Studies on Norwegian Aphids - Norsk entomologisk forening

Gyrophaena keeni Casey and
G. orientalis A. Str. (Col., Staphylinidae)
ANDREAS STRAND
Melumveien 38, Oslo 7
Abstract: STRAND, A. 1968. Gyrophaena keeni Casey and G. orientalis A. Str. (Col., Staphylinidae). Norsk
ent. Tidsskr. IS, 35-36.
Gyrophaena keeni Casey and orientalis A. Str. are so closely related that the question has arisen whether
they are distinct species. On the basis of an examination of material of both forms the author expresses
the opinion that they must really be considered two separate species.
Folwaczny (1967) has recently stated that in
the European part of the Ural mountains he
has found Gyrophaena keeni Casey, which
was earlier known only from N. America. He
suggests that the species, which he indicates
as new to the palaearctic area, might be distributed
all over Siberia. The determination has
been made by Likovsky.
Folwaczny has kindly sent me a 0, which is
exactly the same as my orientalis (Strand
1938) from Finland and the Sajan mountains
in Siberia.
Likovsky has made his determination on the
basis of a publication of Seevers (1951), which
also contains a figure of the penis of keeni in
lateral position.
In this publication, which Rupert L. Wenzel
of Field Museum in Chicago kindly has sent
me together with some of the late Dr. Seevers'
specimens, he mentions that he has seen the
specimens in Casey's collection, but as the type
material could not be dissected he had to content
himself with external characters.
Casey (19II) mentions that keeni is 'shining
though with distinct and rather large microreticulation',
and Seevers (1951) says: 'Reticulation
of head and pronotum rather strong,
finely meshed'.
The specimens of keeni that I have seen, are
quite correctly described as having a rather
strong micro-reticulation on head and prono-
turn, while in orientalis the central part of the
forehead and the pronotum are very shining
and without, or with very indistinct, reticulation.
The antennae are stouter in keeni than in
orientalis.
The penes of the two species are very much
alike, but there are some differences, most
distinct in dorsal view, as shown in Figs. 1
and 2.
Although the two are undoubtedly closely
related, there seems to be sufficient reason to
consider them as distinct species.
I am most grateful to Br. Folwaczny, Bad
Hersfeld, Dr. Zbynek Likovsky, Prague, Prof.
Fig. 1. Penis of Gyrophaena keeni Casey, dorsal view.
(Anders Vik del.)
Fig. 2. Penis of Gyrophaena orientalis A. Str., dorsal
view. (Anders Vik del.)
2