_16_Miroshnikov/Image_001.png)
Кавказский энтомол. бюллетень 14(2): 197–246 © CAUCASIAN ENTOMOLOGICAL BULL. 2018
1Russian Entomological Society, Krasnodar, Russia. E-mail: miroshnikov-ai@yandex.ru
2Sochi National Park, Moskovskaya str., 21, Sochi, Krasnodar Region 354002 Russia
1Русское энтомологическое общество, Краснодар, Россия
2Сочинский национальный парк, ул. Московская, 21, Сочи, Краснодарский край 354002 Россия
Key words: Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Cerambycini, reviews of genera, annotated checklists of species, new species, new combinations, new synonymy, Southeastern Asia.
Ключевые слова: Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Cerambycini, обзоры родов, аннотированные списки видов, новые виды, новые комбинации, новая синонимия, Юго-Восточная Азия.
Abstract. Full generic statuses of Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., Laomargites Pic, 1923, stat. rest. and Lamellocerambyx Pic, 1923, stat. rest. are restored. Reviews of these genera, as well as keys to species of the former two are given. Annotated checklists of the Asian species of the genera Pachydissus Newman, 1838 and Margites Gahan, 1891, as well as of all species of Diorthus Gahan, 1891 are presented. The following new species are described and new specific combinations established: Plavichydissus grossepunctatus (Gressitt et Rondon, 1970), comb. n.,
P. irinae sp. n. (Vietnam), P. aggregatus (Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n., P. sulcicollis (Gahan, 1893), comb. n.,
P. myanmarensis sp. n. (Myanmar), P. makarovi sp. n. (Thailand), P. nataliae sp. n. (Vietnam), P. decipiens (Holzschuh, 1989), comb. n., P. penangensis sp. n. (Western Malaysia), P. sodalis (Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n.,
P. dembickyi sp. n. (Western Malaysia), Pachydissus murzini sp. n. (Yunnan, China), P. borneoensis sp. n. (Eastern Malaysia), Laomargites fedorenkoi sp. n. (Vietnam), Dymasius tatianae sp. n. (Eastern Malaysia),
D. solodovnikovi sp. n. (Thailand), D. barclayi sp. n. (Western Malaysia), Zatrephus jakli sp. n. (Java, Indonesia), Diorthus kabakovi sp. n. (Afghanistan), Tapinolachnus uniformis (Pic, 1933), comb. n., T. xyliae (Fisher, 1940), comb. n. The following specific combinations are restored: Plavichydissus semiplicatus (Pic, 1926), comb. rest.,
P. rufipennis (Pic, 1923), comb. rest., Laomargites singularis
Pic, 1923, comb. rest. and Lamellocerambyx laosensis
DOI: 10.23885/181433262018142-197246
Pic, 1923, comb. rest. The synonymization of the genus Diorthus with the genus Tapinolachnus J. Thomson, 1865 is confirmed as being wrong. The following new synonymy is established: Tapinolachnus = Mimoderolus (Aeolesthes subgen.) Pic, 1933, syn. n. (non syn. pro Derolus Gahan, 1891). Dymasius strigosus J. Thomson, 1864, sp. rest. is resurrected from the synonymy with Dymasius macilentus (Pascoe, 1859). The genus Derolydnus Hüdepohl, 1989 is reported from Indochina for the first time. New records of a number of species from other genera are given as well, thus one way or another extending their known distribution areas, sometimes very significantly so. The lectotypes of Margites modicus Gahan, 1906, Diorthus sericeus Gardner, 1939 and Tapinolachnus xyliae (Fisher, 1940), comb. n. are designated. Abundant pictures of the species studied, including numerous type specimens, are provided.
Резюме. Восстановлены родовые статусы Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., Laomargites Pic, 1923, stat. rest. и Lamellocerambyx Pic, 1923, stat. rest. Даны обзоры этих родов и предложены таблицы для определения видов двух первых из них. Представлены аннотированные списки азиатских видов родов Pachydissus Newman, 1838 и Margites Gahan, 1891, а также всех видов рода Diorthus Gahan, 1891. Описаны следующие новые виды и установлены новые комбинации видовых названий: Plavichydissus grossepunctatus (Gressitt et Rondon, 1970), comb. n., P. irinae sp. n. (Вьетнам), P. aggregatus
(Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n., P. sulcicollis (Gahan, 1893), comb. n., P. myanmarensis sp. n. (Мьянма),
P. makarovi sp. n. (Таиланд), P. nataliae sp. n.
(Вьетнам), P. decipiens (Holzschuh, 1989), comb. n.,
P. penangensis sp. n. (Западная Малайзия), P. sodalis (Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n., P. dembickyi sp. n. (Западная Малайзия), Pachydissus murzini sp. n. (Юньнань, Китай), P. borneoensis sp. n. (Восточная Малайзия), Laomargites fedorenkoi sp. n. (Вьетнам), Dymasius tatianae sp. n. (Восточная Малайзия),
D. solodovnikovi sp. n. (Таиланд), D. barclayi sp. n. (Западная Малайзия), Zatrephus jakli sp. n. (Ява, Индонезия), Diorthus kabakovi sp. n. (Афганистан), Tapinolachnus uniformis (Pic, 1933), comb. n., T. xyliae (Fisher, 1940), comb. n. Восстановлены комбинации следующих видовых названий: Plavichydissus semiplicatus (Pic, 1926), comb. rest., P. rufipennis (Pic, 1923), comb. rest., Laomargites singularis Pic, 1923, comb. rest. и Lamellocerambyx laosensis Pic, 1923, comb. rest. Подтверждена ошибочность синонимизации рода Diorthus с родом Tapinolachnus
J. Thomson, 1865. Установлена следующая новая синонимия: Tapinolachnus = Mimoderolus (Aeolesthes subgen.) Pic, 1933, syn. n. (non syn. pro Derolus Gahan, 1891). Восстановлен из синонимов Dymasius strigosus
J. Thomson, 1864, sp. rest., non syn. pro Dymasius macilentus (Pascoe, 1859). Род Derolydnus Hüdepohl, 1989 впервые приведен для Индокитая. Отмечены также новые находки целого ряда видов из других родов, расширяющие их ареалы. Обозначены лектотипы Margites modicus Gahan, 1906, Diorthus sericeus Gardner, 1939 и Tapinolachnus xyliae (Fisher, 1940), comb. n. Представлено большое количество иллюстраций исследуемых видов, в том числе многих типовых экземпляров.
Introduction
In the initial publication of this series [Miroshnikov, 2017], some preliminary remarks concerning the taxonomically confused genera (or their representatives) Pachydissus Newman, 1838, Margites Gahan, 1891 and Plavichydissus Pic, 1946 were made. The present paper provides a review of the latter genus, with the restoration of its generic status, and annotated checklists of the Asian species are given for both former genera. Primary generic statuses are also substantiated here for Laomargites Pic, 1923 and Lamellocerambyx Pic, 1923 (with their reviews presented as well), considered by some researchers as subgenera of the genera Margites and Diorthus Gahan, 1891, respectively. The fallacy of the synonymization of the latter genus with the genus Tapinolachnus J. Thomson, 1865 is confirmed, and annotated checklists of Diorthus and Tapinolachnus species are given together with some synonymies.
Besides this, 14 new species of the genera Plavichydissus (6 species), Pachydissus (2 species), Laomargites (1 species), Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864 (3 species), Zatrephus Pascoe, 1857 (1 species) and Diorthus (1 species) are described below. New data on the distribution of many other species from various genera are given, to some extent expanding
their distribution areas, as well as other new information is presented. The previously expressed deep doubt [Miroshnikov, 2017] concerning the synonymy Dymasius macilentus = Dymasius strigosus which has been in use until recently is substantiated, the species status of the latter taxon being resurrected.
The material treated in this work belongs to the following institutional and private collections:
BM – Bishop Museum (Honolulu, USA);
BMNH – Natural History Museum (London, United Kingdom);
IRSN – Institut Royal de Sciences naturelles de Belgique (Bruxelles, Belgium);
MNHN – Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (Paris, France);
NFIC – National Forest Insect Collection, Forest Research Institute (Dehradun, India);
NHMD – Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen (Copenhagen, Denmark);
NHRS – Swedish Museum of Natural History (Stockholm, Sweden);
ZMMU – Zoological Museum of the Moscow State University (Moscow, Russia);
ZIN – Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (St Petersburg, Russia);
ZMUK – Zoologisches Museum der Universität (Kiel, Germany);
cAM – collection of Alexandr Miroshnikov (Krasnodar, Russia);
cCH – collection of Carolus Holzschuh (Villach, Austria);
cLD – collection of Luboš Dembický (Brno, Czech Republic);
cSM – collection of Sergey Murzin (Moscow, Russia).
Plavichydissus Pic, 1946: 107; Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 71
(Pachydissus subgen.); Miroshnikov, 2017: 223 (preliminary remarks).
Type species: Pachydissus semiplicatus Pic, 1926.
Diagnosis. This genus, which some researchers consider as a subgenus of the genus Pachydissus or species of which have been described in the genus Margites, differs clearly at least from all Asian representatives of both genera (see Remarks below) in the distinctive sculpture of the pronotum, the pattern of the dorsal setation, the somewhat peculiar sculpture of the elytra, as well as in some other traits indicated below.
When detailing the structure of Plavichydissus stat. rest., the following features must be noted as being characteristic of this genus: head short, with more or less well developed antennal tubercles; eyes large, strongly convex or considerably less strongly developed, moderately convex; male antennae in most species much longer than body, in some representatives only very clearly or slightly reaching beyond the apex of elytra; antennomere 1 without cicatrix; antennomere 2 distinctly or very clearly longitudinal (while in Pachydissus, antennomere 2 distinctly or very clearly transverse, only sometimes barely longitudinal or subequal in length and
The longicorn beetle tribe Cerambycini Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae) 199
width); male antennomeres 3 and 4 or 3–5 one way or another broadened towards or near apex, but cannot be inflated in apical part as in males of almost all species of Margites; apical external angle of at least antennomeres 3–5 in male and female more or less rounded, not drawn laterad, that of following antennomeres, except for last one, sometimes obtuse-angled or sharpened, only weakly or moderately protruding (whereas in some representatives of Pachydissus, apical external angle of at least antennomeres 3–5 in males more or less strongly sharpened and strongly drawn laterad, that of several following antennomeres, except for last one, strongly sharpened and clearly or strongly drawn laterad, thereby apical external angle of antennomeres 3 and 4 in females more or less right, clearly drawn laterad, at least of antennomeres 5–7 or 5–8 strongly or very strongly sharpened and more or less strongly drawn laterad); pronotum with a sharp or very sharp constriction before base and near apex (while in Margites, constriction before base of pronotum usually less sharp), with deep or very deep longitudinal grooves, resulting in a median, wide or very wide, sometimes very strong, high elevation flanked either by coarse or very coarse longitudinal folds (ribs) or such folds, combined with coarse or very coarse, irregular, sinuous folds, as in Color plate 4: 27–30, Figs 43–58 (vs neither Pachydissus nor Margites with a pronotum sculpture similar to the above, Color plate 6: 76–77, Figs 102–105), as a rule, with numerous, very long, erect setae (sometimes these setae partly obliterated and appearing less numerous) and, in addition, median elevation in some species with dense or at least numerous, recumbent, light setae forming a characteristic horseshoe-shaped pattern, as in Figs 43–47 (whereas in Pachydissus and Margites, pronotum only with individual, long or very long, erect setae, without forming a patternofdense, recumbent, light setaesimilartotheabove); elytra moderately elongated, sometimes more strongly elongated, without distinct longitudinal ribs, with both a rough or coarse, sometimes very large, sparse, irregular and very small, dense, double, very contrastingly differing puncturation to some degree resembling Imbrius Pascoe, 1866 (whereas in Pachydissus, elytra usually with small, more or less uniform, dense puncturation, only sometimes, in addition, with sparse, more or less large, but weakly expressed punctures generally not forming such a sculpture as in Plavichydissus stat. rest.; in Margites, elytra with this or that puncturation, but in general also clearly or at least somewhat different from that of Plavichydissus stat. rest.); apical external angle of elytra more or less uniformly rounded, not clearly expressed, only sometimes obtuse- angled and well-expressed, apical sutural angle more or less right, sometimes with only a small, weakly-expressed denticle (while in Pachydissus, apical external angle of elytra obtuse-angled or almost right, clearly or sharply expressed, apical sutural angle in most species drawn into a more or less long tooth, in some species with a small, but well-expressed denticle); elytra with a recumbent, more or less dense, light setation, in one way or another hiding the puncturation, all along with suberect, this or that way protruding, but always clearly or sharply prominent setae and, in addition, with (or sometimes without) long or very long, more or less numerous or at least separate, erect setae,
as in Figs 31–42; thereby recumbent setation of elytra, one way or another revealing their large puncturation, in most cases forming a characteristic speckled general surface (while in Pachydissus and Margites, elytra only with a recumbent light setation, as in Figs 98–101, thereby in the former usually this or that way irregular, often patterned and to a varying degree iridescent, but not speckled, as in Color plate 5: 69–73; sometimes only at the very base of elytra with individual, erect, moderately long, gentle setae; elytra of Margites not looking speckled either); prosternum with a heterogeneous, partly rough or moderately coarse sculpture, with an unclear or distinctly (but not too sharply) expressed transverse groove in apical part in front of middle; prosternal process with a weakly expressed, sometimes very clear tubercle at apex or, conversely, without such; mesosternal process without tubercle dorsally; legs moderately long; at least profemora, especially on ventral side, with a rough, very dense and confluent, partly rugose puncturation or with an even coarser sculpture; meso- and metafemora usually with a less coarse sculpture, but sometimes with a sculpture more or less similar to that of profemora, especially on mesofemora (while in Pachydissus, femora with a small, dense or very dense, partly or predominantly rugose puncturation, usually only somewhat sharper on profemora, which sometimes, in addition, with transverse, more or less gentle wrinkles); tibiae with a very clear or less distinct, sometimes partly or predominantly poorly expressed, but nonetheless visible carina along each side (while in Pachydissus, tibiae without carina); metatarsomere 1 noticeably or clearly shorter than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined (whereas in Pachydissus, metatarsomere 1 longer than or subequal to metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined, only sometimes barely shorter than both); body length 10.6–28.3 mm, thereby in the vast majority of species up to 20 mm (while in Pachydissus, body length 18.7–34 mm, thereby in most species not less than 23 mm).
By the combination of the above features, Plavichydissus stat. rest. differs not only from Pachydissus and Margites, but also from all other similar genera of the tribe.
Remarks. Taking into account the features of the distribution of the genus Plavichydissus stat. rest. (see below), it seemed to me expedient to show in detail its differences only from the Asian representatives of the genera Pachydissus and Margites. However, a part of the differences discussed above, at least in the sculpture of the pronotum and elytra, the elytral setation and some other details of the structure, also belong to the species of both latter genera, distributed outside of Asia (including the type species of the genus Pachydissus, P. sericus Newman, 1838, and other Australian congeners). In addition, without a diagnostic re-evaluation of the genus Pachydissus as a whole, the necessity of which I noted recently [Miroshnikov, 2017], no more extensive diagnosis of the genus Plavichydissus stat. rest. is presently warranted.
Plavichydissus semiplicatus (Pic, 1926), comb. rest.
(Color plate 1: 1, 4; Figs 204, 205)
Pachydissus semiplicatus Pic, 1926a: 23 (“Tonkin”). Type locality: Northern Vietnam, Hoa Binh Province (according to the original description and the labels of the syntypes). Plavilstshikov, 1931: 84.
Plavichydissus semiplicatus: Pic, 1946: 107, 108; Miroshnikov,
2017: 223 (preliminary combination).
Pachydissus (Plavichydissus) semiplicatus: Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 71.
Material. 1♂, syntype (MNHN) (photograph; Color plate 1: 1),
“Tonkin, Hoa Binh”, “semiplicatus n. sp.”, “Type”, “Plavichydissus n. g.”, “Museum Paris, Coll. M. Pic”, “Holotype” (incorrect label) (Fig. 204); 1♀, syntype (MNHN) (photograph; Color plate 1: 4), Vietnam, “Hoa Binh”, “Type”, “Museum Paris, Coll. M. Pic”, “Allotype” (incorrect label) (Fig. 205).
Morphological notes. Body length of male and female syntypes 24.2 or 23.1 mm, respectively (Dr. Gérard
L. Tavakilian, personal communication).
Plavichydissus grossepunctatus
(Gressitt et Rondon, 1970), comb. n.
(Color plate 1: 2, 5; Figs 31, 43, 44, 59, 206, 207)
Pachydissus (Plavichydissus) grossepunctatus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970: 71. Type locality: Laos, Borikhane Province, Pakkading (according to the original description and the label of the holotype). Hua, 1984: 80.
Plavichydissus grossepunctatus: Miroshnikov, 2017: 223 (preliminary combination).
Material. 1♂, holotype (BM) (Color plate 1: 2), “Laos: Borikhane
Prov., Pakkading, 18.III.1965” (sic, should read “18.III.1963”), “Pakkading, 18.3.[19]63” (handwritten), “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Holotype Pachydissus grossepunctatus Gressitt & Rondon”, “8293” (Fig. 206); 1♀, paratype (BM) (Color plate 1: 5), “Laos: Borikhane Prov., Pakkading”, “Pakkading, 26.5.[19]63” (handwritten), “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Allotype Pachydissus grossepunctatus Gressitt et Rondon”, “8293” (Fig. 207); 1♀, paratype (BM), “Laos: Sedone Province, Pakse”, “Pakse, 31.3.[19]65”, (handwritten), “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Paratype Pachydissus grossepunctatus Gressitt et Rondon”.
Plavichydissus irinae Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Color plate 2: 7; Figs 32, 45, 60)
Material. Holotype, ♂ (cAM) (Color plate 2: 7): Vietnam, Gia Lai Province, ~55 km ENE of Pleiku, 14°17ʹ45ʺN / 108°26ʹ57ʺE, Kon Ka Kinh National park, 600 m, at light, 8–20.05.2017 (leg. D. Fedorenko).
Diagnosis. Based on male characters, this new species seems to be especially similar to
P. grossepunctatus comb. n., but differs clearly by the elytra being shorter and more strongly narrowed towards apex, as in Color plate 2: 7, the coloration of their integument and their dense recumbent setation; the generally darker coloration; the shorter erect setae and the predominantly smaller and less sharp puncturation of the elytra (discarding very small puncturation), as in Color plate 2: 7, Fig. 32; the more strongly elongated several apical antennomeres, especially the last one, as in Color plate 2: 7; the sparser, recumbent, light setation and the much more obliterated sculpture of the median elevation of the pronotum, as in Fig. 45; the generally sharper sculpture of the submentum; the distinctly broader process of the prosternum, the well-
expressed tubercle near its apex; the coarser sculpture of the profemora ventrally; the clearly larger body sizes. Plavichydissus irinae sp. n. can also be compared to
P. semiplicatus comb. rest., but differs very clearly at least
by the same features of the elytral and antennal structure as P. grossepunctatus comb. n., only an even more strong difference in the puncturation of the elytra, as well as by the somewhat larger body sizes (cf. Color plate 1: 1, 2, 4, 5,
Figs 31, 43, 44).
7.7 mm. Eyes, almost entirely dorsum, metasternum and visible sternites, mostly mesosternum and mandibles black (in
P. grossepunctatus comb. n. and P. semiplicatus comb. rest., at least elytra reddish brown); epipleura brownish red; head ventrally, apical one-third of prosternum, prosternal process and partly mesosternum brown-red; mostly antennae and legs combines black-brown and dark brown tones, partly with red tint.
Head with a distinct median groove between upper lobes of eyes; antennal tubercles moderately developed; eyes relatively small, moderately convex; submentum with a heterogeneous, predominantly rough and coarse sculpture; antennae much longer than body, nearly reaching the apex of elytra by antennomere 7; length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 31 : 10 : 42 : 35 : 48 : 54 : 59 : 62 :
66 : 66 : 107; antennomere 1 with a heterogeneous, partly rough sculpture; antennomere 2 clearly longitudinal.
Pronotum barely transverse, 1.05 times as wide as long; base
1.08 times as wide as apex; with a much sharper constriction near apex than in front of base; broadened somewhat angularly at the middle; on disc with a very wide, barely convex, median elevation, sparsely and more or less roughly punctured mainly near lateral margins and apex; lateral to elevation with a sharply expressed longitudinal fragment of sculpture formed by very sinuous coarse, partly very short, transverse and partly strongly shiny folds; lateral to this fragment with separate, longitudinal, coarse folds.
Scutellum triangular, with an unclear sculpture.
Elytra very distinctly narrowed towards apex, 2.4 times as long as humeral width (in male holotype of P. grossepunctatus comb. n. and male syntype of P. semiplicatus comb. rest. 2.6 or 2.58 times, respectively); with both a more or less rough sparse and very small dense puncturation; apical external angle rounded, sutural angle nearly right.
Prosternum with heterogeneous, rough, predominantly transverse folds in apical part; prosternal process rather wide between coxae, with a well-expressed apical tubercle; mesosternal process between coxae clearly wider than prosternal process, without tubercle dorsally; metasternum and sternites with a small, clear, dense puncturation; metasternum with a well-expressed median groove; last (visible) sternite truncate at apex; last (visible) tergite widely rounded apically.
Legs moderately long; profemora ventrally, predominantly in basal part with a very coarse sculpture; all tibiae with a distinct carina along each side; metatarsomere 1 noticeably shorter than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent setation of dorsum, prosternum, partly mesosternum, antennae and legs golden-yellow and yellow, those of remaining parts yellowish and yellowish grey (recumbent setation of elytra silver-grey in P. grossepunctatus comb. n. and P. semiplicatus comb. rest.); recumbent moderately dense setae on median elevation of pronotum forming a characteristic horseshoe-shaped pattern, as in Fig. 45; head, pronotum and elytra with moderately long, erect, sparse, but numerous, light setae; elytra, in addition, with numerous, suberect, short, light setae; antennae with long light setae predominantly on both inner and ventral sides, more numerous on basal antennomeres.
Etymology. I am pleased to dedicate this new species to Irina, my elder daughter.
The longicorn beetle tribe Cerambycini Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae) Color plate 1
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_002.jpg)
Figs 1–6. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., habitus, dorsal view.
