folia entomologica hungarica rovartani...

Subspecies of Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei Küster, 1846in the Carpathian Basin (Coleoptera: Carabidae)

GY. SZÉL1, A. TAKÁCS2, P. LIE3 & I. RETEZÁR4

1Departement of Zoology, Hungarian Natural History Museum,H-1088 Budapest, Baross u. 13, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected]

2R-450075 Zalãu, str. T. Vladimirescu 36, România3R-905505 Lugoj, str. Cernei 33, România

4H-1115 Budapest, Bartók Béla út 86, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract – The subspecies of Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei KÜSTER, 1846 are discussed,their distributions are detailed in three countries in the Carpathian Basin. Of the 16 recognizedsubspecies only 11 are accepted as valid. Carabus hampei is one of the six strictly protectedbeetle species in Hungary. All the known localities are listed and mapped. With 15 figures.

Key words – Carabus, Morphocarabus, hampei, subspecies, Hungary, Ukraine, Romania.

INTRODUCTION

The number of accepted species in the subgenus Morphocarabus GÉHIN,1976 varies greatly between authors. Without trying to provide a complete list,CSIKI (1906b, 1946) mentions six species (C. comptus DEJEAN, 1831, C. hampeiKÜSTER, 1846, C. rothi DEJEAN, 1829, Carabus scheidleri PANZER, 1799, C. kol-lari PALLIARDI, 1825, C. zawadzkii KRAATZ, 1854) in the Carpathian Basin.LÖBL & SMETANA (2003) in their Palaearctic catalogue list three species (C.eximius CSIKI, 1906, C. rothi, C. scheidleri) from this area. Of the more recentworks, entirely different views are published in TURIN et al. (2003) where sevenspecies are mentioned: C. comptus, C. excellens FABRICIUS, 1801, C. hampei, C.kollari, C. rothi, C. scheidleri and C. zawadzkii. In the comprehensive work ofLORENZ (2005) there are six species: C. excellens, C. kollari, C. praecellens, C. rothi,C. scheidleri, C. zawadzkii, while comptus, hampei and incompsus KRAATZ,1880 are considered as subspecies of C. rothi. DEUVE (2004) accepts only

Folia ent. hung. 68, 2007

FOLIA ENTOMOLOGICA HUNGARICAROVARTANI KÖZLEMÉNYEK

Volume 68 2007 pp. 71−80.

C. monilis FABRICIUS, 1792 and C. rothi as species, the rest of the taxa are eithertreated as valid subspecies or listed as “possible synonyms” of these. In his sys-tem, C. rothi hampei is a valid subspecies with six of these “not formally synony-mized infrasubspecific taxa”, and numerous other names are listed as theirsynonyms. In the new edition of the Käfer Mitteleuropas (MÜLLER-MOTZFELD2004) the concept of the species is closer to that of TURIN et al. (2003). The pres-ent work attempts to review and illustrate the subspecies of C. hampei – this ishere accepted as a valid species based mostly on the morphology of the innersac of the aedeagus (such approach was first attempted by ISHIKAWA 1973).This species is of special importance in Hungary as being one of the six strictlyprotected beetle species and amongst these one of the three Carabus species.

THE HISTORY OF THE STUDY OF CARABUS HAMPEI

Romania (Transylvania) – The taxon C. hampei was described by KÜSTERbased on material from “Transylvania” without more exact locality data(BREUNING 1932). Later it turned out that the distribution of the nominal sub-species is limited to Southern Transylvania, along the river Mureº fromChinari (Várhegy) to Ilia (Marosillye) and along river Târnava (Küküllõ) fromOdorheiu Secuiesc (Székelyudvarhely). According to our current concept,there are 11 subspecies in Romania (Transylvania), most of these were origi-nally described by CSIKI (1906a, 1923) as infrasubspecific taxa. LIE (1992) de-scribed further two subspecies, and LIE & KLEINFELD (2001) treated all thesubspecies occuring in Transylvania (Romania).

Hungary – In Hungary only the subspecies C. hampei ormayi REITTER,1896 occurs. It was first collected by F. LICHTNECKERT, D. KANABÉ and Z.NAROZSNYI in the 1920s and 1930s, the localities were Nagyar and Szatmár-cseke in Szabolcs-Szatmár county. It was then not collected for almost 60 years(SZÉL 1987). A university thesis by SZALAI (1994) and papers of KÖDÖBÖCZ &MAGURA (1999, 2005) give details of the currently known Hungarian distribu-tion and main habitat types.

