Tesserodon howdeni Paulian 1985

Tesserodon howdeni Paulian, 1985: 222 (original description) Name-bearing type data. Holotype ♂ (CMNC): || Papua N.Guinea | Brown R. 30mi. N | Fort Moresby | 15- 16.VII.1974 ||; || S. Peck | collector ||; || H. & A. Howden | collection ||; || HOLOTYPE || [red card]; || Canadian Museum of | Musée canadien de la | NATURE | CMNEN 00011854 ||; || Tesserodon | howdeni | n. sp. | R. Paulian det. || [partly handwritten]. Note. Previously stated as: “Nouvelle-Guinée (Papouasie): Brown River, 20 miles N. Port Moresby, 14/ 16-VII-1974 (S. Peck), piège à excréments, en forêt” by Paulian. Studied. Material examined (5 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀). PAPUA NEW GUINEA: CENTRAL PROVINCE, 18 mi. N port Moresby, Brown River, 3 m, [09°12’15’’S, 147°17’15’’E], 14–18.vii.1974, forest, dung traps, S. Peck, (dung traps 39-42)— 1 ♂, 1 ♀ (CMNC); 20 mi. N Port Moresby, Brown River, 3 m, [09°11’30’’S, 147°19’00’’E], 16–18.vii.1974, dung traps, S. Peck, (dung traps 39-41)— 1 ♀ (CMNC); same locality, 16–18.vii.1974, dung trap, S. Peck, (dung traps 39-41)— 2 ♂♂ paratypes (MNHN); 30 mi. N Port Moresby, Brown River, [09°11’S, 147°20’30’’E], 15–16.vii.1974, S. Peck — ♂ holotype, 1 ♂ paratype (CMNC). Redescription. Measurements. Body length 3.6–4.1 mm, maximum body width 2.3–2.7 mm. Body. Overall body shape in dorsal view oval, elytral edge evenly rounded from base to apex. Head. Clypeal edge lateral to clypeal teeth emarginate (Fig. 4D), head margin at clypeogenal suture of females moderately protruding. Dorsal parts of eyes semi-ovoid, separated by an interocular space of about 5.6 times eye width. Pronotum. Pronotal width to length along midline ratio 1.9, lateral pronotal edge sharply defined throughout, pronotal pubescence short and fine, pronotal basal portion along midline lacking fine longitudinal depression. Elytra. Elytral maximum width to length along suture ratio 1.1, elytral outline moderately convex in lateral view, elytral pubescence short and fine, elytral surface between punctures appearing glossy, at most with ill-defined microsculptures, basal elytral pit slightly wider than stria 10 and shallow, basal surface of pseudepipleuron with sharply defined simple punctures, interstriae 3–5 on basal fifth with scattered unaligned punctures. Legs. Profemoral anterior surface flat or might appear furrowed in some individuals, male metatibial apicointernal tooth approximately in line with posterior tibial edge. Pygidium. Pygidial groove transverse, narrowed medially, and terminating in a pit at each end (Fig. 8C), pygidial surface along midline with punctures similar in density to rest of discs, pygidial surface along basal groove smooth between punctures, pygidium of female evenly convex. Aedeagus. Left paramere apex truncated apically, distinctly angular externally (Fig. 9C). Remarks. Examination of the allotype revealed that the specimen labeled by Paulian is actually a male and is here considered a male paratype in the material examined. Additionally, the date ranges provided by Paulian (1985) in the original description do not match any label data from the specimens studied. Recent examination of the specimens at the MNHN (by FG) confirmed that both are males, indicating that the female specimen described by Paulian is either missing or that Paulian misidentified the gender of the allotype. Two female specimens in the CMNC are not labeled as paratypes. While one of these could theoretically be the allotype, it is unclear if Henry Howden ever sent them to Paulian for study, as he often retained some specimens as a precaution against parcels being lost in the mail. Consequently, these specimens cannot be definitively considered part of the type series.