1, 4 – P. semiplicatus (Pic, 1926), comb. rest. (photographs by Gérard L. Tavakilian); 2, 5 – P. grossepunctatus (Gressitt et Rondon), comb. n.; 3, 6 –
P. aggregatus (Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n. (6 – after Holzschuh [1999], photograph by Luboš Dembický). 1, 4 – syntypes; 2, 6 – holotypes; 5 – paratype; 1–2 – males; 3–6 – females.
Рис. 1–6. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., общий вид сверху.
1, 4 – P. semiplicatus (Pic, 1926), comb. rest. (фотографии Ж. Тавакиляна); 2, 5 – P. grossepunctatus (Gressitt et Rondon), comb. n.; 3, 6 – P. aggregatus
(Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n. (6 – по [Holzschuh, 1999], фотография Л. Дембицкого). 1, 4 – синтипы; 2, 6 – голотипы; 5 – паратип; 1–2 – самцы; 3–6 – самки.
Color plate 2 The longicorn beetle tribe Cerambycini Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae)
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_003.jpg)
Figs 7–12. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., habitus, dorsal view.
7 – P. irinae sp. n.; 8–9 – P. sulcicollis (Gahan, 1893), comb. n.; 10–11 – P. myanmarensis sp. n.; 12 – P. nataliae sp. n. 7–8, 10, 12 – holotypes; 11 – paratype; 7 – male; 8–12 – females.
Рис. 7–12. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., общий вид сверху.
7 – P. irinae sp. n.; 8–9 – P. sulcicollis (Gahan, 1893), comb. n.; 10–11 – P. myanmarensis sp. n.; 12 – P. nataliae sp. n. 7–8, 10, 12 – голотипы; 11 – паратип; 7 – самец; 8–12 – самки.
The longicorn beetle tribe Cerambycini Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae) 201
Plavichydissus aggregatus (Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n.
(Color plate 1: 3, 6; Figs 33, 46, 47, 61)
Margites aggregatus Holzschuh, 1999: 21. Type locality: Southern Vietnam, 40 km NW of An Khe, Buon Luoi, 14°10ʹN / 108°30ʹE, 620–750 m (according to the original description). Nga et al., 2014: 435.
Plavichydissus aggregatus: Miroshnikov, 2017: 223 (preliminary combination).
Material. 1♀, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Color plate 1: 6).
The ZIN collection contains a female (Color plate 1: 3) very similar to the holotype. In addition, it was collected in the type locality of P. aggregatus (Vietnam, Gia Lai Province, Buon Luoi, 29.04.1995, leg. Gorochov). I have preliminarly attributed the female in question to this species, albeit it differs from the holotype by the somewhat peculiar sculpture of the pronotal disc, the sparser and less strongly developed, recumbent, light setation at its median elevation and near apex in the middle, as in Fig. 47 (cf. Fig. 46), as well as by the somewhat smaller size of the largest sparse punctures and the sparser, recumbent, light setation of the elytra, which generaly more weakly masks their puncturation. Therefore it seems to me appropriate to give a description of this female.
Body length 17.4 mm, humeral width 4.3 mm. Coloration
of integument mainly red-brown; eyes, partly mandibles and pronotal disc black.
Head with longitudinal folds between upper lobes of eyes; antennal tubercles well-developed; eyes medium-sized, moderately convex; submentum with a heterogeneous, predominantly rough and coarse sculpture; antennae reaching beyond apex of elytra by last antennomere; length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 32 : 10 : 39 :
28 : 38 : 39 : 41 : 36 : 34 : 30 : 32; antennomere 1 with a heterogeneous, partly rough sculpture; antennomere 2 clearly longitudinal.
Pronotum subequal in length and width; base 1.14 times as wide as apex; with a sharp constriction both in front of base and near apex; on disc with a wide, barely convex, median elevation, very sparsely and roughly punctured mainly near lateral margins and apex; lateral to elevation with coarse longitudinal folds, thereby the nearest of them somewhat sinuous, in basal part branching into two folds with a very narrow gap between them (in holotype, fold nearest to median elevation, also branching into two folds, but with a wider gap between them).
Scutellum triangular, with an unclear sculpture.
Elytra predominantly nearly parallel-sided starting from base, 2.62 times as long as humeral width; with both a more or less rough sparse and very small dense puncturation; apical external angle rounded, sutural angle obtuse.
Prosternum in apical part with rough transverse folds; prosternal process moderately wide between coxae, with a well- expressed apical tubercle; mesosternal process between coxae clearly wider than prosternal process, without tubercle dorsally; metasternum and sternites with a small, clear, dense puncturation; metasternum with a clear median groove; both last (visible) sternite and tergite widely rounded apically.
Legs moderately long; profemora ventrally mostly with a coarse sculpture; all tibiae with a poorly visible carina along each side; metatarsomere 1 noticeably shorter than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent setation of dorsum (except for anterior part of head), prosternum, partly mesosternum, antennae and legs golden- yellow and yellow, those of remaining parts mainly yellowish and greyish; recumbent setae on median elevation of pronotum forming a characteristic horseshoe-shaped pattern, as in Fig. 47;
head, pronotum and elytra with long and very long, erect, sparse, but numerous (except for head), light setae; elytra, in addition, with numerous, suberect, short, light setae; most antennomeres with long, sparse, light setae predominantly on both inner and ventral sides.
Plavichydissus sulcicollis (Gahan, 1893), comb. n.
(Color plate 2: 8, 9; Figs 36, 37, 49, 50, 56, 62, 208)
Margites sulcicollis Gahan, 1893: 378. Type locality: Burma (now Myanmar), Paungdé (according to the original description and the label of the holotype). Gahan, 1906: 138; Aurivillius, 1912: 59; Plavilstshikov, 1931: 89; Holzschuh, 1999: 21.
Plavichydissus sulcicollis: Miroshnikov, 2017: 223 (preliminary combination).
Material. 1♀, holotype, by monotypy (BMNH) (Color plate 2: 8),
“Burma, 91–100”, “Paungdé”, “Margites sulcicollis Gahan, Type”, “Type” (Fig. 208); 1♀ (BMNH) (Color plate 2: 9), Myanmar, “Paungdé”, “Pachydissus (Margites) sulcicollis Gahan”, “Andrewes Bequest, B.M. 1922–221”.
Pronotum barely transverse, 1.01–1.05 times as wide as long; base 1.23–1.24 times as wide as apex; with a very sharp constriction both in front of base and near apex; broadened angularly at the middle, as in Figs 49, 50.
Plavichydissus myanmarensis Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Color plate 2: 10, 11; Figs 34, 35, 51, 52, 63)
Margites sulcicollis (non Gahan, 1893): Gahan, 1906: 138 (partim, “Burma, North Chin Hills”).
Material. Holotype, ♀ (BMNH) (Color plate 2: 10): “Burma. N[orth].
Chin Hills. 95–28”. Paratype: 1♀ (BMNH) (Color plate 2: 11), Myanmar, “Myittha, F.W.T. Bodeker” (upperside), “Mawlaik, 6.4.[19]32” (underside), “Margites sulcicollis Gah., D.J. Atkinson det. 1948”, “Pres. by Com. Inst. Ent. B.M. 1948–165”.
Diagnosis. Based on female characters, this new species is very similar to P. sulcicollis comb. n., but differs by the somewhat peculiar sculpture of the pronotal disc, including a median elevation being distinctly narrower near the apex, and by the presence of at least two longitudinal folds, both rather rough and different in length, between the elevation and the nearest, very coarse, longitudinal fold on either of its sides, as in Figs 51, 52; the slightly narrower scutellum; the lighter coloration of the elytra, antennae and, partly, legs, as in Color plate 2: 10, 11, Figs 34, 35 (cf. Color
plate 2: 8, 9, Figs 36, 37, 49, 50, 56).
Head with longitudinal folds between upper lobes of eyes; antennal tubercles moderately developed; eyes very large, strongly convex, lower lobes close together; submentum subequal in length and width near middle, but not transverse, with a heterogeneous, predominantly rough sculpture; antennae clearly or distinctly not reaching the apex of elytra; length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 26 : 8 : 24 : 17 : 25 : 27 : 29 : 27 : 26 : 25 : 30 (holotype taken as an example); antennomere 1 with a dense rough puncturation; antennomere 2 very clearly longitudinal.
Pronotum barely transverse, 1.02–1.04 times as wide as long; base 1.16–1.24 times as wide as apex; with a very sharp constriction
202 A.I. Miroshnikov
both in front of base and near apex; broadened angularly at the middle; on disc with a wide, moderately convex, median elevation, with both heterogeneous, partly rough puncturation and a clear or at least noticeable longitudinal impression in basal part; lateral to median elevation with very coarse folds, thereby between elevation and nearest very coarse longitudinal fold at least with one long and one shorter fold, both longitudinal, rather coarse, but significantly lower than a very coarse longitudinal fold (see also Key to species below).
Scutellum triangular, with an unclear sculpture.
Elytra predominantly nearly parallel-sided starting from base, 2.61–2.65 times as long as humeral width; with both a rough sparse and very small dense puncturation; apical external angle broadly rounded, sutural angle nearly right or narrowly rounded.
Prosternum in apical part with heterogeneous, rough, predominantly transverse folds; prosternal process moderately wide between coxae, without clear apical tubercle; mesosternal process between coxae significantly wider than prosternal process, without tubercle dorsally; metasternum and sternites with a small, clear, dense puncturation; metasternum with a well-expressed median groove; both last (visible) sternite and tergite widely rounded apically.
Legs moderately long; profemora ventrally with a clearly
rough sculpture; all tibiae with a distinct carina along each side; metatarsomere 1 noticeably shorter than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent setation, except for elytra, mainly greyish, partly silver-grey, that of elytra golden-yellow and yellow; head, pronotum and elytra with rather long, erect, sparse, but numerous, light setae; elytra, in addition, with numerous, suberect, short, light setae; antennae, legs and venter with sparse, more or less long, light setae.
Plavichydissus rufipennis (Pic, 1923), comb. rest.
(Color plate 3: 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22;
Figs 38, 39, 53, 54, 57, 58, 209)
Pachydissus rufipennis Pic, 1923a: 8. Type locality: “Laos, Ban Saloueun” (according to the original description and the label of the holotype). Plavilstshikov, 1931: 84.
Plavichydissus rufipennis: Pic, 1946: 107, 108 (Laos);
Miroshnikov, 2017: 223 (preliminary combination).
Margites (Margites) rufipennis: Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 78 (Laos).
Margites rufipennis: Hua, 1984: 60; Holzschuh, 1999: 21.
Material. 1♀, holotype, by monotypy (MNHN) (photograph; Color plate 3: 15), “Laos, B[an]. Saloueun, le 9.III.1920, R. Vitalis de Salvaza”, “Pachydissus rufipennis n. sp.”, “Type”, “Museum Paris, Coll.
M. Pic”, “Holotype” (Fig. 209); 1♀ (BM), “Laos: Wapikhamthong Prov., Khong Sedone, 31.III.1965, “Khongsedone, 31.3.[19]65” (handwritten), “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (s. str.) rufipennis (Pic),
J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♂ (BM) (Color plate 3: 13), “Laos: Borikhane Prov., Pakkading, 15.IV.1966, “Pakkading, 15.4.[19]66” (handwritten), “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (s. str.) rufipennis (Pic), J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♀ (BM) (Color plate 3: 16), “Laos: Borikhane Prov., Pakkading, 17.III.1965, “Pakkading, 17.3.[19]65” (handwritten), “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (s. str.) rufipennis (Pic), J.L. Gressitt det.”.
13.7 mm, the humeral width between 3.15–3.5 mm. Pronotum subequal in length and width; base 1.14–
1.22 times as wide as apex; with a sharp constriction both in front of base and near apex; broadened angularly
at the middle, as in Figs 53, 54; with a strong, high, wide, median elevation on disc, as in Figs 53, 54, 57, 58, with a heterogeneous, mainly rough puncturation dorsally; lateral to elevation with very coarse longitudinal folds.
Plavichydissus makarovi Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Color plate 3: 14, 17, 19, 21; Figs 40, 55, 64)
Material. Holotype, ♂ (NHMD) (Color plate 3: 14): “Thailand, River Kwae, Erawan [National Park], 13.II.1994, [leg.] Mahuaka”, “Margites rufipennis (Pic), Ole Mehl det. 2005”.
Diagnosis. This new species is very similar to
P. rufipennis comb. rest., but differs clearly by the less strongly protruding, suberect, short setae and the presence of only a small number of evidently shorter and significantly more inclined erect setae on the elytra, as in Fig. 40; the longitudinal pronotum which is less angularly broadened at the middle, as in Fig. 55; the somewhat shorter male antennae, as in Color plate 3: 14; the darker coloration of the elytra and antennae, as in Color plate 3: 14; the more strongly elongated parameres, as in Color plate 3: 19, the narrower penis, including the apical part, as in Color plate 3: 17, the darker coloration of the tegmen, penis and tergite 8, as in Color plate 3: 17, 19, 21 (cf. Color plate 3: 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, Figs 38, 39, 53, 54). Plavichydissus makarovi sp. n. can also be compared to the next new species, the differences from which are given in its diagnosis.
2.65 mm. Head dorsally, eyes, almost entirely pronotun and antennomere 1 black; elytra dark reddish brown (elytra red-brown in P. rufipennis comb. rest.); remaining parts mainly combines dark brown and black-brown tones, partly with a reddish tint.
Head with longitudinal folds between upper lobes of eyes; antennal tubercles well-developed; eyes large, strongly convex; submentum with a heterogeneous, rough, partly coarse sculpture; antennae reaching beyond apex of elytra by apex of penultimate antennomere (male antennae of P. rufipennis comb. rest. reach the apex of elytra by antennomere 9); length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 21 : 6 : 20 : 14 : 21 : 24 : 25 : 25 : 25 : 24 : 30;
antennomere 1 with a partly rough puncturation; antennomere 2 very clearly longitudinal.
Pronotum barely longitudinal, 1.04 times as long as wide (in P. rufipennis comb. rest., pronotum both in male and female subequal in length and width; see above); base 1.16 times as wide as apex; with a sharp constriction both in front of base and near apex; broadened somewhat angularly at the middle; on disc with a strong, high, wide, median elevation (like in P. rufipennis comb. rest.), with a heterogeneous, mainly rough puncturation dorsally; lateral to elevation with very coarse longitudinal folds (like in
P. rufipennis comb. rest.).
Scutellum triangular, sharpened apically, with an unclear sculpture.
Elytra barely narrowed towards apex, 2.57 times as long as humeral width; with both a rough (but not too deep) sparse and very small dense puncturation; apical external angle rounded, sutural angle with a poorly expressed obtuse denticle.
Prosternum in apical part with transverse wrinkles; prosternal process without clear apical tubercle; mesosternal process between coxae noticeably wider than prosternal process, without tubercle dorsally; metasternum and sternites with a small, clear, dense puncturation; metasternum with a well-expressed median groove; last (visible) sternite widely truncate at apex; last (visible) tergite rounded apically.
Legs moderately long; profemora ventrally with a clearly rough sculpture; all tibiae with a distinct carina along each side;
The longicorn beetle tribe Cerambycini Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae) Color plate 3
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_004.jpg)
Figs 13–22. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., habitus, dorsal view, and male genitalia.
13, 15–16, 18, 20, 22 – P. rufipennis (Pic, 1923), comb. rest. (15 – photograph by Gérard L. Tavakilian); 14, 17, 19, 21 – P. makarovi sp. n. 14–15 – holotypes; 13–14 – males; 15–16 – females; 17–18 – apical part of penis, ventral view; 19–20 – apical part of tegmen, ventral view; 21–22 – apical part of tergite 8, dorsal view.
Рис. 13–22. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., общий вид сверху и гениталии самца.
13, 15–16, 18, 20, 22 – P. rufipennis (Pic, 1923), comb. rest. (15 – фотография Ж. Тавакиляна); 14, 17, 19, 21 – P. makarovi sp. n. 14–15 – голотипы; 13–14 – самцы; 15–16 – самки; 17–18 – вершинная часть пениса снизу; 19–20 – вершинная часть тегмена снизу; 21–22 – вершинная часть 8-го тергита сверху.
Color plate 4 The longicorn beetle tribe Cerambycini Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae)
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_005.jpg)
Figs 23–30. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., habitus, dorsal view, and pronotum, holotypes.
23, 27 – P. decipiens (Holzschuh, 1989), comb. n. (after Holzschuh [1989], photographs by Luboš Dembický); 24, 28 – P. penangensis sp. n.; 25, 29 – P. sodalis (Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n. (after Holzschuh [1999], photographs by Luboš Dembický); 26, 30 – P. dembickyi sp. n. 23–25 – males; 26 – female.
Рис. 23–30. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., общий вид сверху и переднеспинка, голотипы.
23, 27 – P. decipiens (Holzschuh, 1989), comb. n. (по [Holzschuh, 1989], фотографии Л. Дембицкого); 24, 28 – P. penangensis sp. n.; 25, 29 – P. sodalis
(Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n. (по [Holzschuh, 1999], фотографии Л. Дембицкого); 26, 30 – P. dembickyi sp. n. 23–25 – самцы; 26 – самка.
metatarsomere 1 noticeably shorter than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent setation, except for elytra, mainly greyish, partly yellowish greyish, that of elytra golden-yellow; pronotum with more or less long, erect, sparse, but numerous, light setae; elytra with separate, long, more or less inclined, reddish setae and, in addition, with numerous, suberect, short, reddish setae; head, antennae, legs and venter with sparse, more or less long, light setae. Etymology. I am pleased to dedicate this new species to my colleague and friend, Dr. Kirill V. Makarov (Moscow Pedagogical State University, Russia), a master of microphotography who rendered his invaluable help in
taking the pictures presented in this work.
Plavichydissus nataliae Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Color plate 2: 12; Figs 41, 48, 65)
Material. Holotype, ♀ (cAM) (Color plate 2: 12): Vietnam, Gia Lai Province, ~55 km ENE of Pleiku, 14°17ʹ45ʺN / 108°26ʹ57ʹE, Kon Ka Kinh National Park, 600 m, at light, 8–20.05.2017 (leg. D. Fedorenko).
Diagnosis. This new species seems to be especially similar to P. rufipennis comb. rest. and P. makarovi sp. n., but differs clearly from both by the peculiar shape of the pronotum, as in Fig. 48; the characteristic sculpture of its disc, as in Fig. 48, including the less strongly developed, much lower, median elevation, as in Fig. 41; the more strongly elongated elytra, as in Color plate 2: 12. Besides this, P. nataliae sp. n. differs from the former species by the less strongly protruding, suberect, short setae and the absence of very long, numerous, erect setae on the elytra, as in Fig. 41 (somewhat similar to P. makarovi sp. n.), the longer antennae of the female, as in Color plate 2: 12, Fig. 41, while from the latter species by the wider prosternal process between the coxae, the predominantly shorter, recumbent, light setae on the prosternum and probably the longer antennae of the female (the female of
P. makarovi sp. n. is not yet known, but the antennae of the male of this species are even shorter than in the male of P. rufipennis comb. rest., see above) (cf. Color plate 3: 13–16, Figs 38–40, 53–55, 57–58).
width 3.6 mm. Head dorsally, eyes, pronotum, almost entirely antennomere 1 and femora, prosternum in basal part, meso- and metasterna, mostly sternites black; elytra reddish brown; remaining parts mainly combines dark brown and black-brown tones, partly with a reddish tint.
Head with longitudinal folds between upper lobes of eyes; antennal tubercles well-developed; eyes large, strongly convex; submentum with a heterogeneous, rough, partly coarse sculpture; antennae reaching beyond apex of elytra by last antennomere; length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 29 : 9 : 30 : 21 : 32 : 35 : 37 :
36 : 34 : 31 : 39; antennomere 1 with a rough dense puncturation; antennomere 2 strongly longitudinal.
Pronotum distinctly longitudinal, 1.08 times as long as wide; base 1.2 times as wide as apex; with a sharp constriction both in front of base and near apex; broadened angularly at the middle; on disc with a rather wide, moderately developed, median elevation, with heterogeneous, partly rough, irregular folds and heterogeneous sparse punctures dorsally; lateral to median elevation with very coarse longitudinal folds.
Scutellum triangular, sharpened apically, with a very small poorly expressed puncturation.
Elytra predominantly nearly parallel-sided starting from base,
2.75 times as long as humeral width (in P. rufipennis comb. rest.
and P. makarovi sp. n. 2.47–2.58 or 2.57 times, respectively); with both a rough (but not too deep) sparse and very small dense puncturation; apical external angle obtuse, well-expressed, sutural angle with a poorly developed, but distinct, obtuse denticle.
Prosternum in apical part with transverse wrinkles; prosternal process moderately wide, without clear apical tubercle; mesosternal process between coxae noticeably wider than prosternal process, without tubercle dorsally; metasternum and sternites with a small, clear, dense puncturation; metasternum with a well-expressed median groove; both last (visible) sternite and tergite widely rounded apically.
Legs moderately long; profemora ventrally with a clearly rough sculpture; all tibiae with a distinct carina along each side; metatarsomere 1 clearly shorter than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent setation mainly greyish, including that of elytra; pronotum with more or less long, erect, sparse, but numerous, light setae; elytra with separate, more or less long, but strongly inclined, reddish setae and, in addition, with numerous, suberect, short, reddish setae; head, antennae, legs and venter with sparse, more or less long, light setae.
Plavichydissus decipiens (Holzschuh, 1989), comb. n.
(Color plate 4: 23, 27)
Margites decipiens Holzschuh, 1989: 393. Type locality: Western Bhutan, Chimakothi (south of Thimphu) (according to the original description).
Margites (Margites) decipiens: Catalogue..., 2010: 161.
Plavichydissus decipiens: Miroshnikov, 2017: 223 (preliminary combination).
Material. 1♂, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Color plate 3: 23).
Plavichydissus penangensis Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Color plate 4: 24, 28; Fig. 66)
Material. Holotype, ♂ (BMNH) (Color plate 4: 24): Western Malaysia, “Penang”, ”Bowring, 63–47*”.
Diagnosis. Based on male characters, this new species seems to be especially similar to P. decipiens comb. n., but differs clearly by the peculiar sculpture of the pronotum, including an obviously broader median elevation, as in Color plate 4: 28, the partly smaller puncturation of the elytra (discarding very small punctures), the weakly expressed groove between the upper lobes of the eyes which is completely invisible on the vertex, and the generally darker coloration, as in Color plate 4: 24 (cf. Color plate 4: 23, 27).