Ukraine – In Ukraine, as a continuation of its area in Hungary, the sub-species C. hampei ormayi occurs (MAGURA et al. 1997). Localities of this sub-species are listed in KÖDÖBÖCZ & MAGURA (2005), where some Hungarianlocalities are also mentioned. This work was focused on the different habitattypes the taxon is associated with. The montane subspecies C. hampei mendaxCSIKI, 1906 also occurs in Ukraine (Maramaros Mts).


72 Gy. Szél, I. Retezár, A. Takács & P. Lie

CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE SUBSPECIES

In the genus Carabus the statuses of infraspecific names are rather arbi-trary. A great variety of hierarchic systems were created in order to maintainthe usage of names possibly important in local faunistic views only. Betweenthe subspecies accepted by us as valid there was no significant difference in thestructures of the inner sac (considered by us as a criterion of being a valid spe-cies). Therefore these taxa are distinguished by external morphological char-acters only. The listed locality data and the map of distribution (Fig. 1) aresourced from the collections of the Hungarian Natural History Museum, theprivate collection of I. RETEZÁR (Budapest, Hungary) and the comprehensivework of LIE & KLEINFELD (2001).


Subspecies of Carabus (M.) hampei in the Carpathian Basin (Coleoptera) 73

Fig. 1. Distribution of Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei KÜSTER, 1846 and C. (M.) incompsusKRAATZ, 1880 in the Carpathian Basin,� = C. (M.) hampei hampei KÜSTER, 1846 (= C. (M.)hampei marusii ORMAY, 1890),� = C. (M.) hampei mendax CSIKI, 1906,� = C. (M.) hampeispectabilis CSIKI, 1906,�= C. (M.) hampei gutiiensis TAKÁCS et LIE, 1992,�= C. (M.) hampeiormayi REITTER, 1896,� = C. (M.) hampei dacicus CSIKI, 1906,� = C. (M.) hampei eximiusCSIKI, 1906 (= C. (M.) hampei zilahiensis CSIKI, 1906),�= C. (M.) hampei diffinis CSIKI, 1906,�= C. (M.) hampei hunyadensis CSIKI, 1906,�= C. (M.) hampei praedacicus LIE, 1992,= C.

(M.) hampei mehelyanus CSIKI, 1906, = C. (M.) incompsus KRAATZ, 1880

Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei ormayi REITTER, 1896(Fig. 2)

Morphology – Length: 27–30 mm. Very similar in size and colour to C. hampei hampei,but the colour is duller.

Distribution and habitat – Occurs along the upper flow of Tisa river and on theSzatmár-Bereg Plains. Its area on the south reaches Sãlaj county in Transylvania. In the loweraltitudes of hilly areas, in a great variety of forest associations (Querco–Carpinetum, Quercetumpetraeae cerris tilietosum argenteae, Robinietum), in abandoned orchards, vineyards and edgesof arable lands.

Localities – Hungary: Barabás: Kaszonyi-hegy [hill], Beregdaróc: Beregszászi-erdõ [for-est], Beregdaróc: Dédai-erdõ [forest], Kishódos: Sár-Égermente, Nagyar, Szatmárcseke, Tarpa:Nagy-erdõ [forest], Tarpa: Tarpai-hegy [hill], Tiszabecs: Szabó-Füzes [forest]; Ukraine: Bere-govo (Beregszász), Chop (Csap), Homok (Mezõhomok), Hust (Huszt), Kajdanovo (Kajdanó),Mukachevo (Munkács), Vynohradiv (Nagyszõlõs); Romania: Moiad (Mojád), Micula (Mikola),Noroieni (Sárfalu), ªãrmaºãg (Sarmaság).

Remarks – REITTER (1896) described this taxon from Beregovo (now be-longing to Ukraine), originally as “Carabus kollari var. ormayi”. NAROZSNY(1938) mentioned it from Nagyar and Szatmárcseke (Szabolcs-Szatmár-Beregcounty). SZÉL (1987) summarized the known distribution based on the avail-able museum specimens, for the taxon was then found again after 60 years. Inthe early 1990s extensive field experiments and collection by KRISZTINASZALAY showed it from a number of new localities. Based on our currentknowledge, it seems likely that its strongest Hungarian population exists onthe Kaszonyi-hegy. The list of the Hungarian localities shown above is the re-sult of the work of several collectors, most importantly VIKTOR KÖDÖBÖCZ.

Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei mendax CSIKI, 1906(Fig. 3)

Morphology – Length: 28–34 mm. The number of intervals on the elytra is conspicuouslylarge, it may exceed 30. Elytra finely wrinkled and grooved, markedly dull, the colour is alwaysdark blue.

Distribution and habitat – Occurs in Ukraine in Maramaros Mts. Mainly a montane spe-cies inhabiting the decidous, coniferous and mixed forests, alpine grasslands up to 1700 m a. s. l.

Localities – Bohdan (Tiszabogdány), Kvasy (Tiszaborkút).



Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei spectabilis CSIKI, 1906(Fig. 4)

Morphology – Length: 28–34 mm. Very similar to C. hampei mendax, its colour more vari-able, the upper surface of body more shiny, the foveae of the elytra deeper and the contours ofthe body more rounded.

Distribution and habitat – Occurs in Transylvania in Rodnei Mts. at edges of coniferousforests, on alpine meadows above the tree line, at altitudes of 1300–2000 m.

Localities – Ineu (Kuhhorn, Ünõkõ), Korongiºu (Korongyos) [Mt.].

Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei gutiiensis TAKÁCS et LIE, 1992(Fig. 5)

Morphology – Length: 33–38 mm. Very similar to C. hampei hunyadensis, but hind partsof the body are somewhat broader. The tip of aedeagus narrower than in C. hampei hunyadensis(LIE 1992).

Distribution and habitat – The only known locality is 200 km N from Sãcãrâmb in theGutâi Mts.

Locality – Baia Mare (Nagybánya), Gutâi Mts.

Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei dacicus CSIKI, 1906(Fig. 6)

Morphology – Length: 30–34 mm. Very close to C. hampei hunyadensis, similarcolouration, intervals are rather elevated but not as sharp, their number can reach 24.

Distribution and habitat – It occurs in the northern part of the Transylvanian Depres-sion, in the Someº valley.

Localities – Beclean (Bethlen), Gherla (Szamosújvár), Nãsãud (Naszód).

Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei eximius CSIKI, 1906(= Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei zilahiensis CSIKI, 1906)

(Fig. 7)

Morphology – Length: 22–28 mm, relatively small, the typical colour is bronze or copper.The surface of elytra is moderately shiny, rather dull. The number of primary intervals is 18.



Distribution and habitat – In the surroundings of Oradea and Zalãu inhabiting the oakforests of the the plain and the hilly region.

Localities – Meseº (Meszes-hegység) [Mts.], Bãile Felix (Félixfürdõ) [resort], Zalãu(Zilah).

Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei diffinis CSIKI, 1906(Fig. 8)

Morphology – Length: 26–28 mm. Its ground colour dark blue, with a slight violet or cop-pery shade. Intervals are somewhat more narrow, foveae interrupting primary intervals (pri-mary foveae) are sparser than in C. hampei eximius. Differs from C. hampei eximius by moreshiny surface of body.

Distribution and habitat – It lives in the western half of Cluj county.

Localities – Cluj-Napoca (Kolozsvár), Gilãu (Gyalui-havasok) [Mts.], Teleac (Telek).

Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei hunyadensis CSIKI, 1923(Fig. 9)

Morphology – Length: 33–38 mm, the largest of all subspecies. All intervals of the elytravery expressed, sharp, there are 18–20 on each. Primary foveae indistinct. Colour almost alwaysblack, other colours are very rare.

Distribution and habitat – Its few known localities are in the surroundings of Sãcãrâmb,at an elevation of 600–900 m.

Localities – Poiana Aiudului (Nyírmezõ), Sãcãrâmb (Nagyág).

Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei predacicus LIE, 1992(Fig. 10)

Morphology – Length: 26–28 mm, closely related to C. hampei dacicus, but smaller, moreslender, in comparison to C. hampei hampei primary foveae less distinct and colour almost al-ways black, other colours are very rare.

Distribution and habitat – The only known locality is 10 km SW from Zlatna, on denselyforested clay soil, at altitudes of 400–600.

Locality – Zlatna (Zalatna): Valea Mare.





