Tarsal setosity rules. Useful to remember that prosternal process is also beaded in permundus. This new state record is added to the post-2012 caraboid registry. Thanks everyone!

Glad you noticed it's a new record!
Externally, this specimen looks a whole lot like the "new" one we catch at SERC, in the same county. I'll dissect it eventually and see how it compares to externally-different permundus from VA and externally-similar "new" ones from MD and VA.

I dissected this specimen a few days ago, and the aedeagus was pretty mushy, due to the beetle's semi-teneral condition (underside is pale). Bill, if you find anymore of these in your area, it'd be worth getting some later in the year when they're mature!

Have another batch about ready to send with some others, including those posted tonight. Thanks.

This specimen is extant if anyone is interested in it. Thank you!

Bill

I've sent you an email.

Curt, are you able to share with us publically here or with me privately an update of its distinguishing external characteristics? I recall previous correspondences on our difficulty in placing certain northeastern examples in the Pterostichus permundus-sculptus-atratus complex. Are you also aware of a distinguishing aedeagus? Thanks.

The teneral "atratus" I sent you a couple of years ago (lacking an aedeagus) is the same as this. Fifth tarsomeres are glabrous ventrally, prosternal process is margined apically, aedeagus is simple (lacks the weird protuberances that atratus has).
I'm not sure what characters Bob Davidson has observed. He's been aware of this potentially undescribed species for a while, after some were collected in Georgia a few years ago. I think CMNH also had some from Mississippi and Alabama, and I've found them in Richmond, Virginia.
Externally, I think it's most similar to permundus. As both you and Bob have separately suggested, it's possible that permundus sometimes lacks the supposedly-diagnostic setae on the ventral surface of the fifth tarsomeres. I'm not sure if the aedeagi are different or not.

One character I've noticed that's consistent among the "new" ones I've seen from MD, VA, and AL is that the region around the basal impressions of the pronotum is far less punctate in the "new" one than in the permundus and sculptus I've collected in VA.
Being flightless, scattered Abacidus species populations probably show variation throughout in external traits, so it could be true that permundus and sculptus from elsewhere are less coarsely punctate as well.

I believe the more likely explanation is that the teneral you sent me is really sculptus. Incidentally, this was a male with simple aedeagus, subsequently lost per your notes. Yes, this specimen has a very fine bead limited to apical portion of the pronotal process but so do many genitalic-confirmed examples of my sculptus. My secure atratus examples show pronotal process with much stronger continuous bead apically and laterally.

Though I disagree that it's more similar to sculptus than permundus, based on the sculptus I've seen.
That's interesting that the prosternal process varies in your sculptus. What do you look for in an aedeagus to confirm sculptus rather than permundus? Sadek's thesis mentions a more pointed apex in sculptus than permundus, but doesn't illustrate it clearly. The angle he chose makes the sculptus aedeagus illustration (Fig. 18) actually look less pointed and constricted than his permundus illustration (Fig. 12)!

are easily separated via the setosity state of ventral tarsomere 5 as you well know. I'll have to get back to you later on differences in φ which will need further study.