3.05 mm. Head dorsally, eyes, antennomere 1, mostly pronotum and partly scutellum black; elytra brownish red; remaining parts mainly dark reddish brown, partly red-brown and black-brown tones. Head with longitudinal folds between upper lobes of eyes; antennal tubercles well-developed; eyes large, strongly convex; submentum with a heterogeneous, rough, partly coarse sculpture; antennae reaching beyond apex of elytra obviously by last antennomere; length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 23 : 6 : 23 : 15 : 22 : 26 : 27 : 27 : 27 : 26 : (last antennomere missing); antennomere 1 with a dense rough puncturation; antennomere 2
very distinctly longitudinal.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_006.jpg)
Figs 31–35. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., habitus, lateral view.
31 – P. semiplicatus (Pic, 1926), comb. rest.; 32 – P. irinae sp. n.; 33 – P. aggregatus (Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n.; 34–35 – P. myanmarensis sp. n.
31–32, 34 – holotypes; 35 – paratype; 31–32 – males; 33–35 – females. Рис. 31–35. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., общий вид сбоку.
31 – P. semiplicatus (Pic, 1926), comb. rest.; 32 – P. irinae sp. n.; 33 – P. aggregatus (Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n.; 34–35 – P. myanmarensis sp. n.
31–32, 34 – голотипы; 35 – паратип; 31–32 – самцы; 33–35 – самки.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_007.jpg)
Figs 36–40. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., habitus, lateral view.
36–37 – P. sulcicollis (Gahan, 1893), comb. n.; 38–39 – P. rufipennis (Pic, 1923), comb. rest.; 40 – P. makarovi sp. n. 36, 40 – holotypes; 38, 40 – males; 36–37, 39 – females.
Рис. 36–40. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., общий вид сбоку.
36–37 – P. sulcicollis (Gahan, 1893), comb. n.; 38–39 – P. rufipennis (Pic, 1923), comb. rest.; 40 – P. makarovi sp. n. 36, 40 – голотипы; 38, 40 – самцы; 36–37, 39 – самки.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_008.jpg)
Figs 41–48. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., habitus, lateral view, and pronotum.
41, 48 – P. nataliae sp. n.; 42 – P. dembickyi sp. n.; 43–44 – P. grossepunctatus (Gressitt et Rondon, 1970), comb. n.; 45 – P. irinae sp. n.; 46–47 – P. aggregatus (Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n. (46 – after Holzschuh [1999], photograph by Luboš Dembický). 41–43, 45–46, 48 – holotypes; 44 – paratype ; 41–42,
44, 46–48 – females; 43, 45 – males.
Рис. 41–48. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., общий вид сбоку и переднеспинка.
41 – P. nataliae sp. n.; 42 – P. dembickyi sp. n.; 43–44 – P. grossepunctatus (Gressitt et Rondon, 1970), comb. n.; 45 – P. irinae sp. n.; 46–47 – P. aggregatus (Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n. (46 – по [Holzschuh, 1999], фотография Л. Дембицкого). 41–43, 45–46, 48 – голотипы; 44 – паратип ; 41–42, 44,
46–48 – самки; 43, 45 – самцы.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_009.jpg)
Figs 49–58. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., pronotum, dorsal and frontal views.
49–50, 56 – P. sulcicollis (Gahan, 1893), comb. n.; 51–52 – P. myanmarensis sp. n.; 53–54, 57–58 – P. rufipennis (Pic, 1923), comb. rest.; 55 – P. makarovi sp. n. 49, 51, 55 – holotypes; 52 – paratype ; 49–53, 56, 58 – females; 54–55, 57 –males.
Рис. 49–58. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., переднеспинка сверху и спереди.
49–50, 56 – P. sulcicollis (Gahan, 1893), comb. n.; 51–52 – P. myanmarensis sp. n.; 53–54, 57–58 – P. rufipennis (Pic, 1923), comb. rest.; 55 – P. makarovi sp. n. 49, 51, 55 – голотипы; 52 – паратип ; 49–53, 56, 58 – самки; 54–55, 57 –самцы.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_010.jpg)
Figs 59–67. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., head, ventral view.
59 – P. grossepunctatus (Gressitt et Rondon, 1970), comb. n.; 60 – P. irinae sp. n.; 61 – P. aggregatus (Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n.; 62 – P. sulcicollis (Gahan, 1893), comb. n.; 63 – P. myanmarensis sp. n.; 64 – P. makarovi sp. n.; 65 – P. nataliae sp. n.; 66 – P. penangensis sp. n.; 67 – P. dembickyi sp. n. 59–60, 62–67 – holotypes; 59–60, 64, 66 – males; 61–63, 65, 67 – females.
Рис. 59–67. Plavichydissus Pic, 1946, stat. rest., голова снизу.
59 – P. grossepunctatus (Gressitt et Rondon, 1970), comb. n.; 60 – P. irinae sp. n.; 61 – P. aggregatus (Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n.; 62 – P. sulcicollis (Gahan, 1893), comb. n.; 63 – P. myanmarensis sp. n.; 64 – P. makarovi sp. n.; 65 – P. nataliae sp. n.; 66 – P. penangensis sp. n.; 67 – P. dembickyi sp. n. 59–60, 62–67 – голотипы; 59–60, 64, 66 – самцы; 61–63, 65, 67 – самки.
Pronotum barely longitudinal, 1.03 times as long as wide; base 1.16 times as wide as apex; with a sharp constriction both in front of base and near apex; broadened angularly at the middle; on disc with a wide, moderately developed, median elevation, with rough irregular folds dorsally; lateral to elevation with very coarse, longitudinal, partly sinuous folds, thereby fold nearest to elevation, in apical part branching into two folds.
Scutellum triangular, with an unclear sculpture.
Elytra distinctly narrowed towards apex, 2.66 times as long as humeral width; with both a rough sparse and very small dense puncturation; apical external angle rounded, sutural angle nearly right.
Prosternum in apical part with a heterogeneous sculpture, partly transverse wrinkles; prosternal process moderately wide, without distinct apical tubercle; mesosternal process between coxae clearly wider than prosternal process, without tubercle dorsally; metasternum and sternites with a small, clear, dense puncturation; metasternum with a well-expressed median groove; last (visible) sternite truncate at apex; last (visible) tergite rounded apically.
Legs moderately long (posterior legs of holotype missing); profemora ventrally with a rough dense puncturation; tibiae with a distinct carina along each side.
Recumbent setation mainly greyish, including that of elytra; pronotum with more or less long, erect, sparse, but numerous, light setae; elytra at least with suberect, short, yellowish setae (holotype with a very strongly obliterated setation of elytra); head, antennae, legs and venter with sparse, more or less long, light setae (partly abraded).
Etymology. The name of the new species is derived from Penang Island, off the northwestern coast of Malay Peninsula, the terra typica.
Plavichydissus sodalis (Holzschuh, 1999), comb. n.
(Color plate 4: 25, 29)
Margites sodalis Holzschuh, 1999: 21. Type locality: Western Malaysia, Pahang, Tioman Island, Kajang Mt., W slope (according to the original description).
Plavichydissus sodalis: Miroshnikov, 2017: 223 (preliminary combination).
Material. 1♂, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Color plate 4: 25).
Plavichydissus dembickyi Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Color plate 4: 26, 30; Fig. 67)
Material. Holotype, ♀ (cLD) (Color plate 4: 26): Western Malaysia, Perak, Banjaram Bintang, Bukit Berapit (Talping), 22–23.02.1997 (leg. I. Jeniš).
Diagnosis. This new species seems to be especially similar to P. sodalis comb. n., but differs by the somewhat peculiar sculpture of the pronotum, as in Color plate 4: 30; the seemingly sparser, recumbent, light setation of the elytra and, as a consequence, the more strongly expressed punctures; the absence of a distinctly red or reddish colour in the coloration of the suberect short setae of the elytra; and the generally darker coloration, as in Color plate 4: 26 (cf. Color plate 4: 25, 29).
3.8 mm. Head dorsally, eyes, almost entirely pronotum black; elytra dark reddish brown; remaining parts mainly combines red- brown and dark brown tones with a red tint.
Head with longitudinal folds between upper lobes of eyes; antennal tubercles very clearly expressed; eyes relatively well developed, moderately convex; submentum with a heterogeneous, rough, partly coarse sculpture; antennae freely reaching beyond apex of elytra by last antennomere; length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 29 : 9 : 33 : 22 : 33 : 36 : 36 : 35 : 34 : 32 : 43;
antennomere 1 with a dense rough puncturation; antennomere 2 very distinctly longitudinal.
Pronotum barely longitudinal, 1.05 times as long as wide; base 1.17 times as wide as apex; with a sharp constriction both in front of base and near apex; broadened somewhat angularly at the middle; on disc with wide, moderately developed, median elevation, with heterogeneous, transverse, partly rough folds; lateral to elevation with irregular very coarse folds, in general forming relatively wide longitudinal fragment of sculpture, on either side of which with separate, coarse, longitudinal folds.
Scutellum triangular, with an unclear sculpture.
Elytra predominantly nearly parallel-sided starting from base, 2.59 times as long as humeral width; with both a rough, sharp, sparse and very small dense puncturation; apical external angle rounded, sutural angle with a poorly developed obtuse denticle.
Prosternum in apical part with well-expressed transverse folds; prosternal process with a poorly noticeable apical tubercle; mesosternal process between coxae very clearly wider than prosternal process, without tubercle dorsally; metasternum and sternites with a small, clear, dense puncturation; metasternum with a distinct median groove; last (visible) sternite widely rounded at apex; last (visible) tergite rounded apically.
Legs moderately long; profemora ventrally with a rough sculpture; all tibiae with a distinct carina along each side; metatarsomere 1 clearly shorter than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent setation, except for elytra and scutellum, greyish and greyish yellowish, of elytra and scutellum olive; head, pronotum and elytra with more or less long, erect, partly inclined, sparse, but numerous, light setae; elytra, in eddition, with numerous, suberect, short, yellowish setae; antennae, legs and venter with sparse, more or less long, light setae.
Etymology. I am pleased to dedicate this new species to my colleague and friend, Mr. Luboš Dembický (Brno, Czech Republic), who constantly provides a very important assistance to my research.
Dense or at least abundant, recumbent, light setae on median elevation of pronotum forming a characteristic horseshoe-shaped pattern, as in Color plate 1: 1, 4, Figs 43–47; if this pattern poorly expressed due to a small number of setae (obviously partly obliterated), then elytra partly with very large sparse punctures (discarding very small puncturation), as in Color plate 1: 1, 4; sculpture of median elevation of pronotum usually mostly strongly obliterated, as in Figs 43–47 ...
............................................................................................... 2
Median elevation of pronotum at most with sparse recumbent setae forming no pattern, with a coarse or rough sculpture at least partly in the form of irregular folds, punctures or their combination, as in Color plate 4: 27–30, Figs 48, 49–55 5
Elytra with a dense, recumbent, grey or silver-grey setation, as in Color plate 1: 1, 2, 4, 5, Fig. 31 3
Elytra with a dense, recumbent, cream or yellowish cream setation, as in Color plate 1: 3, 6, Color plate 2: 7,
Figs 32, 33 4
Elytra predominantly with a very large puncturation, as in Color plate 1: 1, 4; median elevation of pronotum with pale, greyish yellowish or greyish, more or less numerous, recumbent setae, as in Color plate 1: 1, 4 ...
................................................ P. semiplicatus comb. rest.
Elytra with a significantly smaller puncturation, as in Color plate 1: 2, 5; median elevation of pronotum with bright, golden-yellow or yellow, dense or at least numerous, recumbent setae, as in Figs 43, 44 ................
.............................................. P. grossepunctatus comb. n.
Head dorsally, pronotum (Figs 46, 47) and elytra with a combination of dark red-brown and red-brown tones; at least two longitudinal folds of pronotal disc adjacent to and flanked by a median elevation only partly sinuous, as in Figs 46, 47; puncturation of elytra appearing sharper, as in Color plate 1: 3, 6; body smaller, up to 19.4 mm in length ....................................
........................................................ P. aggregatus comb. n.
Head dorsally, pronotum (Fig. 45) and elytra black; two longitudinal folds of pronotal disc adjacent to and flanked by a median elevation completely sinuous, as in Fig. 45; puncturation of elytra appearing weaker, as in Color plate 2: 7; body larger, 28.3 mm in length .......
....................................................................... P. irinae sp. n.
Pronotum with a strong, very high, wide, median elevation, as in Figs 57, 58 6
Pronotum with a less strongly developed, much lower and usually narrower, median elevation, as in Fig. 56 ....
............................................................................................... 7
Elytra darker, with clearly less strongly protruding, suberect, short setae and, in addition, with a small number of moderately long and strongly inclined setae, as in Fig. 40; pronotum longitudinal, at least in the male less angularly broadened at the middle, as in Fig. 55; male antennae shorter, as in Color plate 3: 14; male genitalia darker, as in Color plate 3: 17, 19, 21, parameres more strongly elongated, as in Color plate 3: 19, penis narrower, as in Color plate 3: 17 ........
................................................................. P. makarovi sp. n.
Elytra lighter, with clearly more strongly protruding, suberect, short setae and, in addition, with numerous, very long, erect setae, as in Figs 38–39; pronotum subequal in length and width, more angularly broadened at the middle, as in Figs 53, 54; male antennae longer, as in Color plate 3: 13; male genitalia significantly lighter, as in Color plate 3: 18, 20, 22, parameres less strongly elongated, as in Color plate 3: 20, penis wider, as in Color plate 3: 18 ................
.................................................... P. rufipennis comb. rest.
At least 2–3 coarse or very coarse longitudinal folds of pronotum, adjacent to and flanked by a median elevation, more or less narrow, clearly separated from each other, without distinct folds connecting them (sometimes connected only at the very apex and/or at the very base), weakly sinuous, as in Figs 48–52, only sometimes one of the folds about basal one-third can be somewhat wider than in the remaining part 8
Sculpture of pronotum adjacent to a median elevation on either of its sides formed by coarse or very coarse, irregular, partly transverse folds or by two coarse, longitudinal, sinuous folds (sometimes these in basal
parts fused into one irregularly intertwined fold) partly connected by irregular folds, as in Color plate 4: 27–30
............................................................................................. 10
Pronotum barely transverse, 1.01–1.05 times as wide as long, as in Figs 49–52; lower lobes of eyes close together, thereby submentum subequal in length and width near middle, as in Figs 62, 63; elytra less strongly elongated, 2.46–2.65 times as long as humeral width, as in Color plate 2: 8–11, with more strongly protruding suberect setae and long or very long erect setae all along elytra, as in Figs 34–37 9
Pronotum distinctly longitudinal, 1.08 times as long as wide, peculiar in shape, as in Fig. 48; lower lobes of eyes relatively widely spaced, submentum very clearly transverse, as in Fig. 65; elytra more strongly elongated,
2.75 times as long as humeral width, as in Color plate 2: 12, with less strongly protruding suberect setae and separate, relatively long, erect setae only at base of elytra, as in Fig. 41 ................... P. nataliae sp. n.
Pronotum between median elevation and nearest, very coarse, longitudinal fold on either side of elevation with a rather wide and deep groove supplied with only weakly expressed, individual, longitudinal, short tubercles at bottom, as in Figs 49, 50; elytra darker, as in Color plate 2: 8, 9; scutellum wider, as in Color plate 2: 8, 9 ..................................... P. sulcicollis comb. n.
Pronotum between median elevation and nearest very
coarse longitudinal fold on either side of elevation with a rather wide and deep groove showing one long and one shorter fold, both longitudinal, rather coarse, but significantly lower than a very coarse longitudinal fold, as in Figs 51, 52; elytra lighter, as in Color plate 2: 10, 11; scutellum narrower, as in Color plate 2: 10, 11 ............................................ P. myanmarensis sp. n.
Elytra with a red or brownish red coloration of
integument and a pale greyish coloration of a recumbent setation, as in Color plate 4: 23, 24; male with much shorter antennae (with many antennomeres less strongly elongated), reaching beyond apex of elytra by only last antennomere, as in Color plate 4: 23
............................................................................................. 11
Elytra with a dark brown coloration of integument and a bright olive coloration of a recumbent setation, as in Color plate 4: 25, 26; male (if known) with much longer antennae (with many antennomeres more strongly elongated), reaching beyond apex of elytra by antennomere 9, as in Color plate 4: 25 12
Median elevation of pronotum clearly wider, with a somewhat coarser sculpture, as in Fig. 28; elytra, antennae and legs darker, as in Color plate 4: 24; puncturation of elytra mostly smaller (discarding very small puncturation), as in Color plate 4: 24; groove between upper lobes of eyes weakly expressed, as in Color plate 4: 24. Penang, W Malaysia ............................
........................................................... P. penangensis sp. n.
Median elevation of pronotum clearly narrower, with a somewhat less coarse sculpture, as in Color plate 4: 27; elytra, antennae and legs lighter, as in Color plate 4: 23; puncturation of elytra mostly larger (discarding very small puncturation), as in Color plate 4: 23; groove between upper lobes of eyes very well-expressed, as in Color plate 4: 23. Bhutan ............. P. decipiens comb. n.
Pronotum on either side of median elevation with clearly more strongly developed irregular folds forming a generally much wider longitudinal fragment of sculpture, as in Fig. 30; median elevation of pronotum itself wider in middle part, as in Color plate 4: 30; recumbent light setation somewhat sparser and, as a consequence, elytral punctures more sharply expressed, as in Color plate 4: 26; coloration at least of antennae and, partly, legs clearly darker, as in Color plate 4: 26 ............................................ P. dembickyi sp. n.
Pronotum on either side of median elevation with
clearly less strongly developed irregular folds forming a generally much narrower longitudinal fragment of sculpture, as in Color plate 4: 29; median elevation of pronotum itself narrower in middle part, as in Color plate 4: 29; recumbent light setation somewhat denser and, as a consequence, elytral punctures less sharply expressed, as in Color plate 4: 25; coloration at least of antennae and, partly, legs clearly lighter, as in Color plate 4: 25 ............................................ P. sodalis comb. n.
Pachydissus Newman, 1838: 494; Thomson, 1864: 231;
Lacordaire, 1868: 265; Gemminger in Gemminger, Harold, 1872:
2804; Gahan, 1891: 24; Reitter, 1894: 356; Gahan, 1906: 133;
Aurivillius, 1912: 56; Plavilstshikov, 1931: 83; Gressitt, 1951: 141;
Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 71; Adlbauer, 2002: 158; Catalogue…,
2010: 162; Ślipiński, Escalona, 2016: 223; Kariyanna et al., 2017: 34;
Miroshnikov, 2017: 220.
Type species: Pachydissus sericus Newman, 1838, by monotypy.
Pachydissus parvicollis Gahan, 1891 (Color plate 5: 68; Fig. 210)
Pachydissus parvicollis Gahan, 1891: 29. Type locality: Northern India (according to the original description and the label of the syntype male). Gahan, 1906: 134; Aurivillius, 1912: 57; Plavilstshikov, 1931: 84; Hayashi, 1981: 7; Weigel, 2006: 498;
Catalogue..., 2010: 162; Kariyanna et al., 2017: 34; Miroshnikov,
2017: 221, fig. 398.
Material. 1♂, syntype (BMNH) (Color plate 5: 68), “N. India” (upperside), “Col. [illegible further on]” (underside), “60–15 E.I.C.”, “Pachydissus parvicollis Gahan, Type”, “Type”, “Syntype” (Fig. 210); 1♂, 1♀ (BMNH), Northern India.
Pachydissus schmutzenhoferi Holzschuh, 1990 (Color plate 5: 70)
Pachydissus schmutzenhoferi Holzschuh, 1990: 185. Type locality: Western Bhutan, Paro Distr., Gedu, 2000 m (according to the original description). Catalogue..., 2010: 162; Kariyanna et al., 2017: 34; Miroshnikov, 2017: 221, fig. 399.
Material. 1♂, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Color plate 5: 70); 1♀
(BMNH), “India”, “Pascoe Coll. 93–60”, “Pachydissus schmutzenhoferi
Holzschuh, 1990 ♀ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”.
Morphological notes. Body length 19.8–29 mm [Holzschuh, 1990]; the female I have studied has a body length of 24.7 mm and a humeral width of 6.2 mm.
Pachydissus obsolescens Holzschuh, 2017 (Color plate 5: 69)
Pachydissus obsolescens Holzschuh, 2017: 66. Type locality: Myanmar, Kachin State, Three River Junction (Thone chaung sone), 26°23ʹ12ʺN / 98°41ʹ04ʺE, 2044 m (according to the original description).
Material. 1♂, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Color plate 5: 69).
Pachydissus pullus Holzschuh, 2017 (Color plate 5: 71, 72; Color plate 6: 76)
Pachydissus pullus Holzschuh, 2017: 67. Type locality: “Thailand N, Chiang Mai N, Doi Pha Hom Pok, 20°05ʹN, 99°15ʹE (H = 2044 m)” (according to the original description) (see Remarks).
Material. 1♀, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Color plate 5: 71); 1♀
(NHMD) (Color plate 5: 72), Thailand, Chiang Mai Prov., Ban San Pakia, 1700 m, 25.04–7.05.1996 (leg. S. Bilý), “Pachydissus pullus Holzschuh, 2017
♀ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”.
Morphological notes. Body length 26–32 mm [Holzschuh, 2017]; the female I have studied has a body length of 34 mm and a humeral width of 9 mm.
Remarks. The coordinates and altitude of the type locality of this species as given in the original description [Holzschuh, 2017] strongly mismatch. At least one if not both of these parameters is wrong. It is highly suspicious that the altitude accurate to one meter (2044 m) matches the altitude of the type locality of the previous species [Holzschuh, 2017: 66]. In this connection, the type locality of P. pullus requires clarification.
Pachydissus murzini Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Color plate 5: 73; Color plate 6: 77)
Material. Holotype, ♂ (cSM) (Color plate 5: 73): China, Yunnan Province, 54 km E of Tengchong, 2150 m, 4–9.11.2004 (leg. S. Murzin).
Diagnosis. This new species seems to be especially similar to P. pullus, but differs by the somewhat peculiar sculpture of the pronotum, as in Color plate 6: 77; the recumbent light setation of the elytra forming a comparatively less strongly expressed, mottled, iridescent pattern, as in Color plate 5: 73; and the scutellum more strongly rounded on the sides. Pachydissus murzini sp. n. can also be compared to P. obsolescens, P. schmutzenhoferi and P. parvicollis, but differs from the former by the clearly longer and seemingly more slender male antennae with many antennomeres, including antennomere 3, being more strongly elongated, as in Color plate 5: 73, and the more slender legs, as in Color plate 5: 73, while from latter two species at least by the darker, mainly black and brown-black coloration, the somewhat peculiar shape and sculpture of the pronotum, the more strongly protruding or sharper apical external angle of at least several antennomeres starting with the 3rd (cf. Color plate 5: 68–72, Color plate 6: 76).
