 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Fig. 5. tectus
Fig. 6. tectus
Fig. 8. tectus, male
Fig. 10. tectus
Fig. 13. tectus
Literature
Anthonomus tectus LeConte 1876:203. Massachusetts; Georgia.
Anthonomus tectus LeConte 1876:203. Dietz 1891:230. Hab. Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah. Only five specimens are before me. Readily distinguished from squamosus by its smaller size, shorter, stouter and more strongly curved beak, which is not shining. The elytra, also, are more suddenly and conspicuously wider at base than the prothorax.
Anthonomus tectus LeConte 1876:203. Fall 1913:53. Dietz records as the habitat of this species C Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah. He has certainly confused two or more species under this name, none of which perhaps are the real tectus, the unique type of which is from Massachusetts. In the original description Massachusetts and Georgia are given as localities, but the representative from the latter region is not now in the LeConte cabinet; possibly it may be in the Horn Collection. The western limits of this species are as yet undetermined. Specimens from Belvidere, Kansas, sent me by Mr. Knaus are very close indeed to typical tectus and I so place them, but the probability is great that specimens from the Rocky Mountains and further west are not identical with the New England type. Tectus has been tqaken in numbers in recent years at Tyngsboro, Mass., by Mr. Blanchard, who found it on wild asters (Diplopoppus (sic.)) in September.
Anthonomus tectus LeConte 1876:203. Blatchley and Leng (1916:309) provide a brief description of A. tectus and state "Lake County, Ind., rare; May 27. Edgebrook, Ill., June 14. Described from Massachusetts and Georgia. Ranges from New England to Kansas. Taken in numbers from wild asters, Ionactis linariifolius L., at Tyngsboro, Mass, by Blanchard in September. (Fall.) These authors placed the species in their own "Group G" of Anthonomus, along with A. squamulatus Dietz, A. molochinus Dietz, A. rufipes LeConte and A. disjunctus LeConte.
Blatchley and Leng (1916:309-311) placed A. tectus LeConte, A. squamulatus Dietz, A. molochinus Dietz, A. rufipes LeConte, and A. disjunctus LeConte in "Group G" which they characterized as A...from 2.7 to 3.5 mm. in size ... the upper and lower surfaces more or less clothed with scales, which vary in shape from almost round to very elongate and hair-like. ... All have the femora armed with a single tooth beneath."
Anthonomus heterothecae Pierce 1908:177. Bred in large numbers from heads of Heterotheca subaxillaris at Jacksonville, Texas, October 11, 1905, Tyler, Texas, Palestine, Texas. This species belongs in the squamosus group near tectus. This species has been called Anthonomus disjunctus by myself in previous papers, from which it is quite distinct. Type. C Cat. No. 10052, U.S.N.M.
Anthonomus heterothecae Pierce 1908:177. Burke (1968:52) described the pupa form flower heads of Heterotheca latifolia from 10 mi. SW Elkhart, Texas. On the basis of adults, heterothecae most closely resembles Anthonomus tectus LeConte from the northeastern United States.
Anthonomus heterothecae Pierce 1908:177. Ahmad and Burke (1972:56) described larvae of A. heterothecae from flower heads of Heterotheca latifolia from 10 mi. SW Elkhart, Texas.
Anthonomus heterothecae Pierce 1908:177. Burke (1974:319) reported on parasites reared from A. heterothecae.
Anthonomus Anthonomus) appositus Fall 1913:52-53. (Burke apparently did not designate a lectotype.) Type. -- male. Huachuca Mountains, Arizona (male female); Havre, Montana, one male collected by professor Wickham is apparently identical. Closely related to tectus, but differing in its longer second funicular joint and denser vestiture. It is still nearer to heterothecae Pierce, but is much larger and more conspicuously vittate than a specimen of the latter kindly sent me by Mr. Pierce. This specimen is 2.2 mm. in length, and this is the length given by Mr. Pierce in his description. In tectus the second funicular joint is normally short, very distinctly less than twice as long as wide and much shorter than the two following united.
Anthonomus Anthonomus) appositus Fall 1913:52-53. Burke (1968:51) described the pupa from specimens from flower heads of Machaeranthera scabrella from 5 mi. S Tombstone, Arizona. No consistent differences were found to separate the pupae of appositus from those of squamosus and ater. The adults of appositus are smaller on average than those of either ater of squamsous, although the differences between appositus and squamosus in this respect are slight.
Anthonomus Anthonomus) appositus Fall 1913:52-53. Ahmad and Burke (1972:55-56) described larvae of A. appositus from flower heads of Machaeranthera scabrella from 5 mi. S Tombstone, Arizona. The larvae of appositus cannot consistently be separated from those of squamosus and ater on the basis of morphological characters.
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