]. District of Columbia, Maryland, Illinois, Wisconsin.
Fall 1913:54-55. I can see no means of separating this [A. moleculus Csy.] from robustulus Lec. According to Casey moleculus differs in its "narrower form and slightly different vestiture;" according to Dietz moleculus is "closely allied to robustulus with which it agrees in form and vestiture." In LeConte's description of robustulus the thighs are said to be not toothed, and the second and third funicular joints equal or nearly so. Casey describes moleculus as having the front thighs toothed and the second funicular joint longer than the third. The front thighs are really toothed in robustulus C LeConte was in error here -- while the second funicular joint is, or is not, appreciably longer than the third according to the individual specimen one is examining. As Casey described from an (sic.) unique he could not know this, but it is equally true in a series of both eastern and western specimens, and here as well as in many other species the variation is in some degree sexual. The characters given by Dietz for separating moleculus from robustulus are in part individual and in part non-existant; e.g. he says that the second and third funicular joints are together longer than the next three in robusutlus, which is not true.