7 mm. Coloration of integument mainly black, only partly mesosternum, both first and second (visible) sternites and mostly epipleura reddish brown.
Head with a deep median groove between upper lobes of eyes and partly on vertex; antennal tubercles very well-developed; eyes moderately convex; submentum with a heterogeneous, rough, partly coarse sculpture; antennae much longer than body, reaching beyond apex of elytra by antennomere 7; length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 32 : 5 : 54 : 35 : 60 : 56 : 54 : 49 : 46 : 40 : 58;
antennomere 1 with a small dense puncturation; antennomere 2 very clearly transverse; apical external angle of antennomeres 3–10 one way or another sharpened, thereby on antennomeres 3–5, especially on 4th, strongly drawn towards external side.
Pronotum barely transverse, 1.02 times as wide as long; base
1.17 times as wide as apex; with a sharper constriction near apex than in front of base; angularly broadened at the middle; with very coarse, partly sinuous, irregular, mostly transverse folds, finely and sparsely punctured.
Scutellum widely rounded apically, with an unclear sculpture. Elytra predominantly barely narrowed towards apex starting from base, 2.8 times as long as humeral width; with a very small, clear, dense puncturation; apical external angle with a short, but well-expressed, obtuse tooth, sutural angle drawn into a long sharp
tooth.
Prosternum predominantly with coarse, partly sinuous, transverse folds; prosternal process truncate apically and dorsally, sharply protruding in this place; mesosternal process between coxae distinctly wider than prosternal process, without tubercle dorsally; metasternum and sternites with a small dense puncturation, but less clear on sternites; metasternum with a sharp median groove; last (visible) sternite truncate at apex; last (visible) tergite with a poorly developed emargination apically.
Legs long and slender; metatarsomere 1 clearly longer than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent setation of dorsum mainly golden-yellow bright while of venter, antennae and legs predominantly paler, mainly yellowish and greyish yellowish tones; elytral setation irregular, patterned and iridescent; more or less long, erect, light setae mainly developed on pronotum and head.
Pachydissus patricius Holzschuh, 1991 (Color plate 6: 74)
Pachydissus patricius Holzschuh, 1991: 36. Type locality: Thailand, NE Bangkok, Saraburi (according to the original description). Miroshnikov, 2017: 222, fig. 404.
Material. 1♀, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Color plate 6: 74).
Pachydissus borneoensis Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Color plate 6: 75)
Material. Holotype, ♂ (NHMD) (Color plate 6: 75): E Malaysia, Sabah, Crocker Range, 03.2003 (local collector).
Diagnosis. This new species is similar to P. patricius, but differs by the peculiar sculpture of the pronotum, as in Color plate 6: 75 (see also Remarks below), the shape of the elytral apex, as in Color plate 6: 75; the absence of a clear groove between the upper lobes and on the vertex, the more or less significant presence of black colour in the coloration of several basal antennomeres, some features of the coloration of the recumbent setation (cf. Color plate 6: 74).
6.2 mm. Mostly dorsum and tarsi and partly pro- and mesosterna dark brown; eyes, partly mandibles, antennomeres 1 and 3–5, almost entirely antennomere 2 black; femora, tibiae, epipleura, partly antennae brownish red; remaining parts red-brown.
Head without distinct groove between upper lobes of eyes and on vertex; antennal tubercles moderately developed; eyes relatively weakly convex; submentum with a heterogeneous puncturation, small and dense predominantly in middle part, vs. rough, partly confluent near lateral margins; antennae much longer than body, reaching beyond apex of elytra by antennomere 7; length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 29 : 11 : 49 : 23 : 63 : 56 : 56 : 52 : 56 : 59 : 100;
antennomere 1 with a very coarse sculpture forming, in addition to everything else, in middle part dorsally a strong longitudinal rib, the latter occupying more than half of antennomere length starting from base, as well as with a small dense puncturation; antennomere 2 barely longitudinal; apical external angle of antennomeres 3–10 rounded or obtuse, not drawn towards laterad; antennomeres 3 and 4 partly with a clear longitudinal impression both dorsally and ventrally.
Pronotum distinctly longitudinal, 1.07 times as long as wide; base 1.09 times as wide as apex; with a well-expresed constriction both in front of base and near apex; with coarse and very coarse, partly sinuous, transverse folds, these being very finely, irregularly, in places densely punctured.
Scutellum rounded apically, with an unclear sculpture.
Elytra in basal one-third nearly parallel-sided, but then very clearly narrowed towards apex, 2.6 times as long as humeral width; with a small, very clear, dense puncturation; apical external angle with a well-expressed denticle, sutural angle drawn into a relatively short, but very clear, sharp tooth.
Prosternum in apical one-third with somewhat rough transverse folds, in middle part with very coarse transverse folds; prosternal process truncate apically and dorsally, sharply protruding in this place; mesosternal process between coxae significantly wider than prosternal process, with a small tubercle dorsally; metasternum and sternites with a small, clear, dense puncturation; metasternum with a well-expressed median groove; last (visible) sternite widely truncate at apex; last (visible) tergite rounded apically.
Legs moderately long; femora relatively robust; metatarsomere 1 barely shorter than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent setation mainly greyish, partly yellowish or with a yellowish tint (in P. patricius, recumbent setation at least of dorsum and antennae dorsally seemingly without yellowish setae), elytral setation irregular (in holotype largely abraded); more or less long, erect, light setae mostly developed on pronotum and head.
Remarks. Although the differences between the new species and P. patricius are based only on single specimens of opposite sex, nonetheless these taxa are most likely to also be distinguished by the shape of the pronotum. At least such very clear differences in the shape of the pronotum as those observed between the male of P. borneoensis sp. n. and the female of P. patricius are not encountered between the male and female of the same taxon in some other Asian species of the genus (e.g. P. parvicollis and P. schmutzenhoferi). Besides this, unlike the male of P. borneoensis sp. n. and the female of P. patricius, the pronotum in the males of
P. obsolescens and P. murzini sp. n., is, on the contrary, somewhat more strongly broadened on the sides than in the female of P. pullus.
Etymology. A separate genus, Falsopachydissus Miroshnikov, 2017, has recently been established for the sole previously known representative of the genus in Borneo, Pachydissus foveiscapus Holzschuh, 2011. In this
The longicorn beetle tribe Cerambycini Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae) Color plate 5
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_011.jpg)
Figs 68–73. Pachydissus Newman, 1838, habitus, dorsal view.
68 – P. parvicollis Gahan, 1891; 69 – P. obsolescens Holzschuh, 2017; 70 – P. schmutzenhoferi Holzschuh, 1990; 71–72 – P. pullus Holzschuh, 2017;
73 – P. murzini sp. n. 68 – syntype; 69–71, 73 – holotypes; 68–70, 73 – males; 71–72 – females; 69–71 – after Holzschuh [1990, 2017], photographs by Luboš Dembický.
Рис. 68–73. Pachydissus Newman, 1838, общий вид сверху.
68 – P. parvicollis Gahan, 1891; 69 – P. obsolescens Holzschuh, 2017; 70 – P. schmutzenhoferi Holzschuh, 1990; 71–72 – P. pullus Holzschuh, 2017;
73 – P. murzini sp. n. 68 – синтип; 69–71, 73 – голотипы; 68–70, 73 – самцы; 71–72 – самки; 69–71 – по [Holzschuh, 1990, 2017], фотографии Л. Дембицкого.
Color plate 6 The longicorn beetle tribe Cerambycini Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae)
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_012.jpg)
Figs 74–80. Pachydissus Newman, 1838 and Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864, habitus, dorsal view, and pronotum.
74 – P. patricius Holzschuh, 1991 (after Holzschuh [1991], photograph by Luboš Dembický); 75 – P. borneoensis sp. n.; 76 – P. pullus Holzschuh, 2017; 77 – P. murzini sp. n.; 78 – P. birmanicus Gardner, 1926 (photograph by Sudhir Singh); 79 – P. argentatus Pic, 1923 (photograph by Gérard L. Tavakilian); 80 –
D. querceus Holzschuh, 2015 (after Holzschuh [2015], photograph by Luboš Dembický). 74–75, 77–80 – holotypes; 74, 76, 78–79 – females; 75, 77, 80 – males. Рис. 74–80. Pachydissus Newman, 1838 и Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864, общий вид сверху и переднеспинка.
74 – P. patricius Holzschuh, 1991 (по [Holzschuh, 1991], фотография Л. Дембицкого); 75 – P. borneoensis sp. n.; 76 – P. pullus Holzschuh, 2017; 77 – P. murzini sp. n.; 78 – P. birmanicus Gardner, 1926 (фотография С. Сингха); 79 – P. argentatus Pic, 1923 (фотография Ж. Тавакиляна); 80 – D. querceus Holzschuh, 2015 (по [Holzschuh, 2015], фотография Л. Дембицкого). 74–75, 77–80 – голотипы; 74, 76, 78–79 – самки; 75, 77, 80 – самцы.
connection, P. borneoensis sp. n. is currently the first member of the genus Pachydissus to be found in Borneo, and its epithet is intentionally formed on the basis of the name of the locality it supports.
Pachydissus argentatus Pic, 1923 (Color plate 6: 79; Fig. 211)
Pachydissus argentatus Pic, 1923b: 8. Type locality: China, “Thibet, Vrianatang” (according to the original description and the label of the holotype). Plavilstshikov, 1931: 84; Pic, 1946: 107,
108; Gressitt, 1951: 141; Hua, 2002: 222; Wang, Hua, 2009: 180,
Catalogue..., 2010: 162.
Material. 1♀, holotype, by monotypy (MNHN) (photograph; Color plate 6: 79), “Thibet, Vrianatang”, “Pachydissus argentatus n. sp.”, “Type”, “Museum Paris, Coll. M. Pic”, “Holotype” (Fig. 211).
18.75 mm (Dr. Gérard L. Tavakilian, personal communication).
Remarks. The IRSN collection contains a female I have studied (“Thibet, Coll. Le Moult”) which is very similar to the holotype. Its body length is 19.2 mm, the humeral width is 5.2 mm, and the antennae are clearly longer than the body, reaching beyond the apex of the elytra by the penultimate antennomere.
Pachydissus thibetanus Pic, 1946
Pachydissus thibetanus Pic, 1946: 108 (“Thibet”). Type locality: China, Xizang Province (according to the original description). Gressitt, 1951: 632; Hua, 2002: 222; Wang, Hua, 2009:
180; Catalogue..., 2010: 162.
Morphological notes. Body length 23 mm [Pic, 1946]. Remarks. A recent attempt to relocate the type specimen of this species in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, kindly undertaken by Dr. Gérard L. Tavakilian upon my request, was unsuccessful. Instead, Pic’s collection contains a label written by André Villiers,
where he noted to have never seen the P. thibetanus type.
Pachydissus birmanicus Gardner, 1926 (Color plate 6: 78; Fig. 212)
Pachydissus birmanicus Gardner, 1926: 199. Type locality: Burma (now Myanmar), Bondaung, S of Toungoo (according to the original description and the label of the holotype).
Material. 1♀, holotype, by monotypy (NFIC) (photograph; Color
plate 6: 78), “For. Zool. Coll. / Bondaung, S. Toungoo, 18.5.1918. C.F.C. Beeson” (upperside), “Found under bark of Xylia dolabriformis” (underside), “Pachydissus birmanicus sp.n. J.C.M. Gardner, Type”, “Type”, “332” (Fig. 212).
Pachydissus elegans Nonfried, 1895
Pachydissus elegans Nonfried, 1895: 307. Type locality: Indonesia, W Sumatra, Siboga (according to the original description).
even though I have made repeated attempts to relocate its type specimen(s) in a number of European museums and some other institutions.
At the same time, based on its description, the species in question most likely does not belong to the genus Pachydissus. At least none of the Asian species of Pachydissus has a pronotum being strongly sharpened on each side, a relatively large body (48 mm in length) and some other features as in P. elegans [Nonfried, 1895: 307– 308]. Therefore, the present taxon is only conditionally considered here within the genus Pachydissus.
“Pachydissus langsonius Fairmaire, 1895”
Remarks. Vitali et al. [2017] have recently shown that the holotype of this species, kept in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, they revised, does not differ significantly from Trirachys holosericeus (Fabricius, 1787) and in some morphological features, in particular, the structure of the antennae, does not correspond to the original description. They regard this holotype to be false and propose Pachydissus langsonius to provisionally be considered as incertae sedis.
At the same time, on the basis of some specimens kept at the Institut Royal de Sciences naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, identified by Fairmaire as “Pachydissus langsonius” and referred to by Vitali et al. [2017], as well as considering the original description [Fairmaire, 1895: 176–177], the possibility that the holotype of P. langsonius is false [Vitali et al., 2017], and the combination “Aeolesthes langsonius” proposed by Aurivillius [1912: 47], the species in question is likely to belong either to the genus Trirachys Hope, 1843 (if not a synonym of T. holosericeus) or to the genus Aeolesthes Gahan, 1890, but anyway not to Pachydissus.
“Dymasius querceus Holzschuh, 2015” (Color plate 6: 80)
D. querceus requires clarification, bearing in mind that this species most likely belongs to the genus Pachydissus [Miroshnikov, 2017].
Margites Gahan, 1891: 26 (Pachydissus subgen., “section”); Gahan, 1906: 137; Aurivillius, 1912: 59; Winkler, 1929: 1142;
Plavilstshikov, 1931: 88; 1940: 113, 641; Gressitt, 1951: 143;
Kojima, Hayashi, 1969: 48; Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 77; Lee, 1982:
28; Kusama, Takakuwa, 1984: 255; Adlbauer, 2006: 63; Catalogue...,
2010: 161; Heffern, 2013: 10; Nga et al., 2014: 435; Kariyanna et al.,
2017: 31; Miroshnikov, 2017: 223.
Type species: Cerambyx egenus Pascoe, 1858, by subsequent designation [Gahan, 1906].
Margites egenus (Pascoe, 1858) (Figs 81, 98, 102, 106, 112, 215)
Cerambyx egenus Pascoe, 1858: 236 (“China Borealis”). Type locality: Northern China (according to the original description and the label of the holotype).
Pachydissus (Margites) egenus: Gahan, 1891: 26.
Margites egenus: Aurivillius, 1912: 59; Winkler, 1929: 1142;
Plavilstshikov, 1931: 89; Gressitt, 1951: 144 (“China: N. China; Szechuan (Chengtu); Kwangtung (Lien)”); Wang, Hua, 2009: 174.
Margites (Margites) egenus: Catalogue..., 2010: 161 (China: “Northern Territory, Sichuan and Guandong provinces”).
Material. 1♀, holotype, by monotypy (BMNH) (Fig. 81), “N China”,
“Cerambyx egenus Pasc[oe]. Type”, “Type”, “Pascoe Coll. 93–60”, “Margites egenus Pasc. N China” (Fig. 215).
Morphological notes. According to the original description [Pascoe, 1858], the body length of the holotype is “9 lines”, i.e. about 19 mm, while based on my own measurements, the body length is 16.1 mm, the humeral width is 4.2 mm. According to Plavilstshikov [1931], the body length of the beetles of this species is 12–18 mm.
Margites fulvidus (Pascoe, 1858) (Figs 82, 83, 99, 103, 107, 216)
Cerambyx fulvidus Pascoe, 1858: 236 (“China Borealis”). Type locality: Northern China (according to the original description and the label of the holotype).
Pachydissus (?) fulvidus: Bates, 1873: 152.
Pachydissus (Margites) fulvidus: Gahan, 1891: 26.
Margites fulvidus: Aurivillius, 1912: 59; Winkler, 1929: 1142;
Plavilstshikov, 1931: 90; Gressitt, 1951: 144; Ohbayashi, 1964: 38;
Kojima, Hayashi, 1969: 48, pl. 15, fig. 5; Lee, 1982: 28, pl. 4, fig. 60;
Hua, 2002: 214; Chou, 2004: 140; Hua et al., 2009: 41, fig. 484
(possibly wrong determination), 172; Wang, Hua, 2009: 174.
Margites (Margites) fulvidus: Kusama, Takakuwa, 1984: 255, pl. 27, figs 185, 185a; Catalogue..., 2010: 161.
Material. 1♀, holotype, by monotypy (BMNH) (Fig. 83), “N. China”,
“Cerambyx fulvidus Pasc[oe]. Type”, “Type”, “Pascoe Coll. 93–60”, “Margites fulvidus Pasc. N. China” (Fig. 216); 1♂ (ZMMU), “China, Ningpo [now Ningbo], Coll. J. Clermont”, “Margites fulvidus Psc., N. Plavilstshikov det.”; 2♀ (cSM), China, Shaanxi Prov., Haozhenzi, 1350–2000 m, 27.05–8.06.1999 (leg. S. Murzin), “Margites fulvidus (Pasc.), S. Murzin det. 1999”; 1♂ (cSM), China, Shaanxi Prov., Taibaishan Nat. Forest Park, 1350 m, 10.06.1999 (leg. M. Murzin), “Margites fulvidus (Pascoe, 1858) ♂ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”; 1♂ (NHMD) (Fig. 82), Taiwan, Datun Mt., 22.06.1997 (leg. J. Chen), “Margites fulvidus (Pascoe), Ole Mehl det.”; 1♂, 2♀ (NHMD), Japan, Amami Ooshima Isl., Yuwan, 27.06.1978 (leg. N. Yamamoe), “Margites fulvidus (Pascoe), Ole Mehl det.”.
17.2 mm, humeral width 4.25 mm; in the specimens I have studied (in addition to the holotype) 14.8–16 mm and 3.8– 4 mm, respectively. According to Plavilstshikov [1931], the body length is 12–18 mm.
Margites exiguus (Gahan, 1894)
Pachydissus (Margites) exiguus Gahan, 1894: 10. Type locality: Burma (now Myanmar), Mandalay (according to the original description).
Margites exiguus: Gahan, 1906: 137 (Burma: “Pegu: Tharawaddy; Mandalay”); Plavilstshikov, 1931: 89; Roonwal, 1954: 71, 81 (larvae in “Anogeissus acuminata and Aporosa villosula”).
Remarks. This species is known to me only from the original description, as well as from the Gahanʼs monograph [1906]. Dr. Maxwell V.L. Barclay kindly provided me with the type specimens of all Asian Margites species kept under his care at BMNH for study, but the type of M. exiguus was absent among them. There is no photograph in the collection of Mr. Luboš Dembický (Brno, Czech Republic) either, a person who kindly provided me with his pictures of
the types of all Margites species available to him, including the types he photographed in BMNH.
One male (with a body length of 19 mm) (Fig. 92) from BMNH that I have revised has the following labels: “Siam. 1930 W.R.S. Ladell”, “Bangkok, March 1930, at light”, “9.1784”, “Margites exiguus Gah., fr[om]. description. D.J. Atkinson det. 1948”. However, it shows no clear differences from the Laotian specimens identified by J.L. Gressitt as Margites grisescens Pic, 1937 (see below).
Margites modicus Gahan, 1906 (Figs 84, 100, 104, 108, 113, 217)
Margites modicus Gahan, 1906: 138. Type locality: India, Nilgiri Hills (according to the original description and the label of the lectotype). Aurivillius, 1912: 59; Weigel, 2006: 498; Kariyanna
et al., 2017: 31.
Margites (Margites) modicus: Catalogue..., 2010: 161.
Material. 1♂, lectotype, here designated (BMNH) (Fig. 84), “India, Nylghirri” [= Nilgiri], “Margites modicus Gahan, Type”, “Type”, “Fry Coll. 1905.100”, “26306” (Fig. 217), “Lectotypus ♂ Margites modicus Gahan, 1906,
A. Miroshnikov des., 2018”.
Morphological notes. Body length 13–17 mm, humeral width 3.75–5 mm [Gahan, 1906], thereby the lectotype is 14.3 mm and 3.8 mm, respectively.
Remarks. Based on the original publication [Gahan, 1906], this species was described from no less than three specimens of both sexes. As noted above, Dr. Maxwell V.L. Barclay kindly provided me with the type specimens of all Asian Margites species kept under his care at BMNH for study, but there is only a single type specimen of
M. modicus among them.
Margites auratonotatus Pic, 1923 (Figs 85, 86, 213, 214)
Margites auratonotatus Pic, 1923a: 7 (“Chine”). Type locality: China, Xujiahui (according to the original description and the labels of the syntypes). Winkler, 1929: 1142; Plavilstshikov, 1931: 89 (as a species with the dubious differences from M. egenus and
M. exiguus); Gressitt, 1951: 143 (M. egenus ? = M. auratonotatus); Hua, 2002: 214; Hua et al., 2009: 41 (fig. 482), 172; Wang, Hua, 2009: 174.
Margites (Margites) auratonotatus: Catalogue..., 2010: 161.
Material. 1♂, syntype (MNHN) (photograph; Fig. 85), “Zi-ka-wei [= Xujiahui], 10.5.[19]23”, “Margites auratonotatus Pic”, “Type”, “Muséum Paris, Coll. E. Licent”, “Holotype” (incorrect label) (Fig. 213); 1♀, syntype (MNHN) (photograph; Fig. 86), “Zi-ka-wei [= Xujiahui], 11.5.[19]22”, “Margites auratonotatus Pic n. sp.”, “Type”, “Muséum Paris, Coll. E. Licent”, “P. 33”, “Paratype” (incorrect label) (Fig. 214); 1♀ (photograph), China, “Chekiang, Chusan [modern transliteration: Zhejiang, Zhoushan], Musée Heude”, “16–6–[19]31, O. Piel, coll.”, “Margites auratonotatus Pic” (photograph).
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_013.jpg)
Figs 81–86. Margites Gahan, 1891, habitus, dorsal view.
81 – M. egenus (Pascoe, 1858); 82–83 – M. fulvidus (Pascoe, 1858); 84 – M. modicus Gahan, 1906; 85–86 – M. auratonotatus Pic, 1923 (photographs
by Gérard L. Tavakilian). 81, 83 – holotypes; 84 – lectotype ; 85–86 – syntypes; 81, 83, 86 – females; 82, 84–85 – males.
Рис. 81–86. Margites Gahan, 1891, общий вид сверху.
