Dermestes pardalis vs Dermestes hankae

In the photo gallery of Dermestidae expert Andreas Herrmann, the taxon page of Dermestes pardalis (Billberg in Schönherr 1808) is still missing. Throughout the years, he surprisingly never encountered a specimen of this species (Herrmann pers. comm. 2026). This is surprising, because the species should be present in Corsica, Germany, Portugal, Sardinia, Spain, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Dermestes hankae (Háva 1999) has a smaller documented range, being present in France, Italy, Spain and Algeria (Háva 2025). The fact that D. hankae has been observed a lot more than D. pardalis, even though the former species has been described much later, might have been the first clue that something is going on.

Herrmann has several specimens of D. hankae in his collection and this species has multiple sightings on Observation.org, whereas not a single photo of D. pardalis could be found online. There were two uploads of D. pardalis specimens with photos to GBIF, but the ventral would suggest these are actually misidentified D. hankae specimens (Natural History Museum London 2024a & 2024b). In D. pardalis, the last abdominal sternite has two white spots at the anterior edge of the sternite. In D. hankae, these white spots are more like longitudinal stripes, present at the anterior edge and reaching the posterior edge of the sternite (Háva 1999).

The search for a photo of an actual D. pardalis had begun and I made enquiries to collection holders for photographs of their D. pardalis specimens. The gathered data was confusing to say the least. The largest part of specimens appeared to be D. hankae instead. Perhaps not surprising, since many specimens were collected and identified before the species D. hankae was even described. However, in collections with almost identical labels, both species could be intermixed present. Two type specimen of D. pardalis are known in collections (Háva 2025). The holotype of D. thoracicus (a synonym of D. pardalis) from the MRSN collection is sadly long lost. It was already eaten by dermestid beetles before the ‘70s (Ruzzon pers. comm. on behalf of Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali 2026). The syntype of D. pardalis whom is stored in the NHRS collection was luckily still present, but low and behold: the photos of the syntype suggested this specimen to be D. hankae instead of D. pardalis, according to Háva’s illustrations.

What to do if a syntype does not match the species' description?

One thing that is certain, is that it would be useful to assign a neotype for D. pardalis, since no holotype is present anymore. According to the ICZN, the neotype should ideally come from the same locality as the holotype, since type series occasionally consist of a mixture of species. So, what is the locality of the original D. pardalis type specimens? Well, that is pretty vague. Billberg (in Schönherr 1808) wrote that the D. pardalis types were found outside of Europe without further specifics. In the original species description of D. thoracicus (Dejean in Gené 1836) it is stated that the types were found in Gallia (France), Europe. Currently, D. pardalis has not been found in France (Háva 2025), whereas the type specimens of D. hankae were collected in France (Háva 1999). How can the type specimens of D. thoracicus come from France when the species shouldn't occur in France? One can only conclude that D. thoracicus and D. hankae would be synonymous based on locality. If D. thoracicus and D. pardalis are truly synonymous, then that would make D. hankae a synonym of D. pardalis too. In that case, the species that is currently described as "D. pardalis" by Háva, are likely the specimens that had to be described as a new species instead.

According to my gathered data, the specimens with a pardalis ventral pattern were are all (n=6) found in Algeria except one from Morocco - so all are from North Africa. The collected specimens and documented observations with a hankae ventral pattern greatly outnumber (n=31) the pardalis specimens, and are from both European and North African countries. These results would suggest that the large distribution of D. pardalis as stated by Háva (2025) does not correspond to reality. The biggest chuck of all specimen being ‘misidentified’ "D. hankae" could explain a distorted distribution. However, if D. hankae is actually a junior synonym of D. pardalis (and D. thoracicus), then the species' distribution appears correct.

When a neotype will be assigned for D. pardalis, it will be likely that this specimen will correspond to the drawings and description of D. hankae (Háva 1999), the same way it resembles the syntype of D. pardalis. The species D. hankae will be synonymized and Háva will have to describe the "D. pardalis" he suspects as a new species.

Tab. 1: All specimens that could be identified based on their ventral pattern.