On Records of Three Additional Species of the Weevil Genus Otiorhynchus Germ. (Coleoptera, Curculionidae: Entiminae) on Lilacs (Syringa L.) in St. Petersburg

Developmental Biology and Identification of a Garden Pest, Otiorhynchus (Podoropelmus) smreczynskii Cmoluch, 1968 (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Entiminae), with Comments on Its Origin and Distribution

“…As already proposed by Korotyaev et al [8], we confirm that the most valuable morphological trait permitting the unequivocal distinction between the two species is the shape of the scales. In O. smreczynskii, hair-like, sharply-pointed, smooth scales are dominant in the rear part of the integument, whereas in O. rotundus, they are wide, rounded and clearly crimped (Figure 18A-I).…”

“…subject to significant variability. Moreover, Korotyaev et al [8] pointed out the morphological variability in the shape of the genitalia of O. rotundus.…”

“…According to Kangas and Rutanen [31], the shapes of the spiculum ventrale and receptaculum seminis, despite the presence of distinct species characteristics, may also be subject to significant variability. Moreover, Korotyaev et al [8] pointed out the morphological variability in the shape of the genitalia of O. rotundus.…”

“…In view of ongoing introductions, however, it is well to bear in mind that further southeast European species of the subgenus Podoropelmus and the related subgenus Melasemnus can produce similar feeding signs, e.g., O. albidus Stierlin, 1861, found in St. Petersburg, and O. ukrainicus Korotyaev, 1984, closely related to O. smreczynskii, even if present on Oleaceae (see [8,[41][42][43]). Sautkin and Meleshko [44] are mistaken if they consider that the feeding signs of Dodecastichus inflatus (Gyllenhal, 1834), Otiorhynchus meridionalis Gyllenhal, 1834 and O. hungaricus Germar, 1824 can be confused with those made by O. smreczynskii or O. rotundus, at least if present in larger numbers.…”

“…Although the external morphology of adult O. rotundus and O. smreczynskii have been completely described, e.g., by Smreczy ński [6], Dieckmann [7] and Korotyaev et al [8], none of the characteristics listed can be regarded as unique to either of them. Moreover, the original description of the female genitalia of O. smreczynskii was incomplete, and hence insufficient for identifying the species.…”