81 – M. egenus (Pascoe, 1858); 82–83 – M. fulvidus (Pascoe, 1858); 84 – M. modicus Gahan, 1906; 85–86 – M. auratonotatus Pic, 1923 (фотографии
Ж. Тавакиляна). 81, 83 – голотипы; 84 – лектотип ; 85–86 – синтипы; 81, 83, 86 – самки; 82, 84–85 – самцы.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_014.jpg)
Figs 87–92. Margites Gahan, 1891, habitus, dorsal view.
87–88 – M. luteopubens Pic, 1926 (88 – photograph by Gérard L. Tavakilian); 89 – M. lajoyei Pic, 1926 (photograph by Gérard L. Tavakilian); 90–92 –
M. grisescens Pic, 1937 (90–91 – from Laos, 92 – from Thailand). 88–89 – holotypes; 87, 89, 91–92 – males; 88, 90 – females. Рис. 87–92. Margites Gahan, 1891, общий вид сверху.
87–88 – M. luteopubens Pic, 1926 (88 – фотография Ж. Тавакиляна); 89 – M. lajoyei Pic, 1926 (фотография Ж. Тавакиляна); 90–92 – M. grisescens
Pic, 1937 (90–91 – из Лаоса, 92 – из Таиланда). 88–89 – голотипы; 87, 89, 91–92 – самцы; 88, 90 – самки.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_015.jpg)
Figs 93–97. Margites Gahan, 1891, habitus, dorsal view.
93–94 – M. mucidus Holzschuh, 1995; 95 – M. pumilus Holzschuh, 1999; 96 – M. minutulus Holzschuh, 2008; 97 – M. alutaceus Holzschuh, 2006. 93,
95–97 – holotypes; 93, 95–96 – males; 94, 97 – females; 93, 95–97 – after Holzschuh [1995, 1999, 2006, 2008], photographs by Luboš Dembický.
Рис. 93–97. Margites Gahan, 1891, общий вид сверху.
93–94 – M. mucidus Holzschuh, 1995; 95 – M. pumilus Holzschuh, 1999; 96 – M. minutulus Holzschuh, 2008; 97 – M. alutaceus Holzschuh, 2006. 93,
95–97 – голотипы; 93, 95–96 – самцы; 94, 97 – самки; 93, 95–97 – по [Holzschuh, 1995, 1999, 2006, 2008], фотографии Л. Дембицкого.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_016.jpg)
Figs 98–101. Margites Gahan, 1891, habitus, lateral view.
98 – M. egenus (Pascoe, 1858); 99 – M. fulvidus (Pascoe, 1858); 100 – M. modicus Gahan, 1906; 101 – M. grisescens Pic, 1937 (from Thailand). 98–99 – holotypes; 100 – lectotype; 98–99 – females; 100–101 – males.
Рис. 98–101. Margites Gahan, 1891, общий вид сбоку.
98 – M. egenus (Pascoe, 1858); 99 – M. fulvidus (Pascoe, 1858); 100 – M. modicus Gahan, 1906; 101 – M. grisescens Pic, 1937 (из Таиланда). 98–99 – голотипы; 100 – лектотип; 98–99 – самки; 100–101 – самцы.
Margites luteopubens Pic, 1926 (Figs 87, 88, 218)
Margites luteopubens Pic, 1926a: 23. Type locality: China, Yunnan (according to the original description and the label of the holotype). Winkler, 1929: 1142; Plavilstshikov, 1931: 90 (syn. pro Margites fulvidus; wrong synonymy; see also below); Gressitt, 1951: 144; Hua, 1984: 60; 2002: 214; Hua et al., 2009: 41, fig. 483
(possibly wrong determination), 172; Wang, Hua, 2009: 174;
Weigel et al., 2013: 72, 161, pl. 6, fig. f; Nga et al., 2014: 435.
Margites (Margites) luteopubens: Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 77; Catalogue…, 2010: 161.
Material. 1♀, holotype, by monotypy (MNHN) (photograph; Fig. 88), China, “Yunnan”, “Margites luteopubens n. sp.”, “Type”, “21”, “Museum Paris, Coll. M. Pic”, “Holotype” (Fig. 218); 1♂ (ZIN) (Fig. 87), Vietnam, Hanoi City, 5.04.1962, at light (leg. O.N. Kabakov),“Margitesluteopubens Pic?, Kabakovdet. 1985”, “Margites luteopubens Pic, 1926 ♂ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”; 2♂ (ZIN), N Vietnam, Tam Dao, 5.06.1995 (leg. Gorochov), “Margites luteopubens Pic, 1926 ♂ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”; 1♂ (cLD),
N Vietnam, 70 km NW of Hanoi, Tam Dao, 21°27ʹN / 105°39ʹE, 900–1200 m, 9–19.05.1998 (leg. L. Dembický, P. Pacholátko), “Margites luteopubens Pic, 1926 ♂ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”; 1♂ (ZIN), Vietnam, Lao Cai Prov., Sa Pa Distr., Fan Si Pan Mt., 22°20ʹN / 103°46ʹE, 1900–2500 m, 20.04–9.05.1999 (leg. N. Orlov), “Margites
luteopubens Pic, 1926 ♂ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”; 1♀ (NHMD), N Vietnam, Tam Dao Nat. Park, 21°16ʹ16ʺN / 105°23ʹ17ʺE, 900 m, 4–5.05.2005 (leg. A. Kun), “Margites luteopubens Pic, 1926 ♀ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”; 1♀ (NHMD), Laos, Hua Phan Prov., Ban Saleui, Phou Pan Mt., ~20°12ʹN / 104°01ʹE, 1500–1900 m, 23.04–16.05.2008 (leg. C. Holzschuh), “Margites luteopubens Pic, det. Holzschuh 2009”.
Margites luteopubens is morphologically very similar to M. fulvidus, thereby both species showing significant individual variability, which to some extent complicates their diagnostics. In my opinion, the differences between these species require a detailed elaboration using a more extensive material.
Margites lajoyei Pic, 1926 (Figs 89, 219)
Margites lajoyei Pic, 1926b: 76. Type locality: “Cochinchine, Cap Sain-Jacques” (now Vũng Tàu, southern Vietnam) (according to the original description and the label of the holotype). Plavilstshikov, 1931: 90 (syn. pro Margites fulvidus; wrong synonymy).
Margites (Margites) lajoyei: Catalogue..., 2010: 161.
Material. 1♂, holotype, by monotypy (MNHN) (photograph; Fig. 89), “Cochinchine, Cap St. Jacques”, “Margites lajoyei n. sp.”, “Type”, “ex Lajoye”, “Museum Paris, Coll. M. Pic”, “Holotype” (Fig. 219).
12.7 mm (Dr. Gérard L. Tavakilian, personal communication).
Margites grisescens Pic, 1937 (Figs 90–92, 101, 105, 109, 114)
Margites grisescens Pic, 1937: 7. Type locality: northern Vietnam, “Annam” (according to the original description). Hua, 1984: 60; Nga et al., 2014: 435.
Margites (Margites) grisescens: Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 78.
Material. 2♂ (BM), “Laos: Borikhane Prov., Paksane”, [? 27.III.1962], “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (s. str.) grisescens Pic, J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♂ (BM) (Fig. 91) (body length 23 mm!), “Laos: Khammouane Prov., Phon Tiou, 25.2.1964”, “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (s. str.) grisescens Pic, J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♀ (BM), “Laos: Wapikhamthong Prov., Khong Sedone, 31.3.1965”, “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (s. str.) grisescens Pic, J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♀ (BM), “Laos: Ban Van Heue, 20 km E of Phou-kow-kuei [= Phou Khao Khouei], 15–31.V.1965”, “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (s. str.) grisescens Pic, J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♂, 1♀ (BM), “Laos: Vientiane Prov., Vientiane, 24.II.1966”, “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (s. str.) grisescens Pic, J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♀ (BM) (Fig. 90), “Laos: Sedone Prov., Pakse, 30.IV.1967”, “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (s. str.) grisescens Pic, J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♀ (cLD), NW Thailand, Mae Hong Son Prov., Soppong, 19°27ʹN / 98°20ʹE, 1200 m, 26–28.05.2000 (leg. P. Spáčil), “Margites grisescens Pic, 1937 ♀ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”, “Compared to the specimens identified by J.L. Gressitt”; 1♂ (cAM), N Thailand, Chiang Rai Prov., Doi Chang env., 640–750 m, 19°46ʹ01ʺN / 99°28ʹ11ʺE – 9°47ʹ44ʺN / 99°27ʹ06ʺE, 11–15.05.2013 (leg. I. Melnik),
“Margites grisescens Pic, 1937 ♂ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”, “Compared
to the specimens identified by J.L. Gressitt”; 1♂, 1♀ (IRSN), Cambodia, Kampong Speu, Chambok, 11°21ʹ25ʺN / 104°7ʹ9ʺE, 4–8.05.2015, light trap (leg. J. Constant, V. Sougnez), “Margites grisescens Pic, 1937 [♂ or
♀, respectively] det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”, “Compared to the specimens identified by J.L. Gressitt”.
Remarks. The type of this species is known to me only from the original description. A recent attempt to relocate it in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, kindly undertaken by Dr. Gérard L. Tavakilian upon my request, was unsuccessful, like in the case of the type of Pachydissus thibetanus (see above). I was informed that Pic’s collection also contained a label, where André Villiers noted to have never seen the type of M. grisescens.
Margites grisescens is here understood as being represenred by the specimens identified by J.L. Gressitt that I have examined.
Morphological notes. Body length 11–15 mm [Pic, 1937; Gressitt, Rondon, 1970]; in the specimens that I have studied the body length was 12.3–23 mm, the humeral width between 3.3–5.8 mm.
Distribution. Vietnam, Laos; based on the material studied, M. grisescens is being recorded here from Thailand and Cambodia for the first time.
Margites mucidus Holzschuh, 1995 (Figs 93, 94)
Margites mucidus Holzschuh, 1995: 17. Type locality: Northern Thailand, Chiang Mai, Doi Suthep Mt., 1100 m (according to the original description).
Material. 1♂, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Fig. 93); 1♀ (cAM)
(Fig. 94), Laos, Xaignabouri City, 16–18.04.2005 (unknown collector), “Margites mucidus Holzschuh, 1995 ♀ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”; 1♀ (cLD), “Laos”, “Margites mucidus Holzschuh, 1995 ♀ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”.
M. mucidus is being recorded here from Laos for the first time.
Margites pumilus Holzschuh, 1999 (Fig. 95)
Margites pumilus Holzschuh, 1999: 20. Type locality: Indonesia, Sumatra, Kebun Sei Kopas, 2°49ʹN / 99°18ʹE, 200 m (according to the original description). Heffern, 2013: 10.
Material. 1♂, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Fig. 95).
Margites alutaceus Holzschuh, 2006 (Fig. 97)
Margites alutaceus Holzschuh, 2006: 221. Type locality: Malaysia, Sabah, Sipitang, Mendolong (according to the original description). Heffern, 2013: 10.
Material. 1♀, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Fig. 97).
Margites minutulus Holzschuh, 2008 (Fig. 96)
Margites minutulus Holzschuh, 2007: 200 (nom. nudum).
Margites minutulus Holzschuh, 2008: 239. Type locality: India, Karnataka, 20 km SE Sagar (14°03ʹ49ʺN / 75°05ʹ23ʺE), 600 m (according to the original description). Kariyanna et al., 2017: 31.
Material. 1♂, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Fig. 96).
Laomargites Pic, 1923a: 8; Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 78 (Margites subgen.).
Type species: Laomargites singularis Pic, 1923, by monotypy.
Diagnosis. This genus considered by some researchers as a subgenus of the genus Margites differs clearly from it in the structure of the eyes, the sculpture in the area of the base of the antennae, the pronotal sculpture, the structure of the femora and tibiae, as well as by some other traits indicated below.
When detailing the structure of Laomargites stat. rest., the following features must be noted as being characteristic of this genus: eyes, albeit strongly convex, but in general significantly less strongly developed compared to Margites, with both upper and lower lobes clearly more narrow, as in Figs 110, 111, 115, 116 (cf. Figs 106–109, 112–114),
with a greater distance between both upper and lower lobes; submentum strongly transverse (vs submentum only moderately transverse in Margites); bases of antennae with a very strong, sharply protruding bordure embracing the antennal cavities over most of their perimeter and forming a wide and deep depression between inner margins of antennal bases, as in Figs 110, 111 (vs bases of antennae usual in structure, with neither a very strong bordure nor a deep depression between their inner margins in Margites, as in Figs 106–109); antennomere 2 both in
male and female distinctly or very clearly longitudinal, in male somewhat inflated (vs antennomere 2 distinctly transverse or subequal in length and width, in male sometimes barely or slightly longitudinal, but not inflated in Margites); antennomeres 3 and 4 in male distinctly inflated; pronotum (Figs 110, 111) in apical part with a very well-expressed, peculiar, sculptural formation in the form of a scutum (somewhat reminding of Imbrius Pascoe, 1866, but larger), sharply bound from behind by a ledge and along margin framed by a bordure, mainly with coarse, mostly longitudinal wrinkles, folds and a clear, more or less sharp puncturation; behind this formation with very coarse, longitudinal and obliquely longitudinal, more or less long, partly sinuous folds in places connected with each other by transverse folds, in general forming a large fragment of discal sculpture extending almost to base of pronotum; lateral to this fragment with a coarse and very coarse, mostly longitudinal, cellular sculpture (vs no similar sculpture of pronotum is observed in Margites – Figs 81– 97, 102–105); elytra with a well-developed recumbent setation, but weakly hiding their puncturation, and, in addition, sometimes with very clearly expressed, suberect, short setae (vs elytra sometimes with a dense recumbent setation, strongly hiding their puncturation, but without clearly expressed, suberect, short setae in Margites); femora with a gentle rugose sculpture and a small, more or less dense puncturation (vs at least profemora, especially on ventral side, with a rough or moderately coarse, dense and confluent, rugose puncturation; meso- and metafemora usually with a less coarse sculpture, but sometimes with a sculpture more or less similar to that of profemora, especially on mesofemora, in Margites); tibiae without carina (vs tibiae with a very clear or less distinct, sometimes partly or predominantly poorly expressed carina, this nonetheless being present along each side in Margites).
which is described as new.
Laomargites singularis Pic, 1923, comb. rest.
(Figs 110, 115, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123,
124, 126–129, 131, 133, 135, 220)
Laomargites singularis Pic, 1923a: 8. Type locality: Laos, [Ban] Paklung (according to the original description and the label of the holotype).
Margites (Laomargites) singularis: Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 78.
Margites singularis: Hua, 1984: 60.
Material. 1♂, holotype, by monotypy (MNHN) (Fig. 128), “Laos, Paklung, le 8.III.1920, R. Vitalis de Salvaza”, “Laomargites n. g. singularis n. sp.”, “Type”, “Museum Paris, Coll. M. Pic”, “3000”, “Holotype” (Fig. 220); 2♂ (BM), “Laos: Khammouane Prov., Phon Tiou, 25.2.1964”, “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (Laomargites) singularis (Pic), J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♂ (BMNH) (Fig. 127), “Laos: Khammouane Prov., Phon Tiou, 17.III.1965”, “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (Laomargites) singularis (Pic), J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♀, 1♀ (Fig. 129) (BM), “Laos: Vientiane Prov., Nongtevada, 15.II.1965, 17.III.1965”, “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (Laomargites) singularis (Pic), J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♂, 1♀ (BM), “Laos: Vientiane Prov., Ban Van Eue, 16.III.1966”, “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (Laomargites) singularis (Pic), J.L. Gressitt det.”; 2♂ (BM), “Laos: Vientiane Prov., Phou Kou Khouei, 19.III.1966, 15.IV.1966”, “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (Laomargites) singularis (Pic), J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♂ (BMNH) (Fig. 126), “Laos: Vientiane Prov., Nongtevada, 2.II.1967”, “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (Laomargites) singularis (Pic), J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♀ (BM), “Laos: Sayaboury Prov., Sayaboury, 25.III.1966”, “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”,
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_017.jpg)
Figs 102–111. Margites Gahan, 1891 and Laomargites Pic, 1923, stat. rest., head, dorsal view, and pronotum.
102, 106 – M. egenus (Pascoe, 1858); 103, 107 – M. fulvidus (Pascoe, 1858); 104, 108 – M. modicus Gahan, 1906; 105, 109 – M. grisescens Pic, 1937
(from Thailand); 110 – L. singularis Pic, 1923, comb. rest.; 111 – L. fedorenkoi sp. n. 102–103, 106–107, 111 – holotypes; 104, 108 – lectotype; 102–103,
106–107 – females; 104–105, 108–111 – males.
Рис. 102–111. Margites Gahan, 1891 и Laomargites Pic, 1923, stat. rest., голова сверху и переднеспинка.
102, 106 – M. egenus (Pascoe, 1858); 103, 107 – M. fulvidus (Pascoe, 1858); 104, 108 – M. modicus Gahan, 1906; 105, 109 – M. grisescens Pic, 1937
(из Таиланда); 110 – L. singularis Pic, 1923, comb. rest.; 111 – L. fedorenkoi sp. n. 102–103, 106–107, 111 – голотипы; 104, 108 – лектотип; 102–103,
106–107 – самки; 104–105, 108–111 – самцы.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_018.jpg)
Figs 112–125. Margites Gahan, 1891 and Laomargites Pic, 1923, stat. rest.
112 – M. egenus (Pascoe, 1858); 113 – M. modicus Gahan, 1906; 114 – M. grisescens Pic, 1937 (from Thailand); 115, 117–118, 120–121,
123–124 – L. singularis Pic, 1923, comb. rest.; 116, 119, 122, 125 – L. fedorenkoi sp. n. 112, 116, 119, 122, 125 – holotypes; 113 – lectotype; 112 – female; 113–125 – males; 112–116 – head, ventral view; 117–119 – apex of elytra, dorsal view (at an angle of about 45 degrees); 120–122 – apical part of elytra, lateral view; 123–125 – apical part of elytra, dorsal view.
Рис. 112–125. Margites Gahan, 1891 и Laomargites Pic, 1923, stat. rest.
112 – M. egenus (Pascoe, 1858); 113 – M. modicus Gahan, 1906; 114 – M. grisescens Pic, 1937 (из Таиланда); 115, 117–118, 120–121,
123–124 – L. singularis Pic, 1923, comb. rest.; 116, 119, 122, 125 – L. fedorenkoi sp. n. 112, 116, 119, 122, 125 – голотипы; 113 – лектотип; 112 – самка; 113–125 – самцы; 112–116 – голова снизу; 117–119 – вершина надкрылий сверху (под углом примерно 45 градусов); 120–122 – вершинная часть надкрылий сбоку; 123–125 – вершинная часть надкрылий сверху.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_019.jpg)
Figs 126–136. Laomargites Pic, 1923, stat. rest., habitus, dorsal view, and male genitalia.
126–129, 131, 133, 135 – L. singularis Pic, 1923, comb. rest.; 130, 132, 134, 136 – L. fedorenkoi sp. n. 128, 130 – holotypes; 126–128, 130 – males; 129 – female; 131–132 – apical part of penis, ventral view; 133–134 – apical part of tegmen, ventral view; 135–136 – apical part of tergite 8, dorsal view.
Рис. 126–136. Laomargites Pic, 1923, stat. rest., общий вид сверху и гениталии самца.
126–129, 131, 133, 135 – L. singularis Pic, 1923, comb. rest.; 130, 132, 134, 136 – L. fedorenkoi sp. n. 128, 130 – голотипы; 126–128, 130 – самцы; 129 – самка; 131–132 – вершинная часть пениса снизу; 133–134 – вершинная часть тегмена снизу; 135–136 – вершинная часть 8-го тергита сверху.
“Margites (Laomargites) singularis (Pic), J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♀ (BM), “Laos: Tonpheng, 15.V.1966”, “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Margites (Laomargites) singularis (Pic), J.L. Gressitt det.”; 1♂ (IRSN), “Laos, Takek, Coll. Le Moult”, “Laomargites singularis Pic, 1923 ♂ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”.
Laomargites fedorenkoi Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Figs 111, 116, 119, 122, 125, 130, 132, 134, 136)
Material. Holotype, ♂ (cAM) (Fig. 130): Vietnam, Kon Tum Prov., Kon Plong Distr., Dak Khe River, 14°43ʹ20ʺN / 108°18ʹ58ʺE, 1030 m, 8–23.04.2015, at light (leg. D. Fedorenko).
Diagnosis. This new species is very similar to
L. singularis comb. rest., but differs clearly by the presence of numerous, very well-expressed, suberect, short setae on the elytra, as in Figs 119, 122, 125, and in the conformation of the male genitalia (Figs 132, 134, 136), in particular, the widely spaced parameres, as in Fig. 134 (cf. Figs 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 131, 133, 135).
3.1 mm. Coloration of integument mainly red-brown, thereby head dorsally and mostly pronotum darkest; eyes, partly mandibles and most of pronotal coarse and rough folds black.
In general, structure of head, including areas of antennal bases, as in L. singularis comb. rest. (see Diagnosis of genus above); antennae longer than body, about reaching the apex of elytra by antennomere 8; length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 29 : 11 : 26 : 21 : 29 : 31 : 34 : 31 : 31 : 27 : 36; antennomere 1 with a heterogeneous, dense, partly rough puncturation, noticeably impressed in basal part dorsally; antennomere 2 very clearly longitudinal; antennomeres 2–4 inflated in apical part.
Pronotum subequal in length and width; at base barely wider than at apex; with a sharp constriction both in front of base and near apex; in general, structure of pronotum, including its sculpture, similar to L. singularis comb. rest. (see Diagnosis of genus above).
Scutellum triangular, with a small, partly quite clear puncturation.
Elytra predominantly nearly parallel-sided starting from base, 2.5 times as long as humeral width; with both a moderately rough, more or less regular and very small puncturation; apical external angle widely rounded, sutural angle narrowly rounded.
Prosternum in apical part with well-expressed transverse folds; prosternal process without apical tubercle; mesosternal process between coxae 2.7 times as wide as prosternal process, without tubercle dorsally; metasternum and sternites with a small, clear, dense puncturation; metasternum with a well-expressed median groove; last (visible) sternite truncate at apex; last (visible) tergite widely rounded apically.
Legs moderately long; tibiae without carina along each side; metatarsomere 1 noticeably shorter than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent setation, except for elytra, mainly greyish, partly with yellowish tint, that of elytra yellowish golden, weakly masking their puncturation; elytra, in addition, with numerous, well- expressed, suberect, short, yellowish golden setae; more or less long, erect, light setae mainly developed on pronotum and head.