14 151312

Figs 2–13. 2 = Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei ormayi REITTER, 1896, 3 = C. (M.) hampeimendax CSIKI, 1906, 4 = C. (M.) hampei spectabilis CSIKI, 1906, 5 = C. (M.) hampei gutiiensisTAKÁCS et LIE, 1992, 6 = C. (M.) hampei dacicus CSIKI, 1906, 7 = C. (M.) hampei eximius CSIKI,1906, 8 = Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei diffinis CSIKI, 1906, 9 = C. (M.) hampei hunyadensisCSIKI, 1923, 10 = C. (M.) hampei predacicus LIE, 1992, 11 = C. (M.) hampei hampei KÜSTER, 1846,12 = C. (M.) hampei mehelyanus CSIKI, 1906, 13 = C. (M.) incompsus CSIKI, 1906. − Figs 14–15.Aedeagus, inner sac: 14 = C. (M.) hampei hampei KÜSTER, 1846, 15 = C. (M.) incompsus CSIKI,

1906

65432

1110987

Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei hampei KÜSTER, 1846(= Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei marusii ORMAY, 1890)

(Figs 11, 14)

Morphology – Length: 28–35 mm, relatively shiny, colour dark blue to bronze (specimenssometimes have bright metallic green pronotal and elytral edges). Primary foveae distinct.

Distribution and habitat – It occurs on the lower hilly areas of the Southern and EasternCarpathians and the Transylvanian Depression. In the zone of the deciduous forests(300–600 m), but in forest edges, meadows, never in closed forests.

Localities – Aiud (Nagyenyed), Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár), Bod (Brenndorf, Botfalu),Buzaº (Búzamezõ), Cerghid (Nagycserged), Chinari (Várhegy), Cristuru Secuiesc (Székely-keresztúr), Geoagiu (Algyógy), Iernut (Radnót), Ilia-Bacea, (Marosillye-Bácsfalva), MiercureaNirajului, (Nyárádszereda), Odorheiu Secuiesc (Székelyudvarhely), ªibot (Alkenyér), Reghin(Szászrégen), Rimetea (Torockó), Rugãneºti (Rugonfalva), ªincai (Mezõsámsond), Sovata(Szováta), Târgu Mureº (Marosvásárhely), Tîrnãveni (Dicsõszentmárton), Troiþa (Szenthá-romság), Vãliºoara (Torockógyertyános: Kõköz), Vinþu de Jos (Alvinc).

Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei mehelyanus CSIKI, 1906(Fig. 12)

Morphology – Length: 20–25 mm, the smallest of the subspecies. Its surface is shiny, theintervals are sharp, their number is usually 18. Primary intervals mostly without foveae, in therare case when there are foveae, they are limited to the hind parts of the elytra.

Distribution and habitat – In the higher parts of Bãlan Mts. Mainly a montane species in-habiting the coniferous forests and alpine grasslands up to 1700 m a. s. l.

Localities – Bãlan (Balánbánya), Ecem (Öcsém), Haºmaºul Mare (Nagyhagymás), PiatraSinguratica (Egyeskõ), Tãrcau (Ter-kõ).

NOTES

Carabus (Morphocarabus) incompsus KRAATZ, 1880 – Out of the infra-subspecies categories recognized by CSIKI (1946) C. incompsus KRAATZ, 1880(Figs 13, 15) is here accepted as a valid species (based on the morphological dif-ferences in the inner sac), contrary to the view of the more recent works, butfollowing ISHIKAWA (1973), who extensively studied the inner sacs and also ac-cepted C. incompsus as a valid species.



Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei telekii CSIKI, 1937 – LIE & KLEINFELD(2001) list this taxon as a subspecies of C. hampei, but in our view it is a subspe-cies of C. rothi. Number of its primary intervals is 4 (and not 5), the intervalsare stronger.

*

Acknowledgements – Thanks are due to OTTÓ MERKL (HNHM), for his useful advice,GYÖRGY MAKRANCZY (HNHM) for help with translations. Studies of the authors was sup-ported by a Hungarian National R&D Programme (The origin and genesis of the fauna of theCarpathian Basin: diversity, biogeographical hospots and nature conservation significance;project no: 3B023–0–4).

REFERENCES

BREUNING, S. 1932: Monographie der Gattung Carabus. – In: Bestimmungs-Tabellen dereuropäischen Coleopteren. 105. Heft, Troppau, pp. 291–496.

CSIKI, E. 1906a: Pp. 80–240. – In: CSIKI, E.: Magyarország bogárfaunája. Vezérfonal a magyarszent korona országainak területén elõforduló bogarak megismerésére. 1. Kötet. [The beetlefauna of Hungary. Volume 1.] E. Csiki, Budapest, 546 pp.

CSIKI, E. 1906b: Adatok a magyarországi Morphocarabusok ismeretéhez. (Beiträge zur Kenntnissder Ungarischen Morphocaraben.) – Annales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 4: 244–252.

