 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Fig. 1. squamosus
Fig. 2. squamosus
Fig. 7. squamosus, male
Fig. 9. squamosus
Fig. 11. squamosus
Literature
Anthonomus squamosus LeConte 1876:202-203. Dietz 1891:229-230. Hab. Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, California, Nebraska. varies considerably in form, coloration and density ot the scaly vestiture. The alternate elytral interspaces are paler in some specimens, giving them a vittate appearance, more or less marked. Two variations, deserving special mention, occur: Var a. Scales uniformly grayish white, less closely adherent to the derm. Each elytral interspace with an irregular row of suberect seta-like hair. Occurs in New Mexico, California. Var b. Smaller than the average specimens; less densely scaly, scales smaller, those of the prothorax piliform; beak of male more distinctly striate. Three specimens: Kans., Nebr. Coll. Dr. Horn and H. Ulke.
Anthonomus squamosus LeConte 1876:202-203. Burke (1968:49-51) described the pupa from flower heads of Grindelia arizonica from 20 mi. E Show Low, Arizona. No consistent differences were found to separate pupae of squamosus from those of A. appositus fall and A. ater LeConte.
Anthonomus squamosus LeConte 1876:202-203. Ahmad and Burke (1972:55) described larvae of A. squamosus from flower heads of Grindelia arizonica from 20 mi. E Show Low, Arizona. "The larvae of Anthonomus agree well with others of the squamosus group, A. ater, A. heterothecae, A. appositus, and A. disjunctus (?); these may be separated from all other larvae of the tribe studied by having 3 long mesothoracic and metathoracic pleural setae.
Anthonomus squamosus LeConte 1876:202-203. Burke 1984:266. LeConte indicated that he had more than one specimen when the species was described, but he did not specify the number. Although there are several other specimens of A. squamosus in the LeConte Collection, there is no convincing evidence that any of these are syntypes.
Anthonomus squamosus LeConte 1876:202-203. Hatch 1971:348. This is one of the choices in a key, the alternative to Anthonomus ater: "Upper surface less densely and evenly clothed with more elongate scales, the surface slightly ragged in appearance; dark rufous, rearly black, the scales grayish tending to be somewhat paler on the scutellum, narrowly along the suture and on intervals 4, 6, 8, and lateral to 8; pronotum sometimes with faint lateral and a median vitta of paler scales; 3.4-6.4 mm.; se B.C., e Wn., Id., Or.; not common squamosus Lec. Larson and Hinman 1932:43(4)" A unit tray from the Hatch Collection (OSUO) has 8 specimens behind Hatch's "Anthonomus squamosus" determination label; these are from Corvallis, Or (2); Lion Co., Or (1); "Was" (3); Malheur Lake, Or (1, Tychius liljebladi); Franklin, Id (1).
Anthonomus squamosus LeConte 1876:202-203. Colorado; not rare. In some specimens three thoracic vittae and the alternate interspaces of the elytra are paler; the scutellum is nearly white.
Wayne: I guess I forgot to send the heterothecae notes. The brief notes I made on the types are attached here. They are not much but my general procedure when visiting collections to see types was to compare my specimens with the types and when I thought that the latter were pretty surely conspecific with the types I did not go much further. I did, however, always copy the label data of the types. The heterothecae types were examined at the USNM in 1969. Pierce designated a type in his description so I there is no need for a lectotype. Please do not synonymize tectus, heterothecae, appositus, and squamosus with ater (ater has page precedence over squamosus)!! By the way, have you heard anything from any of the reviewers? Maybe it is too early to expect replies. I was talked into reviewing a Chinese paper on weevils and find that a complete overhaul of the English rendition is necessary before anyone can even think of determining its scientific merits. Of course, I do not expect our manuscript to have that problem. Cheers. Horace
Wayne: I have been looking at the material you sent on squamosus et al. with the hope of being able to define the Squamosus Subgroup (I presume that we are going to call all of the squamose things left, or at least most of them, by the name of the Squamosus Group). So far I have not had much success. I am working through my synoptic collection here to see if any good distingushing characters have been overlooked. One of the things I have noticed involves tectus/appositus. Appositus specimens from Arizona not far from the type locality are consistently larger than any tectus I have seen, plus they have somewhat more slender scales dorsally than the Texas tectus (heterothecae) specimens I have. Not all of the scales are different but most on tectus are stouter than those on the dorsum of appositus. How about checking your larger array of specimens regarding the size and scale characters? I do not have any tectus from the northeastern US with which to compare. I concede that heterothecae and tectus are probably the same but I am not sure that appositus fits in this mix. It seems to be more, as far as the scales go, like a small squamosus although I would not consider to be synonymous with the latter. Fall (1913:52) talks about tectus having a shorter second funicular segment but, unfortunately, I did not check this character in the type although this certainly is not the case with Texas "heterothecae." I believe that there is a specimen or two of tectus from Mass. in the material you have. Does it (they) have the short second funicular segment? Dietz and Fall were obviously not sure how far west tectus extends. I will keep plugging away at it. Cheers. Horace