Etymology. I am pleased to dedicate this new species to my colleague and friend, Dr. Dmitry N. Fedorenko (Institute for Problems of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia), who has collected in Vietnam a rich and very valuable material on Coleoptera, including cerambycids.
1. Elytra, in addition to recumbent setation, with sparse, barely protruding, short setae very poorly visible against general background, as in Figs 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 124; parameres close together, as in Fig. 133 ...................................... L. singularis comb. rest.
Elytra, in addition to recumbent setation, with numerous, strongly protruding, short setae very well visible against general background, as in Figs 119, 122, 125; parameres widely spaced, as in Fig. 134 ..........................
............................................................... L. fedorenkoi sp. n.
Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864: 234; Lacordaire, 1868: 261;
Gemminger in Gemminger, Harold, 1872: 2803; Gahan, 1891: 22;
1906: 139; Aurivillius, 1912: 60; Plavilstshikov, 1931: 92; Gressitt,
1951: 144; Kojima, Hayashi, 1969: 48; Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 78;
Kusama, Takakuwa, 1984: 284; Catalogue..., 2010: 160; Heffern,
2013: 9; Kariyanna et al., 2017: 29; Miroshnikov, 2017: 199.
Type species: Dymasius strigosus J. Thomson, 1864, by monotypy.
Dymasius strigosus J. Thomson, 1864, sp. rest.
(Figs 138, 139, 161, 163, 165)
Dymasius strigosus J. Thomson, 1864: 234. Type locality: “India” (according to the original description and the label of the holotype). Lacordaire, 1868: 262; Gemminger in Gemminger, Harold, 1872: 2803; Gahan, 1891: 22; Gahan, 1906: 139 (syn. pro
D. macilentus; wrong synonymy); Aurivillius, 1912: 60 (syn. pro
D. macilentus; wrong synonymy); Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 78 (syn. pro D. macilentus; wrong synonymy); Kusama, Takakuwa, 1984: 254 (syn. pro D. macilentus; wrong synonymy); Catalogue..., 2010: 160 (syn. pro D. macilentus; wrong synonymy); Heffern, 2013: 9 (syn. pro D. macilentus; wrong synonymy); Kariyanna et al., 2017: 29 (syn. pro D. macilentus; wrong synonymy); Miroshnikov, 2017: 199 (the synonymy D. macilentus = D. strigosus requires unequivocal evidence).
Material. 1♂, holotype, by monotypy (MNHN) (photographs); 1♂ (BMNH), “Ceylon”, “Bowr. Chevr. 63-47*”, “Dymasius strigosus Thoms.
♂, comp. with type”; 1♂ (BMNH), “Ceylon”, “Bowr. Chevr. 63-47*”; 1♂ (Fig. 138), 3♀ (BMNH), “Ceylon. G. Lewis. 1910–320”, “Dikoya. 3,800–
4,200 ft., 6.XII.[18]81–16.I.[18]82”; 1♀ (Fig. 139), 1♂, 2♀ (BMNH), “Ceylon”,
“Fry Coll. 1905.100”, “Ex Mus. Parry”; 1♀ (BMNH), “Ceylon”, “Pascoe Coll. 93–60”; 1♀ (BMNH), “Ceylon” (upperside), “62/84”(underside); 1♂, 1♀ (BMNH), “Ceylon”.
Comparative material. Dymasius macilentus (Pascoe, 1859): 1♂, holotype, by monotypy (BMNH) (Fig. 137), “Ceylon” (upperside), “59.106” (underside), “Cerambyx macilentus Pascoe, Type”, ”Type”.
Remarks. Since based on a comparison of the holotype male of D. strigosus and the holotype male of D. macilentus (Pascoe, 1859) some significant morphological differences were recently revealed between them, I concluded that the synonymy D. macilentus = D. strigosus [Gahan, 1906; Aurivillius, 1912; Gressitt, Rondon, 1970; Kusama, Takakuwa, 1984; Catalogue..., 2010 and others] required undeniable evidence [Miroshnikov, 2017]. I thereby was able to revise the holotype of D. strigosus, kept in MNHN, based only on high-quality photographs.
Now, however, I have been able to examine in detail 5 males and 9 females of D. strigosus (kept in BMNH) kindly provided by Dr. Maxwell V.L. Barclay. The results of this study confirmed significant differences I showed previously to be observed between D. macilentus and D. strigosus in the structure of the male antennae and of the elytral
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_020.jpg)
Figs 137–142. Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864, habitus, dorsal view.
137 – D. macilentus (Pascoe, 1859); 138–139 – D. strigosus J. Thomson, 1864; 140 – D. tatianae sp. n.; 141 – D. indigus Holzschuh, 2008; 142 – D. nodifer Holzschuh, 2005. 137, 140–142 – holotypes; 137–138, 140, 142 – males; 139, 141 – females; 141–142 – after Holzschuh [2005, 2008], photographs by Luboš Dembický.
Рис. 137–142. Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864, общий вид сверху.
137 – D. macilentus (Pascoe, 1859); 138–139 – D. strigosus J. Thomson, 1864; 140 – D. tatianae sp. n.; 141 – D. indigus Holzschuh, 2008; 142 – D. nodifer
Holzschuh, 2005. 137, 140–142 – голотипы; 137–138, 140, 142 – самцы; 139, 141 – самки; 141–142 – по [Holzschuh, 2005, 2008], фотографии Л. Дембицкого.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_021.jpg)
Figs 143–148. Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864, habitus, dorsal view.
143 – D. nodifer Holzschuh, 2005 (from Thailand); 144–147 – D. simplex Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (146–147 – from Thailand); 148 – D. prominor
Gressitt et Rondon, 1970. 144, 148 – holotypes; 145 – paratype; 143, 145, 147–148 – females; 144, 146 – males.
Рис. 143–148. Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864, общий вид сверху.
143 – D. nodifer Holzschuh, 2005 (from Thailand); 144–147 – D. simplex Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (146–147 – из Таиланда); 148 – D. prominor
Gressitt et Rondon, 1970. 144, 148 – голотипы; 145 – паратип; 143, 145, 147–148 – самки; 144, 146 – самцы.
apex. Thus, in the male of D. strigosus, antennomere 3 is 1.62–1.68 or 1.45–1.6 times as long as antennomere 1
and antennomere 4, respectively, antennomere 5 is 1.54–
1.6 times as long as antennomere 4, while in the holotype male of D. macilentus, antennomere 3 is only 1.36 or
1.32 times as long as antennomere 1 and antennomere 4, respectively, antennomere 5 is only 1.32 times as long as antennomere 4. The male antennae of D. strigosus (Fig. 138), including the holotype, are stable in being significantly longer than those of the holotype male of
D. macilentus (Fig. 137), in each of these species the shape of the inflated apical part of antennomeres 3–5 is thereby somewhat peculiar. The sculpture of male antennomere 1 of D. strigosus is more or less variable, but always, at least partly, clearly coarser than that in the holotype male of
D. macilentus. Both in the male and female of D. strigosus, a tooth at the apical external angle of the elytra is somewhat variable in length and sometimes considerably drawn towards the external side, but is always clearly shorter than that in the holotype male of D. macilentus.
Besides this, all examined specimens of D. strigosus are characterized by a combination of dark red-brown and red-brown coloration of the integument (except for the eyes), including the elytra, antennae and legs, while in the holotype of D. macilentus, the dorsum, antennae and mostly legs black, only the pronotum is in places with weak dark reddish brown tint. The recumbent light setation of the prosternum in D. strigosus is sparser than in D. macilentus. There are also some clear differences in the structure of the male genitalia of these species (Figs 161–166).
As a result, Dymasius strigosus J. Thomson, 1864, sp. rest., non syn. pro Dymasius macilentus (Pascoe, 1859).
According to the original description and label [Miroshnikov, 2017: 231, fig. 452], the holotype of
D. strigosus comes from India. As all non-type specimens of this species I have studied derive from Sri Lanka, it seems very likely that the holotype had also been caught in Sri Lanka, not India.
In the specimens of D. strigosus I have studied body length 25.3–34.8 mm, humeral width 5.8–8.6 mm.
Dymasius tatianae Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Fig. 140)
Dymasius indigus (non Holzschuh, 2008): Miroshnikov, 2017: 204, figs 241–243.
Material. Holotype, ♂ (NHMD) (Fig. 140): E Malaysia, Sabah, Trus
Madi Mt., 03.2004 (local collector), “Dymasius mandibularis, Ole Mehl det. 2014”, “Dymasius indigus Holzschuh, 2008 ♂ det. A. Miroshnikov 2017”.
Diagnosis. This new species is very similar to
D. indigus Holzschuh, 2008, but differs clearly by the generally darker coloration of the integument; the coloration of the recumbent setation at least of the dorsum, antennae and legs as in Fig. 140; the somewhat peculiar sculpture and pattern of the recumbent light setation of the pronotum, as in Fig. 140; the longer median groove of the head dorsally, well-developed not only between the eyes, but also partly on the vertex; the significantly more strongly developed recumbent light setation of the head behind the upper lobes of the eyes, as in Fig. 140; and possibly the larger body, at least so on the average (cf. Fig. 141).
7.1 mm. Head dorsally, eyes, pronotum, partly mandibles, basal
antennomeres and tarsi black; remaining parts combines red- brown and dark reddish brown tones, thereby elytra dark reddish brown.
Head with a very deep median groove between upper lobes of eyes, partly, and on vertex; antennal tubercles very well- developed; eyes moderately convex; submentum mainly with a more or less small puncturation; antennae much longer than body, almost reaching the apex of elytra by antennomere 6; length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 34 : 11 : 54 : 34 : 72 : 71 : 68 : 64 : 68 : 69 : 122; antennomere 1 devoid of a cicatrix (apical carina), with a heterogeneous, partly very coarse sculpture, predominantly on inner side with coarse transverse folds; antennomere 2 clearly longitudinal; antennomeres 5–11 very strongly elongated, especially so last one.
Pronotum barely longitudinal, 1.03 times as long as wide; with a sharper constriction near apex than in front of base; with coarse and very coarse, partly sinuous, mainly transverse folds.
Scutellum triangular, with an unclear sculpture.
Elytra clearly narrowed towards apex, 2.7 times as long as humeral width; with a very small dense puncturation; apical external angle obtuse, well-expressed, sutural angle with a short, but very clear, sharp tooth.
Prosternum in apical one-third with somewhat rough transverse folds, in middle part with coarse, partly sinuous, transverse folds; prosternal process with a very clear apical tubercle; mesosternal process between coxae noticeably wider than prosternal process, with a deep median impression; metasternum and sternites with a very small, but clear, dense puncturation; metasternum with a well-expressed median groove; both last (visible) sternite and tergite truncate apically.
Legs long; femora not claviform, without longitudinal carina; metatarsomere 1 slightly longer than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent setation yellowish, partly with a golden shine, including on elytra (in D. indigus, recumbent setation yellowish brown, shiny – “Behaarung anliegend, gelblichbraun glänzend...” [Holzschuh, 2008: 177]); pronotal setation forming a peculiar pattern, as in Fig. 140, thereby, compared to D. indigus, folds on disc generally to a lesser degree masked by dense setae and more strongly visible; elytral setation irregular; basal antennomeres with numerous, erect, light setae in the form of a sparse gentle brush (somewhat resembling members of the genus Elydnus Pascoe, 1868); more or less long, erect, light setae mainly developed on pronotum and head.
Genitalia – see Miroshnikov [2017: 197, figs 241–243].
Remarks. Based on the very clear morphological similarity of the holotype of this new species to the holotype of D. indigus (based on its picture) and on the origin of both taxa from one and the same locality, initially I attributed the former to D. indigus [Miroshnikov, 2017: 197 (figs 241– 243), 204]. However, the results of a more detailed study of this male show that it should be considered as a separate species.
to my wife, Tatiana P. Miroshnikova, who, over many years, selflessly supports my entomological research and provides an invaluable editing assistance in preparing very numerous photographs and various other scientific materials.
Dymasius nodifer Holzschuh, 2005 (Figs 142, 143)
Dymasius nodifer Holzschuh, 2005: 11. Type locality: Malaysia, Sabah, Trus Madi Mt. (according to the original description).
Material. 1♂, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Fig. 142); 1♂ (cAM ex NHMD), E Malaysia, Sabah, Trus Madi Mt., 03.2003 (local collector), “Dymasius nodifer Holz., Ole Mehl det. 2007”; 1♀ (NHMD), E Malaysia, Sabah, Crocker Range, 04.2005 (local collector), “Dymasius nodifer Holz., Ole Mehl det. 2006”; 1♀ (cAM ex NHMD), E Malaysia, Sabah, Crocker Range, 03.2005 (local collector), “Dymasius nodifer Holz., Ole Mehl det. 2007”; 1♂ (NHMD), E Malaysia, Sabah, Trus Madi Mt., 04.2013 (local collector), “Dymasius nodifer Holz., Mehl det. 2014”; 1♀ (BMNH) (Fig. 143), “Peninsular Siam, Nakon Sri Tamarat, Khao Ram, 750 ft., February 24th, 1922, at light, H.M. Pendlebury”, “1927.428”, “318”, “Dymasius nodifer Holzschuh, 2005, ♀, det. A. Miroshnikov 2017”.
Distribution. Until now, this species has only been known from Borneo [Holzschuh, 2005]. Based on the material studied, D. nodifer is being recorded here from Thailand, as from Indochina in general, for the first time.
Dymasius simplex Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (Figs 144–147, 221, 222)
Dymasius (Elydnus) simplex Gressitt et Rondon, 1970: 81. Type locality: Laos, Borikhane Province, Pakkading (according to the original description and the label of the holotype).
Dymasius simplex: Miroshnikov, 2017: 183.
Material. 1♂, holotype (BM) (Fig. 144), “Laos: Borikhane Prov., Pakkading, 6.IV.1963”, “Pakkading, 6.4.[19]63” (handwritten), “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Holotype Dymasius (Elydnus) simplex Gressitt & Rondon”, “8300” (Fig. 221); 1♀, paratype (BM) (Fig. 145), “Muong Wapi, 25.IV.[19]67”, “Allotype Dymasius (Elydnus) simplex Gressitt et Rondon”, “8300” (Fig. 222); 5♂, 1♀ (cAM) (Figs 146, 147), N Thailand, Lamphun, Mae Tha, 20.04.2011 (local collector), “Dymasius simplex Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 [♂ or ♀, respectively] det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”.
Distribution. Until now, this species has only been known from Laos [Gressitt, Rondon, 1970]. Based on the
material studied, D. simplex is being recorded here from Thailand for the first time.
Dymasius prominor Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (Figs 148–150, 223)
Dymasius (Microdymasius) prominor Gressitt et Rondon, 1970: 82. Type locality: Laos, Vientiane Province, Tha Ngone (according to the original description and the label of the holotype).
Material. 1♀, holotype (BM) (Fig. 148), “Laos: Vientiane Prov., Tha
Ngone”, “Vientiane, Tha Ngone, 29.4.[19]63” (handwritten), “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Holotype Dymasius (Microdymasius) prominor Gressitt & Rondon”, “8301” (Fig. 223); 5♂, 4♀ (cAM) (Figs 149, 150), N Thailand, Lamphun, Mae Tha, 20.04.2011 (local collector), “Dymasius prominor Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 [♂ or ♀, respectively] det. A. Miroshnikov
2018”.
Dymasius parvus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (Figs 151–153, 224)
Dymasius (Microdymasius) parvus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970: 82. Type locality: Laos, Wapikhamthong Province, Khong Sédone (according to the original description and the label of the holotype).
Material. 1♂, holotype (BM) (Fig. 151), “Laos: Wapikhamthong Prov.,
Khong Sédone, 18.IV.1965”, “Khongsédone, 18.4.[19]65” (handwritten), “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Holotype Dymasius (Microdymasius) parvus Gressitt & Rondon” (Fig. 224); 5♂, 2♀ (cAM) (Figs 152, 153), N Thailand, Lamphun, Mae Tha, 20.04.2011 (local collector), “Dymasius parvus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 [♂ or ♀, respectively] det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”.
Female (Fig. 153). Closely resembling the male. Body length 11.1–12.5 mm, humeral width 2.2–2.5 mm (in the males from Thailand I have studied, 8.8–11.7 and 1.8–2.4, respectively). In comparison with the male, antennae slightly shorter, body clearly more robust, as in Fig. 153 (cf. Figs 151, 152).
Distribution. Until now, this species has only been known from Laos [Gressitt, Rondon, 1970]. Based on the material studied, D. parvus is being recorded here from Thailand for the first time.
Dymasius niger Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (Figs 155, 167, 225)
Dymasius (Microdymasius) niger Gressitt et Rondon, 1970:
83. Type locality: Laos, Vientiane Province, Ban Van Eue (according to the original description and the label of the holotype).
Material. 1♀, holotype (non ♂; see Remarks below) (BM) (Fig. 155),
“Laos: Vientiane Prov., Ban Van Eue, 15.IV.1966”, “Ban Van Eue, 15.4.[19]66” (handwritten), “J.A. Rondon Collection Bishop Mus.”, “Holotype Dymasius (Microdymasius) niger Gressitt & Rondon”, “8304” (Fig. 225).
Remarks. In the original description of this species [Gressitt, Rondon, 1970], the holotype was indicated to be a male with a body length of 13 mm and a humeral width of 2.9 mm. A photograph was presented in fig. 16d (p. 84) showing a male (implying the holotype). In the description, in addition to the male, there was also a female with a body length of 11 mm and a humeral width of 1.9 mm. However, there is only information pertaining to the holotype male, the sole kept in BM, contained below the text of the description: “Holotype ♂ (Bishop 8304)...”. Without doubt, the reference to the female, i.e. one more specimen in addition to the holotype, in the original description is erroneous.
At the same time, the holotype I have studied is actually
Morphological notes. This species was described from a single female which I have revised, its body length being 10.2 mm and humeral width 2 mm.
Male (Fig. 149). Closely resembling the female. Body length 8.7–10.5 mm, humeral width 1.9–2.1 mm (in the females from Thailand I have studied, 9.4–11 and 1.9–2.15, respectively). In comparison with the female, antennae barely longer, as in Fig. 149 (cf. Figs 148, 150).
Distribution. Until now, this species has only been known from Laos [Gressitt, Rondon, 1970]. Based on the material studied, D. prominor is being recorded here from Thailand for the first time.
a female with a body length of 13 mm and a humeral width of 3 mm. It is this specimen that is shown in fig. 16d (p. 84) in the original description (I have properly remounted the holotype). I also received a photograph of the holotype from Dr. Nobuo Ohbayashi, which corresponds to the picture in the original description, but the image was horizontally mirrored.
Dymasius solodovnikovi Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Fig. 156, 168)
Material. Holotype, ♀ (cAM) (Fig. 156): N Thailand, Lamphun, Mae Tha, 20.04.2011 (local collector). Paratypes: 1♀ (cSM), NW Laos,
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_022.jpg)
Figs 149–154. Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864 and Zatrephus Pascoe, 1857, habitus, dorsal view.
149–150 – D. prominor Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (from Thailand); 151–153 – D. parvus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (152–153 – from Thailand); 154 – Z. jakli sp. n. 151, 154 – holotypes; 149, 151–152 – males; 150, 153–154 – females.
Рис. 149–154. Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864 и Zatrephus Pascoe, 1857, общий вид сверху.
149–150 – D. prominor Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (из Таиланда); 151–153 – D. parvus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (152–153 – из Таиланда); 154 – Z. jakli sp. n. 151, 154 – голотипы; 149, 151–152 – самцы; 150, 153–154 – самки.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_023.jpg)
Figs 155–160. Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864, habitus, dorsal view, females.
155 – D. niger Gressitt et Rondon, 1970; 156 – D. solodovnikovi sp. n.; 157 – D. barclayi sp. n.; 158 – D. makarovi Miroshnikov, 2017; 159– 160 – D. cuneatulus Holzschuh, 2005. 155–157 – holotypes; 158 – paratype.
Рис. 155–160. Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864, общий вид сверху, самки.
155 – D. niger Gressitt et Rondon, 1970; 156 – D. solodovnikovi sp. n.; 157 – D. barclayi sp. n.; 158 – D. makarovi Miroshnikov, 2017; 159– 160 – D. cuneatulus Holzschuh, 2005. 155–157 – голотипы; 158 – паратип.
Luang Namtha Prov., Muang Sing env., 21°08ʹ51ʺN / 101°10ʹ13ʺE, 750 m, 23.03–5.04.2010 (leg. S. Murzin); 1♀ (cSM), NW Laos, Luang Nam Tha Prov., 65 km NW of Luang Namtha, Nam Tha NPA, 1050 m, 8–15.04.2010 (leg. S. Murzin).
Diagnosis. Based on female characters, this new species is very similar to D. niger, but differs by the less strongly elongated antennomere 3, the length ratio of antennomere 1 to 3, the peculiar, less strongly developed, recumbent, light setation and the somewhat peculiar sculpture of the pronotum, as in Fig. 168, and the less strongly developed, recumbent, light setation of the head dorsally, as in Fig. 168 (cf. Fig. 167).
width 2.9–3.55 mm, thereby holotype largest. Coloration of integument predominantly combines red-brown and dark reddish brown tones; head dorsally almost entirely or partly, eyes, partly mandibles and mostly pronotum black.
Head without median groove between upper lobes of eyes; antennal tubercles well-expressed; eyes moderately convex; submentum with rough, partly coarse transverse folds; antennae longer than body, about reaching the apex of elytra by antennomere 9 or freely reaching beyond it by this antennomere; length ratio of antennomeres 1–11 (holotype taken as an example), 25 : 6 : 33 : 26 : 37 : 41 : 40 : 36 : 34 : 34 : 37; antennomere 1
devoid of a cicatrix (apical carina), with a heterogeneous, partly rough sculpture; antennomere 2 subequal in length and width; antennomere 3, 1.22–1.32 times as long as antennomere 1 (in holotype of D. niger, 1.47 times).
Pronotum barely longitudinal, 1.04–1.05 times as long as wide or subequal in length and width (in D. niger, pronotum 1.11 times as long as wide); base 1.06–1.25 times as wide as apex; with a sharp constriction both in front of base and near apex; on disc almost flat, with a heterogeneous, rough, cellular sculpture, obliterated both in front of base and near apex, partly with confluent cells, as well as with a wide, relatively short, shiny, median area in basal part behind the middle.
Scutellum triangular, with a poorly expressed puncturation.
Elytra predominantly nearly parallel-sided starting from base, 2.5–2.6 times as long as humeral width; with a small, dense, in places confluent puncturation; apical external angle widely rounded, sutural angle obtuse.