CSIKI, E. 1923: Néhány futrinka nevérõl. [On the names of some Carabus species.] – RovartaniLapok 26: 140–141.

CSIKI, E. 1946: Die Käferfauna des Karpaten-Beckens. – In: TASNÁDI-KUBACSKA, A. (ed.):Naturwissenschaftliche Monographien, IV. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest, 792 pp.

DEUVE, T. 2004: Illustrated Catalogue of the Genus Carabus of the World (Coleoptera: Cara-bidae). – Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 461 pp.

ISHIKAWA, R. 1973: Notes on some Basic Problems in the Taxonomy and the Phylogeny of theSubtribe Carabina (Coleoptera, Carabidae). – Bulletin of the National Science MuseumTokyo 16(2): 191–215.

KÖDÖBÖCZ, V. & MAGURA, T. 1999: Biogeographical connections of the carabid fauna(Coleoptera: Carabidae) of the Beregi-síkság to the Carpathians. – Folia entomologicahungarica 60: 195–203.

KÖDÖBÖCZ, V. & MAGURA, T. 2005: Forests of the Bereg-Plain as Refuges Based on TheirCarabid Fauna (Coleoptera: Carabidae). – Acta Phytopatologica et Entomologica Hungarica40(3–4): 367–382.

LIE, P. 1992: Bemerkungen zu Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei Küster, 1846 aus Trans-sylvanien mit Beschreibung zweier neuen Unterarten. – Folia entomologica hungarica 53:113–120.



LIE, P. & KLEINFELD, F. 2001: Betrachtungen über Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei Küster,1846 und seine Rassen in Transsylvanien, Rumänien (Coleoptera: Carabidae). –Galathaea 17(2): 75–94.

LORENZ, W. 2005: Systematic list of extant ground beetles of the world. (Insecta Coleoptera“Geadephaga”: Trachypachidae and Carabidae incl. Paussinae, Cicindelinae, Rhysodinae).Second Edition. – Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, 530 pp.

LÖBL, I. & SMETANA, A. (eds) 2003: Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 1. Archostemata- Myxophaga - Adephaga. – Apollo Books, Stenstrup, 819 pp.

MAGURA, T., KÖDÖBÖCZ, V., TÓTHMÉRÉSZ, B., MOLNÁR, T., ELEK, Z., SZILÁGYI, G. & HEGYESSY,G. 1997: Carabid fauna of the Beregi-síkság and its biogeographical relations (Coleop-tera, Carabidae). – Folia entomologica hungarica 58: 73–82.

MÜLLER-MOTZFELD, G. (ed.) 2004: Band 2. Adephaga 1: Carabidae (Laufkäfer). 2. Auflage. –In: FREUDE, H., HARDE, K. W., LOHSE, G. A. & KLAUSNITZER, B. (eds): Die Käfer Mittel-europas. Elsevier GMBH, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg-Berlin, 521 pp.

NAROZSNY, Z. 1938: Adatok Magyarország nagyfutó féléihez (Carabini). [Data to the knowledgeof Carabini of Hungary.] Doktori értekezés. [Doctoral thesis.] – Debreceni szemle 12: 1–19.

REITTER, E. 1896: Bestimmungs-Tabellen der europäischen Coleopteren. 34. Carabidae. 1.Abtheilung: Carabini, gleichzeitig mit einer systematischen Darstellung sämtlicher Sub-genera der Gattung Carabus L. – Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereines in Brünn34[1895]: 36–198.

SZALAI, K. 1994: Futóbogarak (Coleoptera: Carabidae) a Szatmár-Beregben, különös tekintettel aCarabus hampeire (Küster 1846). [Carabids in the Szatmár-Bereg area, with special atten-tion to Carabus hampei (Küster 1846)]. – University thesis, KLTE, Debrecen, 32 pp.

SZÉL, GY. 1987: A Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei magyarországi elõfordulása (Coleoptera,Carabidae). (The occurrence of Carabus (Morphocarabus) hampei in Hungary(Coleoptera, Carabidae).) – Folia entomologica hungarica 48: 299.

TURIN, H., PENEV, L., CASALE, A., ARNDT, E., ASSMANN, TH., MAKAROV, K., MOSSAKOWSKI, D.,SZÉL, GY. & WEBER, F. 2003: 5. Species account. – In: TURIN, H., PENEV, L. & CASALE, A.(eds): The genus Carabus L. in Europe. A synthesis. Fauna Europaea Evertebrata. No 2.Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, pp. 151–280.



folia entomologica hungarica rovartani...

Documents