Anoplognathus sp. (genus)

3 Unidentified Christmas beetle at Melba, ACT

Request use of media

Identification history

Anoplognathus sp. (genus)	25 Dec 2023	HaukeKoch
Anoplognathus sp. (genus)	22 Dec 2023	HaukeKoch
Anoplognathus pindarus	30 Dec 2020	MichaelMulvaney
Anoplognathus pindarus	29 Dec 2020	KimPullen
Unidentified	28 Dec 2020	kasiaaus

Identify this sighting

Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.

6 comments

HaukeKoch wrote:

16 Jun 2023

Hi @KimPullen and @MichaelMulvaney,
I am part of a citizen science project with Invertebrates Australia on Christmas Beetle recording over at iNaturalist. This observation has peaked my interest, as this species has very few recent records, and this may also be the only picture of a living individual as far as I can tell. As I haven't seen this species myself so far, I was wondering what made you come to the conclusion that this is A. pindarus, and not perhaps A. porosus. The shape of the clypeus and the dark puntures on the elytra look quite like A. porosus to me (and that species is sometimes quite reddish brown in the Canberra area from what I have seen so far). Not saying you are wrong, just trying to learn myself what to look out for in A. pindarus.
Cheers,

Hauke

MichaelMulvaney wrote:

17 Jun 2023

Thanks Hauke - I don't claim to have expertise in Christmas beetle ID but identified this a A. pindarus following Ki's suggestion and after gauging the images against the lucid key of Christmas Beetles of NSW. I think the key feature of difference was the dense recumbent white setae of the pygidial, which admittedly is only partially visible in photo 2. Happy to go with what you and Kim decide re ID.
While Naturemapr records do go to the Atlas of Living Australia, you may find value to your project in downloading the 230 odd christmas beetle records directly (thou for 53 of these sighting they have only be IDed to the species level) - let me know if you need help doing this

Cheers Michael Mulvaney

HaukeKoch wrote:

17 Jun 2023

Thanks for getting back to me, Michael!
The view of the pygidium isn't great (as you say), but I think I can make out a line of white setae through the centre from top to bottom, with the adjacent areas being bare. If I am not misinterpreting the image, that would also speak for A. porosus, as A. pindarus is supposed to only have very few, scattered setae on the pygidium. Would be great to hear from Kim to get his opinion.
Thanks for your suggestion on downloading the observations, we may do so. By the way, NatureMapr is currently still using A. chloropyrus as a valid name, which should now regarsded as a junior synonym of A. brunnipennis (see: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4908.2.4). Confusingly, what was called A. brunnipennis before should now instead be A. flavipennis. Is there a way to update the taxonomy on NatureMapr?
Best,
Hauke

MichaelMulvaney wrote:

17 Jun 2023

Thanks Hauke is is very easy to update the taxonomy - but we try to stay consistent with the Atlas of Living Australia to ease the transfer of data, so will have to wait till ALA catches up with the changes. I have set it up so that if somebody searches on A. brunnipennis they are taken to the A. chloropyrus records andI have also included the information you provided within the information on teh species. Thanks again - I think Kim may be away so might be a few weeks before he can respond.

HaukeKoch wrote:

22 Dec 2023

Had a look at the A. pindarus specimens in ANIC and am more convinced now that this isn't A. pindarus, but likely A. porosus. The white setae on the pygidium speak against A. pindarus. The clypeus tends to be broader and more rounded at the apex. The elytral apices also don't seem to be as drawn out in A. pindarus. The second and third tooth on the fore tibia also seems to be broader and better developed in A. pindarus (though can be worn off).

MichaelMulvaney wrote:

24 Dec 2023

Thanks Hauke

Please Login or Register to comment.