Prosternum mostly with irregular, mainly short, partly transverse, more or less rough folds; prosternal process without apical tubercle; mesosternal process between coxae more than twice as wide as prosternal one, without tubercle dorsally; metasternum and sternites with a small dense puncturation; metasternum with a distinct median groove; last (visible) sternite widely rounded at apex; last (visible) tergite truncate apically.
Legs relatively short; femora without longitudinal carina; metatarsomere 1 noticeably shorter than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent setation mainly greyish, relatively uniform on elytra and predominantly spotty on pronotum, as in Fig. 168; more or less long, erect, light setae mostly developed on pronotum and head.
Etymology. I am pleased to dedicate this new species to my colleague and friend, Dr. Alexey Yu. Solodovnikov, curator of the Coleoptera collection of the Natural History Museum of Denmark (University of Copenhagen), who constantly provides his great and versatile help to my research.
Dymasius barclayi Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Figs 157, 169)
Material. Holotype, ♀ (BMNH) (Fig. 157): Western Malaysia, “Perak:”, “Doherty”, “Fry Coll. 1905.100”, “35548”.
Diagnosis. Based on female characters, this new species seems to be especially similar to D. cuneatulus Holzschuh, 2005 and D. makarovi Miroshnikov, 2017, but differs clearly from both by the obviously longer antennae, as in Fig. 157, the more strongly flattened antennomere 1, the more strongly elongated at least antennomere 5, as in Fig. 157, the length ratio of antennomere 3 to 5, the almost entirely red-brown coloration of the integument, the posteriorly more sharply bounded tubercle of the mesosternal process. Besides this, D. barclayi sp. n. differs from the former species by the coloration of the dorsal setation which is more similar to that of D. makarovi, while from the latter species by the shape and sculpture of the pronotum (Fig. 169) which are more similar to those of D. cuneatulus (cf. Figs 158–160, 170–172).
5.8 mm. Coloration of integument mainly red-brown; eyes and partly mandibles black; folds of pronotum partly blackish (in males and females of D. cuneatulus and D. makarovi, at least head dorsally, pronotum, antennae, legs, partly venter black, thereby elytra of females of these species black-brown while in female of
D. cuneatulus sometimes black or black-brown as well).
Head with a coarse median fold partly between bases of antennae and partly between eyes, with a short median groove on vertex just behind eyes; antennal tubercles moderately developed; submentum with individual transverse folds and a heterogeneous, clear, partly rough, more or less dense puncturation; antennae longer than body, freely reaching beyond apex of elytra by antennomere 9 (in D. cuneatulus and D. makarovi, female antennae reaching beyond apex of elytra only by penultimate antennomere); length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 24 : 8 : 32 : 20 : 32 : 37 : 36 :
33 : 30 : 26 : 29; antennomere 1 devoid of a cicatrix (apical carina), relatively strongly flattened, with somewhat heterogeneous, more or less small, dense puncturation and coarse surface dorsally; antennomere 2 distinctly longitudinal; antennomere 3 subequal in length to 5th (in females of D. cuneatulus and D. makarovi, antennomere 3, 1.28–1.32 times as long as antennomere 5).
Pronotum barely transverse, 1.04 times as wide as long; base
1.22 times as wide as apex; with a sharper constriction near apex than in front of base; on disc weakly convex, with coarse and very coarse, transverse, partly fused folds, as in Fig. 169.
Scutellum rounded apically, with a very small distinct puncturation.
Elytra moderately narrowed towards apex, 2.7 times as long as humeral width; with both a rough, more or less regular and small dense puncturation; apical external angle very well-expressed, subrectangular, sutural angle with a very short denticle.
Prosternum with a very well-developed transverse groove in apical part, with coarse, irregular, more or less short folds behind it; prosternal process clearly broadened towards apex dorsally, with a clear apical tubercle; mesosternal process with a strong tubercle dorsally, between coxae clearly wider than prosternal process; mesosternum partly, metasternum and sternites with a clear, small, dense puncturation; metasternum and sternites, in addition, with individual rough punctures; metasternum with a sharply expressed median groove; last (visible) sternite barely rounded, almost truncate at apex; last (visible) tergite with a very poorly noticeable emargination apically.
Legs long; femora not claviform, without longitudinal carina; metatarsomere 1 slightly shorter than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent dense setation greyish, including on pronotum and elytra.
London, United Kingdom, who, over a number of years, has kindly provided his great assistance to my study of the museum material.
Dymasius makarovi Miroshnikov, 2017 (Figs 158, 170)
Dymasius makarovi Miroshnikov, 2017: 199. Type locality: Western Malaysia, Pahang, Cameron Highlands, Tanah Rata (according to the original description and the label of the holotype). Material. 1♂, holotype (cAM),W Malaysia, Pahang, Cameron Highlands, Tanah Rata, 04.2015 (local collector); 1♂, 1♀ (Fig. 158), paratypes, (cAM), same label as holotype; 1♂ (BMNH), W Malaysia, Perak, “Larut Hills [= Maxwell Hill], 3300–4300 ft., S.S. Flower. 99–248.” (upperside), “Ap. 1898” (underside), “Dymasius makarovi Miroshnikov,
2017 ♂ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”.
Distribution. Until now, this species has only been known from the type locality. The record quoted here indicates a wider distribution of D. makarovi in Western Malaysia.
Dymasius maculatus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970
Dymasius (Dymasius) maculatus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970:
Type locality: Laos, N of Vientiane, Phou Khao Khoay, 1040 m (according to the original description).
Material. 1♂, holotype (BM) (photograph); 1♀, paratype (allotype)
(BM) (photograph); 1♂ (BMNH), “Siam, Renong”, “Doherty”, “Fry Coll. 1905.100”, “62447”, “Dymasius maculatus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 ♂ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018 [preliminary determination]”.
Remarks. The male I have studied is attributed to this species only preliminarily, since it was compared to the holotype male and the allotype female of D. maculatus based only on their photographs.
Distribution. The species in question has hitherto been known only from Laos [Gressitt, Rondon, 1970]. Based on the new material, this species, albeit preliminarily,
is being recorded from Thailand for the first time.
Zatrephus Pascoe, 1857: 94; Thomson, 1864: 235; Pascoe,
1869: 523; Lacordaire, 1868: 267; Gemminger in Gemminger,
Harold, 1872: 2805; Aurivillius, 1912: 62; Gressitt, Rondon, 1970:
88; Catalogue..., 2010: 162; Heffern, 2013: 12; Miroshnikov, 2017:
208.
Type species: Zatrephus pannosus Pascoe, 1857, by subsequent designation [Gressitt, Rondon, 1970].
Remarks. A review of this genus was published recently, in which seven species were considered, including one new [Miroshnikov, 2017]. Two females from Java were also discussed in that paper, suggesting they were very likely to belong to a new form. In preparing this review, I have postponed its description in the hope to find a corresponding male in any collections. However, until now this has not happened. Only one of the females from Java is currently available to me, on the basis of which the following new species is described.
Zatrephus jakli Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Fig. 154)
Zatrephus sp.: Miroshnikov, 2017: 208, figs 266, 286 (Java).
Material. Holotype, ♀ (cLD) (Fig. 154): Indonesia, E Java, Meru Betiri National Park, Sukamade, 8°15ʹS / 113°30ʹE, 0–200 m, 02–03.1996 (leg. S. Jákl), “Zatrephus pannosus Pasc. det. L. Dembický 2000”.
Diagnosis. Based on female characters, this new species seems to be especially similar to Z. pannosus Pascoe, 1857, but differs clearly by the structure of the pronotum, in particular, the more obliterated peculiar sculpture and the more strongly developed, recumbent, light setation, thereby forming no contrasting, prominent, lateral spot on each side near the apex; the absence of a hairless shiny spot in the apical quarter of each elytron; the less strongly elongated last (visible) sternite; the recumbent light setation of the scutellum more widely separated by a median bare strip; the somewhat more spotty recumbent setation of the elytra, metasternum, sternites, femora, and tibiae (in contrast to the vast majority of specimens of Z. pannosus I have studied); the less strongly developed recumbent setation of the submentum restricted mainly to its middle third; and the smaller body size. Zatrephus jakli sp. n. differs from the Javan Z. javanicus Fischer, 1936 by almost all features making it distinguished from
Z. pannosus, at least so from the male, because the female
Z. javanicus still remains unknown to me (cf. Miroshnikov [2017: 201 (figs 263–265), 205 (figs 275–277)]).
6 mm. Eyes, almost entirely head dorsally and pronotum, partly mandibles black; remaining parts combines dark red-brown and red-brown tones.
Head with a very deep median groove between upper lobes of eyes, partly, and on vertex; antennal tubercles poorly developed; genae moderately short; eyes weakly convex; gula with gentle transverse wrinkles; neck predominantly with rough transverse folds; antennae short, barely extending beyond middle of elytra; length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 19 : 5 : 13 : 11 : 12 : 14 : 16 : 15 :
14 : 13 : 16; antennomere 1 with a moderately rough very dense puncturation; antennomere 2 clearly transverse; antennomeres 3–5 inflated, as in Fig. 154; antennomeres 6–10 moderately serrate.
Pronotum distinctly transverse, 1.08 times as wide as long; base 1.15 times as wide as apex; with a sharper constriction near apex than in front of base; on disc almost flat, predominantly with a rough sculpture clearly obliterated in middle area and there with neither transverse nor longitudinal folds sharply expressed (in Z. pannosus and Z. javanicus, pronotum in middle area with as very coarse, sharply expressed, differently oriented folds as in adjacent areas).
Scutellum triangular, shortly truncate at the very base.
Elytra predominantly nearly parallel-sided starting from base, 2.45 times as long as humeral width; lateral to scutellum with a very clear tubercle at the very base; with a heterogeneous, more or less small, partly very small puncturation, behind the middle partly with larger punctures; apical external angle obtuse, sutural angle drawn into a clear, but small tooth, thereby both angles more or less strongly masked under a dense setation.
Prosternum with a well-expressed transverse groove in front of middle, with a transverse, moderately wide, roughly sculptured elevation before it; prosternal process with a strong apical tubercle; mesosternal process without tubercle dorsally, between coxae significantly wider than prosternal process; mesosternum partly, metasternum and sternites with a small dense puncturation; metasternum with a weakly expressed median groove; last (visible) sternite unclear rounded, almost truncate at apex, last (visible) tergite with a poorly developed emargination apically.
Legs relatively short; metatarsomere 1 very clearly shorter than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent dense setation predominantly clearly spotted, especially so on elytra and venter, combines red/reddish and
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_024.jpg)
Figs 161–172. Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864.
161, 163, 165 – D. strigosus J. Thomson, 1864; 162, 164, 166 – D. macilentus (Pascoe, 1859); 167 – D. niger Gressitt et Rondon, 1970; 168 –
D. solodovnikovi sp. n.; 169 – D. barclayi sp. n.; 170 – D. makarovi Miroshnikov, 2017, paratype; 171–172 – D. cuneatulus Holzschuh, 2005. 162, 164, 166–169 – holotypes; 161–162 – apical part of tegmen, ventral view; 163–164 – apical part of penis, ventral view; 165–166 – apical part of tergite 8, dorsal view; 167–168 – head, dorsal view, and pronotum; 169–172 – pronotum.
Рис. 161–172. Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864.
161, 163, 165 – D. strigosus J. Thomson, 1864; 162, 164, 166 – D. macilentus (Pascoe, 1859); 167 – D. niger Gressitt et Rondon, 1970; 168 –
D. solodovnikovi sp. n.; 169 – D. barclayi sp. n.; 170 – D. makarovi Miroshnikov, 2017, паратип; 171–172 – D. cuneatulus Holzschuh, 2005. 162, 164, 166–169 – голотипы; 161–162 – вершинная часть тегмена снизу; 163–164 – вершинная часть пениса снизу; 165–166 – вершинная часть 8-го тергита сверху; 167–168 – голова сверху и переднеспинка; 169–172 – переднеспинка.
white/whitish tones; setation in apical part of elytra partly rarefied or missing, as a result forming a relatively wide and dark fascia; red setae prevailing or strongly dominating mainly on head dorsally and basal antennomeres, whereas white setae prevailing at least on elytra, as in Fig. 154; more or less long, erect, thin setae mainly developed on pronotum and head.
Etymology. I am pleased to dedicate this new species to Mr. Stanislav Jákl (Praha, Czech Republic), who collected the holotype of this new species, as well as many other little-known or rare Oriental cerambycids.
Diorthus Gahan, 1891: 27 (Pachydissus subgen., “section”); Gahan, 1906: 132; Plavilstshikov, 1931: 81; Gressitt, Rondon, 1970:
70; Adlbauer, 2006: 62; Catalogue..., 2010: 160; Nga et al., 2014:
433; Kariyanna et al., 2017: 30; Miroshnikov, 2017: 223.
Diorthrus (misspelling): Aurivillius, 1912: 56.
Tapinolachnus auct. (non J. Thomson, 1865): Özdikmen, Turgut, 2009: 302 (part.).
Type species: Hammaticherus simplex White, 1853 = Cerambyx cinereus Fabricius, 1793, by subsequent designation [Gahan, 1906].
Remarks. This genus, without any explanation, was synonymized by some modern authors [Özdikmen, Turgut, 2009] with the genus Tapinolachnus J. Thomson, 1865. However, other researchers [Weigel et al., 2013; The first Web-site..., 2018] have found this in no way justified. I also consider this synonymy to be completely erroneous.
Diorthus differs clearly from Tapinolachnus by the structure of the antennae, including the presence of a cicatrix on antennomere 1, the length ratio of the basal antennomeres, the sculpture of antennomeres 3–5 and the inflated male antennomeres 3 and 4; the structure of the elytra, in particular, a sharp, at least mostly clearly larger puncturation and a very distinctly coarser, dense, recumbent setation, and some other features.
Diorthus cinereus (Fabricius, 1793) (Figs 173, 174, 184, 186, 189, 192, 227)
Cerambyx cinereus Fabricius, 1793: 265. Type locality: India, “Tranquebariae” (according to the original description). Fabricius, 1801: 281.
Diorthus cinereus: Aurivillius, 1912: 56; Plavilstshikov,
1931: 81; Hua, 1984: 36 (“Diorthrus”, misspelling); Adlbauer, 2006:
62; Makihara et al., 2008: 100; Catalogue..., 2010: 160; Nga et al.,
2014: 433; Kariyanna et al., 2017: 30; Kariyanna et al., 2018: 165. Diorthus (Diorthus) cinereus: Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 71. Cerambyx holosericeus Olivier, 1795: 14 (No. 67), pl. 17,
fig. 127 (Indes orientales).
Hammaticherus simplex White, 1853: 130 (W. Africa).
Pachydissus (Diorthus) simplex: Gahan, 1891: 31; 1894: 10.
Diorthus simplex: Gahan, 1906: 133.
Cerambyx vernicosus Pascoe, 1859: 19 (Ceylon).
Pachydissus inclemens J. Thomson, 1865b: 576 (India); Thomson, 1878: 7.
Neocerambyx sordidus Pascoe, 1888: 491 (Laos).
Material. 1♂, type specimen (? holotype by monotypy) (ZMUK) (photograph); 1♀, holotype (by monotypy) of Diorthus simplex (White, 1853) (BMNH) (Fig. 173), “W. Afr[ica].” (upperside), “48/88” (underside), “Pachydissus (Hammaticherus) simplex White, Type”, “Type”, “Hammaticherus n. sp. near H. sericeus”, “Hammaticherus simplex n. sp.,
W. Africa” (Fig. 227); 1♀ (NHMD), Sri Lanka, Southern Province, Hambantota, 25–29.12.1994, ex larva from Tamarindus indica, 10.1995
(leg. O. Mehl), “Diorthus cinereus (Fab.), Ole Mehl det.”; 1♂ (NHMD), Sri Lanka, Southern Province, Hambantota, 26–30.06.2003, ex larva from Prosopis juliflora, 17.04.2004 (leg. O. Mehl), “Diorthus cinereus (Fab.), Ole Mehl det.”; 1♂, 1♀ (NHMD), Sri Lanka, Western Province, Henarathgoda Bot.Gar., 18.07.2003, 07.2004 (leg. O. Mehl), “Diorthus cinereus (Fab.), Ole Mehl det. 2005”; 1♀ (cAM), Mautitius, Triolet env., 2016 (leg. N. Kholiushkina), “Diorthus cinereus (Fabricius, 1793)
♀ det. A. Miroshnikov 2017”; 1♀ (BMNH), “Madras, India”, “G. Briant Coll. 1919–147”; 1♂, 1♀ (cSM), SE India, Madras env., Manapakkam, 20.04.1997 (leg S. Saluk), “Diorthus cinereus (Fabricius, 1793) [♂ or ♀, respectively] det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”; 1♂ (BMNH), “Tharrawaddy, Burma”, “Pachydissus simplex White”; 1♂ (BMNH), Myanmar, “Paungdé”, “Pachydissus simplex White”; 1♂ (ZMMU), “Siam mer., Sala-pa-[illegible further on], Staudinger”, “Diorthus cinereus (F.), N. Plavilstshikov det.”; 1♀ (NHMD), NE Laos, Hua Phan Prov., Ban Saleui, Phou Pan Mt., 20°12ʹN / 104°01ʹE, 27.06.2013 (leg. C. Holzschuh), “Diorthus cinereus (Fab.), Ole Mehl det. 2014”; 1♂ (cAM), Vietnam, Cao Bang Prov., Phja-Den env., 950 m, 30.04–5.05.2012 (leg. Lingafelter, Jendek, Pham), “Diorthus cinereus (Fabricius, 1793) ♂ det. A. Miroshnikov 2017”; 1♂ (BMNH), “Hamaticherus sericeus mihi h. in ins. Java”, “Bowr. Chevr. 63–47*”, “♂”; 1♂ (BMNH), “Java”, “Fry Coll. 1905–100”, “ex Mus. Laferte”; 1♂ (BMNH), “Senegal”, “Fry Coll. 1905–100”, “ex Mus. Laferte”; 1♀ (BMNH), “Hamaticherus sericeus Dej., Java”, “1047”, a red rectangle 9 × 6 mm (without inscription).
Morphological notes. Body length 14–32 mm [Gressitt, Rondon, 1970]; in the specimens I have studied the body length was 21.3–30 mm, the humeral width between 6.2–8.5 mm (holotype of Diorthus simplex:
23.3 mm and 6.9 mm, respectively).
Remarks. A picture of the type male specimen of Cerambyx cinereus Fabricius, 1793 is available on the website of NHMD [http://www.daim.snm.ku.dk/search-in- types].
Emirates, Yemen, southern Iran), South Asia, Indochina, Indonesia (Java).
Diorthus pellitulus Holzschuh, 1984 (Fig. 175)
Diorthus pellitulus Holzschuh, 1984: 144. Type locality: Nepal, Monari, Mitte Mai (according to the original description). Weigel, 2006: 498.
Material. 1♀, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Fig. 175).
Diorthus intricarius Holzschuh, 1984 (Fig. 176)
Diorthus intricarius Holzschuh, 1984: 145. Type locality: Pakistan, Swat, Madyan, “71°90ʹL / 35°70ʹB”, 1400 m (according to the original description).
Material. 1♀, holotype (cCH) (photograph; Fig. 176).
Diorthus kabakovi Miroshnikov, sp. n.
(Figs 177, 188, 191)
Diorthus sp.: Miroshnikov, 2017: 185, fig. 147 (Afghanistan).
Material. Holotype, ♂ (ZIN) (Fig. 177): Afghanistan, Nurestan [= Nuristan], S Čapa Dara [= Capa Dara], 1800 m, 14.06.1971 (leg. O.N. Kabakov), “Derolus”.
Diagnosis. This new species seems to be especially similar to D. intricarius, but differs clearly by the darker general coloration; the more obliterated sculpture of the pronotum that more strongly masks its recumbent light setation, as in Fig. 177; the somewhat more strongly elongated scutellum; the seemingly longer head behind the eyes and, accordingly, the longer temples, as in Fig. 177. Diorthus kabakovi sp. n. can also be compared to D. pellitulus, but differs by some features like from the previous species, including the darker general coloration, the shape of the scutellum, the longer head behind the eyes, as well as by the somewhat different shape of the pronotum (albeit compared in the holotypes belonging to the opposite sex), the pattern of its recumbent setation and seemingly certain features of its sculpture (cf. Figs 175, 176).
7.7 mm. Coloration of integument mainly dark red-brown, apical antennomeres lightest; eyes and mandibles black.
Head with a well-expressed median groove between upper lobes of eyes; antennal tubercles moderately developed; temples rather long, almost twice as long as genae; antennae nearly reaching the apex of elytra; length ratio of antennomeres 1–11, 29 : 6 : 26 : 22 : 24 : 26 : 27 : 26 : 25 : 24 : 41 (length ratio of antennomeres 4 and 5 given taking into account their peculiarly distinguished bases); antennomere 1 with a sharp expressed cicatrix (apical carina), with a heterogeneous, rough, irregular sculpture and, in addition, with small dense punctures; antennomere 2 very clearly transverse; basal part of antennomeres 3–5, predominantly dorsally, with a coarse and rough puncturation; bases of antennomeres 4 and 5 with a wide fragment of a scabrous dull surface, sharply different from adjacent parts of shiny surface of these antennomeres, and, in addition, clearly delimited from this surface by a sharp constriction; last antennomere with a well-expressed appendage.
Pronotum very clearly transverse, 1.22 times as wide as long; base 1.17 times as wide as apex; with a well-expressed constriction both in front of base and near apex; on disc weakly convex, only with rough irregular folds and, in addition, with a clear, naked, strongly shiny, median area in apical one-quarter.
Scutellum triangular, sharpened apically, with a very small, but clear, very dense puncturation.
Elytra predominantly nearly parallel-sided starting from base, 2.25 times as long as humeral width; with a somewhat heterogeneous, more or less small, but sharp, very dense puncturation obliterated towards apex; apical external angle obtuse, sutural angle with a small denticle.
Prosternum in apical part with rough transverse folds; prosternal process moderately broad; mesosternal process between coxae about 1.3 times as wide as prosternal process, without tubercle dorsally; metasternum and sternites with a small dense puncturation; metasternum with a sharply expressed median groove; last (visible) sternite with a clear impression, truncate at apex; last (visible) tergite with a well-exspressed emargination apically.
Legs moderately long; all femora with a clear carina along each side; metatarsomere 1 noticeably shorter than metatarsomeres 2 and 3 combined.
Recumbent dense setation of dorsum, except for scutellum, consisting predominantly of grey and less numerous reddish setae, those of remaining parts mainly grey, those of metasternum, sternites, femora and tibiae speckled; more or less long, erect, light setae mainly developed on pronotum and head.
Diorthus sericeus Gardner, 1939 (Figs 178, 179, 230, 231)
Diorthus sericeus Gardner, 1939: 2. Type locality: “South Mangalore, 400 m, Madras, India” (according to the label of the lectotype). Kariyanna et al., 2017: 30.
Material. 1♂, lectotype, here designated (BMNH) (Fig. 178), India,
“S. Mangalore, 400 [m], Madras, J.C.M. Gardner, 30.IV.1931” (upperside), “No. 86.M.” (underside), “Ex Pterocarpus marsupium”, “R.R.D. 119,
B.C.R. 126, Cage 779”, “Diorthus sericeus J.C.M. Gardner sp. n., Type”, “Type”, “Brit. Mus. 1939–414”, “NHMUK 011220588” (Fig. 231), “Lectotypus
♂ Diorthus sericeus Gardner, 1939, A. Miroshnikov des., 2018”; 1♀, paralectotype (BMNH) (Fig. 179), India, “Sappal, 1700 [m], Palghat, Madras, J.C.M. Gardner, 2.V.1931” (upperside), “No. M.74” (underside), “Ex Acacia sp.”, “R.R.D. 119, B.C.R. 154, Cage 768”, “Diorthus sericeus
J.C.M. Gardner sp. n., Allotype”, “Type”, “Brit. Mus. 1939–414”, “NHMUK 011220589” (Fig. 230), “Paralectotypus ♀ Diorthus sericeus Gardner, 1939,
A. Miroshnikov des., 2018”.
Morphological notes. Body length 17–20 mm [Gardner, 1939], thereby the body length of the lectotype and female paralectotype (both in BMNH) is 19.9 or
20.5 mm, the humeral width is 5.9 or 6.05 mm, respectively.
Remarks. In the original description, Gardner [1939: 2] noted the following: “Two males and three females reared from Pterocarpus marsupium and Acacia sp., Palghat, Madras (J.C.M. Gardner). Type (male) and allotype (female) in British Museum; paratypes in Forest Research Institute ”. However, another locality is marked on the label of the type, namely, “S[outh]. Mangalore, Madras”. In this regard, it seems to me necessary to designate the lectotype and to clarify the type locality.
This species is morphologically not a quite characteristic representative of the genus. At least it does not have a longitudinal carina on the femora, as well as, unlike other species, the structural features of the bases of male antennomeres 4 and 5 (described below, see Diagnosis of the genus Lamellocerambyx) are poorly expressed.
Diorthus vagus (Gahan, 1891) (Figs 181, 182, 228, 229)
Pachydissus (Diorthus) vagus Gahan, 1891: 32. Type locality: “Senegal ?” (according to the original description and the label of the holotype). Aurivillius, 1912: 56.
Diorthus vagus: Adlbauer, 2006: 62.
Material. 1♂, holotype, by monotypy (BMNH) (Fig. 181), “N. sp. Senegal?”, “Bowr. Chevr. 63–47*”, “Pachydissus vagus Gahan ♂, Type”, “Type” (Fig. 228); 1♀ (BMNH) (Fig. 182), “Nova Holland” (wrong locality), “Fry Coll. 1905.100”, “Ex Mus. Parry”, “Pachydissus vagus Gahan ♀”, “43005” (Fig. 229).
Remarks. Gahan’s comments [1891: 32] to the original description must be mentioned here: “This species has a strong resemblance and an evident affinity to P. simplex (White), and its habitat might have thrown some light upon the distribution of the latter. Unfortunately, however, of the two specimens one (the male type) is ticketed ‘Senegal ?,’ the other (a female, in Mr. Fryʼs collection) is ticketed ‘Nov. Holland.’ The latter locality can scarcely be correct”. In addition, as regards the female, Adlbauer [2006: 62–63] noted that it “...kam 1871 in die Fry Collection (ex Mus. Parry, Australien) und dann ins BMNH. Das Determinationsetikett „Pachydissus vagus ♀ Gahan“ wurde offenbar später hinzugefügt. (S. Shute, in litteris)”.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_025.jpg)
Figs 173–177. Diorthus Gahan, 1891, habitus, dorsal view.
173–174 – D. cinereus (Fabricius, 1793) (173 – holotype of Diorthus simplex (White, 1853)); 175 – D. pellitulus Holzschuh, 1984; 176 – D. intricarius
Holzschuh, 1984; 177 – D. kabakovi sp. n. 173, 175–177 – holotypes; 173, 175 – 176 – females; 174, 177 – males.
Рис. 173–177. Diorthus Gahan, 1891, общий вид сверху.
173–174 – D. cinereus (Fabricius, 1793) (173 – holotype of Diorthus simplex (White, 1853)); 175 – D. pellitulus Holzschuh, 1984; 176 – D. intricarius
Holzschuh, 1984; 177 – D. kabakovi sp. n. 173, 175–177 – голотипы; 173, 175 – 176 – самки; 174, 177 – самцы.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_026.jpg)
Figs 178–183. Diorthus Gahan, 1891 and Lamellocerambyx Pic, 1923, stat. rest., habitus, dorsal view.
178–179 – D. sericeus Gardner, 1939; 181–182 – D. vagus (Gahan, 1891); 180, 183 – L. laosensis Pic, 1923, comb. rest. 178 – lectotype; 179 –
paralectotype; 181, 183 – holotypes; 178, 180–181 – males; 179, 182–183 – females.
Рис. 178–183. Diorthus Gahan, 1891 и Lamellocerambyx Pic, 1923, stat. rest., общий вид сверху.
178–179 – D. sericeus Gardner, 1939; 181–182 – D. vagus (Gahan, 1891); 180, 183– L. laosensis Pic, 1923, comb. rest. 178 – лектотип; 179 –
паралектотип; 181, 183 – голотипы; 178, 180–181 – самцы; 179, 182–183 – самки.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_027.jpg)
Figs 184–193. Diorthus Gahan, 1891 and Lamellocerambyx Pic, 1923, stat. rest., males.
184, 186, 189, 192 – D. cinereus (Fabricius, 1793); 185, 187, 190, 193 – L. laosensis Pic, 1923, comb. rest.; 188, 191 – D. kabakovi sp. n., holotype. 184– 185 – head, dorsal view; 186–187 – right eye; 188–190 – right antennomeres 3–4 and basal part of antennomere 5; 191–193 – base of right antennomere 4.
Рис. 184–193. Diorthus Gahan, 1891 и Lamellocerambyx Pic, 1923, stat. rest., самцы.
184, 186, 189, 192 – D. cinereus (Fabricius, 1793); 185, 187, 190, 193 – L. laosensis Pic, 1923, comb. rest.; 188, 191 – D. kabakovi sp. n., голотип. 184–185 – голова сверху; 186–187 – правый глаз; 188–190 – правые 3–4-й членики усиков и основная часть 5-го членика; 191–193 – основание правого 4-го членика усиков.
Diorthus sp.
Remarks. The two males from southern Iran referred to as Diorthus cinereus [Longhorn beetles..., http://www. cerambyx.uochb.cz/] actually belong to another, probably still undescribed species. I have studied quite extensive material of D. cinereus from various regions and none of the males has such short antennae and many antennomeres so strongly shortened as in both southern Iranian males. The male antennae of D. cinereus are much longer than the body, reaching beyond the apex of the elytra usually by antennomere 7, while many antennomeres are strongly elongated, as in Fig. 174.
Lamellocerambyx Pic, 1923a: 8; Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 71 (Diorthus subgen.); Weigel et al., 2013: 52 (Diorthus subgen.).
Type species: Lamellocerambyx laosensis Pic, 1923, by monotypy.
Diagnosis. This genus which some researchers consider as a subgenus of the genus Diorthus differs clearly from it by the structure of the eyes; the pattern of elytral setation; the structure of the antennae, including the sculpture of male antennomeres 4 and 5 or 3–5; the somewhat more slender body (at least from almost all representatives of Diorthus); as well as by some other traits indicated below.
When detailing the structure of Lamellocerambyx stat. rest., the following features must be noted as being characteristic of this genus: eyes almost completely divided into two lobes, both connected to each other by a relatively long and very narrow bridge entirely devoid of ocelli, as in Fig. 187, upper lobe thereby being disposed obliquely vertically, as in Fig. 185 (whereas in Diorthus, albeit eyes also almost completely divided into two lobes, a connecting bridge very short in narrowest place, uniformly widening in both directions from this place and often showing here one or more ocelli, as in Fig. 186, upper lobe thereby being disposed clearly more horizontally, at an angle of about 45 degrees, as in Fig. 184); male antennae more than 2 times longer than body (whereas in Diorthus, male antennae if long, then only less than 2 times longer than body, sometimes relatively short, only about reaching the apex of elytra or insignificantly surpassing it); antennomere 1, like in Diorthus, with a more or less coarse sculpture, but with a clearly more obliquely disposed cicatrix, as in Fig. 185 (cf. Fig. 184); antennomere 2 subequal in length and width, but not transverse, as in Fig. 185 (whereas in Diorthus, antennomere 2 distinctly or very clearly transverse – Fig. 184); in male, bases of antennomeres 4 and 5 usual in structure, at least dorsally sculpture rather similar to adjacent parts of these segments and, in addition, not separated from them by any constriction, as in Figs 190, 193, antennomeres 3–5 without coarse sculpture (while in known males of almost all species of Diorthus, bases of antennomeres 4 and 5 with a more or less wide fragment of a scabrous dull surface, sharply different from adjacent parts of shiny surface of these antennomeres, and, in addition, usually or at least often delimited from this surface by a distinct or sharp
constriction, as in Figs 188, 189, 191, 192; antennomeres 3–5 of male sometimes with a heterogeneous, partly or mostly rough and coarse sculpture); pronotum with coarse, mostly transverse folds, can only be with a median, longitudinal, more or less short, narrow fold (while in a number of Diorthus species, pronotum with less coarse and mostly or predominantly irregular folds); elytra with a recumbent setation, appearing velvety and forming, at least partly, distinct longitudinal stripes, as in Figs 180, 183 (while in Diorthus, setation of elytra neither forming clear longitudinal stripes nor appearing velvety, as in Figs 173– 177, 178, 179, 181, 182); legs moderately long; at least meso- and metafemora each without carina, only profemora ventrally sometimes with a more or less noticeable, gentle carina (while in almost all species of Diorthus, femora usually with a clear, often sharp, sometimes less distinct carina along each side).
Lamellocerambyx laosensis Pic, 1923, comb. rest.
(Figs 180, 183, 185, 187, 190, 193, 226)
Lamellocerambyx laosensis Pic, 1923a: 8. Type locality: Laos, “Nam Mia” (according to the original description and the label of the holotype).
Diorthus (Lamellocerambyx) laosensis: Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 71; Weigel et al., 2013: 52 (Laos; China, Yunnan).
Diorthus laosensis: Weigel et al., 2013: 72, 161, pl. 6, figs c, d.
Material. 1♀, holotype, by monotypy (MNHN) (photograph; Fig. 183), “Laos, Nam Mia, le 17.IV.1918, R. Vitalis de Salvaza”, “Lamellocerambyx n. g. laosensis n. sp.”, “Type”, “Museum Paris, Coll.
M. Pic”, “Holotype” (Fig. 226); 1♂ (cAM), Laos, Xaignabouri City, 16–18.04.2005 (unknown collector), “Lamellocerambyx laosensis Pic, 1923 ♂ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”; 1♂ (Fig. 180), 1♀ (cSM), NW Laos, Luang Namtha Prov., Muang Sing env., 21°08ʹ51ʺN / 101°10ʹ13ʺE, 750 m, 26.03–5.04.2010 (leg. S. Murzin), “Lamellocerambyx laosensis Pic, 1923 [♂ or ♀, respectively] det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”; 1♂, 1♀ (cSM), same locality, 1–10.04.2011 (leg. S. Murzin), “Lamellocerambyx laosensis Pic, 1923 [♂ or ♀, respectively] det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”; 1♂ (cLD), “Laos”, “Lamellocerambyx laosensis Pic, 1923 ♂ det. A. Miroshnikov 2018”; 1♂ (NHMD), NE Laos, Hua Phan Prov., Ban Saleui, Phou Pan Mt., 20°12ʹN / 104°01ʹE, 27.06.2013 (leg. C. Holzschuh), “Diorthus (Lamellocerambyx) laosensis (Pic, 1923), Ole Mehl det. 2014”.
26.2 mm, the humeral width between 5.7–7 mm.
Homalolachnus J. Thomson, 1864: 232 (nom. praeocc., non LaFerté-Sénectère, 1851, Carabidae); Gemminger in Gemminger, Harold, 1872: 2804.
Tapinolachnus J. Thomson, 1865a: 445; Aurivillius, 1912: 61.
Mimoderolus (Aeolesthes subgen.) Pic, 1933: 11, syn. n. (non syn. pro Derolus Gahan, 1891: Vitali et al., 2017).
Pachydissus auct. (non Newman, 1838): Fisher, 1940: 202 (part.).
Derolus auct. (non Gahan, 1891): Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 74 (part.); Vitali et al., 2017: 59 (part.).
Type species: Homalolachnus lacordairei J. Thomson, 1864.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_028.jpg)
Figs 194–200. Tapinolachnus J. Thomson, 1865, habitus, dorsal view, and pronotum.
194, 197 – T. lacordairei (J. Thomson, 1864), syntypes (photographs by Azadeh Taghavian); 195–196, 198–200 – T. ?lacordairei (J. Thomson, 1864) (195, 200 – lectotype of Tapinolachnus xyliae (Fisher, 1940), comb. n.). 194–196, 199–200 – males; 197–198 – females.
Рис. 194–200. Tapinolachnus J. Thomson, 1865, общий вид сверху и переднеспинка.
194, 197 – T. lacordairei (J. Thomson, 1864), синтипы (фотографии А. Тагвьян); 195–196, 198–200 – T. ?lacordairei (J. Thomson, 1864) (195, 200 – лектотип Tapinolachnus xyliae (Fisher, 1940), comb. n.). 194–196, 199–200 – самцы; 197–198 – самки.
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_029.jpg)
Figs 201–203. Derolydnus Hüdepohl, 1989 and Derolus Gahan, 1891, habitus, dorsal view, males.
201 – Derolydnus bisulcatus (Aurivillius, 1914) (photograph by Luboš Dembický); 202 – Derolus glauciapicalis Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (from Thailand); 203 – D. argentesignatus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (from Thailand).
Рис. 201–203. Derolydnus Hüdepohl, 1989 и Derolus Gahan, 1891, общий вид сверху, самцы.
201 – Derolydnus bisulcatus (Aurivillius, 1914) (фотография Л. Дембицкого); 202 – Derolus glauciapicalis Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (из Таиланда); 203 – D. argentesignatus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (из Таиланда).
Tapinolachnus lacordairei (J. Thomson, 1864) (Figs 194, 197, 232, 233)
Homalolachnus lacordairei J. Thomson, 1864: 232. Type locality: “Malasia” (according to the original description and the labels of the syntypes). Gemminger in Gemminger, Harold, 1872: 2804.
Tapinolachnus [lacordairei]: Thomson, 1865a: 445.
Tapinolachnus lacordairei: Lacordaire, 1868: 265 (“Malaisie”);
Thomson, 1878: 7; Aurivillius, 1912: 61 (“Malay. Archipel”) .
Aeolesthes (Mimoderolus) uniformis Pic, 1933: 11 (indicated here as a synonym of T. lacordairei only preliminarily); Vitali et al., 2017: 59 (as Derolus).
Pachydissus xyliae Fisher, 1940: 202 (indicated here as a synonym of T. lacordairei only preliminarily); Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 74 (as Derolus); Vitali et al., 2017: 59 (syn. pro Derolus uniformis).
Material. 1♂, syntype (MNHN) (photographs; Fig. 194),
“Tapinolachnus Thoms. S.C. 445. Homalolachnus Thoms. S.C. 232. nom. pr.”, “lacordairei Thoms. 232. Type Malas.”, “Th. / Type”, “Tapinolachnus lacordairei”, “Museum Paris, Coll. J. Thomson 1952” (Fig. 232); 1♀, syntype (MNHN) (photographs; Fig. 197), “Museum Paris, Coll. J. Thomson 1952”, “Paratype” (Fig. 233).
Body length and humeral width of male and female syntypes 29.3 or 27.7 mm and 7.6 or 7.5 mm, respectively (Mrs. Azadeh Taghavian, personal communication).
Additional material. The following specimens I have studied are
provisionally attributed to Tapinolachnus lacordairei: 1♂ (IRSN), “Malacca”, “2636”; 2♂ (IRSN), “Tonkin, de Lang-Son Province, Than-Moi”; 1♀ (BMNH) (Fig. 198), “Bangkok, 11.3.[19]30, Ariant” (handwritten), “Siam. 1930.
W.R.S. Ladell”, “Press. by Com. Inst. Ent. B.M. 1948–165”, “Tapinolachnus lacordairei Thoms., D.J. Atkinson det. 1948”; 1♂ (BMNH) (Figs 196, 199), Vietnam, 8°43ʹN / 106°36ʹE, “Poulo Condor”, “Sharp Coll. 1905–313.”, “269”; 1♀ (BMNH), Western Malaysia, “Penang (Lamb.) Pascoe Coll.”, “Neocerambyx”; 1♀ (BMNH), “Java.”, “Bowring, 63–47*”, “7.”, “Tapinolachnus lacordairei Thoms.” (upperside), “from description”(underside); 1♀ (BMNH), Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia, “Sumbava”, “Sharp Coll. 1905– 313.”; 1♂ (BMNH), Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia, “Flores.” “Fry Coll. 1905.100.”, “56980”, “Tapinolachnus lacordairei Thoms.”; 1♂, lectotype of Aeolesthes (Mimoderolus) uniformis Pic, 1933 (MNHN) (photographs),
“Hoo-Binh, Tonkin”, “Aeolesthes sg. Mimoderolus uniformis n. sp.”, “Type”, “Museum Paris, Coll. M. Pic”, “Holotype” (incorrect label); 2♂ (cAM), Laos, Wapikhamthong Province, “Khong Sédone, 31.03.[19]65, 18.04. [19]65”; 1♂, lectotype of Pachydissus xyliae Fisher, 1940, here designated (BMNH) (Figs 195, 200), body length 32.3 mm, humeral width 9.5 mm, Myanmar, “Dawebauk Res., Ataran, R. Hla Ogh Coll. 18.X.1937”, “ex Xylia dolabriformis”, “R.R.S. 1073, B.C.R. 712”, “Cage 105, D.S.R. 382”, “Pachydissus
xyliae Fisher”, “Type”, “Brit. Mus. 1946–[?78]”, “I.R. 3080”, “330” (Fig. 234), “Lectotypus ♂ Pachydissus xyliae Fisher, 1940, A. Miroshnikov des., 2018”.
Remarks. When studying the above specimens, I could not find any clear morphological differences between them. On this basis, I suppose that Tapinolachnus lacordairei (J. Thomson, 1864) = Tapinolachnus uniformis (Pic, 1933), comb. n. = Tapinolachnus xyliae (Fisher, 1940), comb. n. However, given that so far I have been able to revise the syntypes of the former two taxa from photographs alone, this synonymy is established here only provisionally. In addition, it is noteworthy that Vitali et al. [2017] have recently synonymized T. uniformis comb. n. and T. xyliae comb. n., although the type specimens of the latter species is not mentioned in the material they studied. It seems also important that both a male and a female with body lengths of 30–32 mm are indicated in the original description of Aeolesthes (Mimoderolus) uniformis [Pic, 1933: 11], i.e., Pic had in mind at least two specimens which must be considered as syntypes. At the same time, a male kept at MNHN, besides Pic’s designation “Type”, carries a modern label “Holotype”. It is in this quality (i.e. the holotype) that Vitali et al. [2017] referred to that type specimen. I do not know yet if the female mentioned in Pic’s original description is still kept at MNHN or any other collection, nor is it clear if he somehow designated it. Nevertheless, taking into account the above, the male type cannot be considered as the holotype (by monotypy), but is
to be designated as the lectotype.
Notes on the type locality. In the original description, Thomson [1864: 232] referred to this species as coming from “Malasia”, this also being noted (only in an abbreviated form) on the label of one of the syntypes (male) I have examined. In the same monograph, Thomson described many other species from “Malasia”. In later publications by various authors, including modern ones, the distributions of the above taxa of Thomson are given in different ways. So far some of them have been recorded only from the continental part of Southeast Asia (mainly Indochina) or, in addition, from the mainland South Asia and/or southern China. Some other species are known only in Borneo or, in addition, in Sumatra and/or other islands of the region, whereas some further taxa are characterized by wider distributions, being found in continental and/ or insular parts of these areas. As regards the above work by Thomson [1864], it is also noteworthy that, in addition to some of his new species, he referred to “Malasia” some species that Pascoe [1857] had described from “Borneo” and/or “Malacca”. At the same time, Thomson allotted many of Pascoe’s species the same locality, i.e. “Borneo” or “Malacca”.
However, whereas an insular distribution pattern has
since been confirmed for Utopia castelnaudii J. Thomson, 1864, which has hitherto been known only from Borneo and Sumatra [Heffern, 2013]; plus the material from various museums and private collections I have studied), some records of Mythodes plumosa J. Thomson, 1864, on
the contrary, indicate that up to now this species has been found only in Western Malaysia and Singapore.
Considering all above, it is impossible to find out, even presumably, a more specific area of origin of the type specimens of T. lacordairei than the one indicated in the original description of the species.
Derolydnus Hüdepohl, 1989: 51; Heffern, 2013: 9.
Type species: Elydnus bisulcatus Aurivillius, 1914. Composition. The genus includes a single species. Distribution. Oriental realm.
Derolydnus bisulcatus (Aurivillius, 1914) (Fig. 201)
Elydnus bisulcatus Aurivillius, 1914: 269, taf. 1, fig. 2 (“Borneo: Lawas”). Type locality: Malaysia, Sarawak, Lawas (according to the original description).
Derolydnus bisulcatus: Hüdepohl, 1989: 52; Heffern, 2013: 9. Material. 1♂ (according to the original description), holotype, by monotypy (NHRS) (photograph; Fig. 201); 1♀ (NHMD), Burma, Tenasserim, 03.1996 (local collector), “Derolydnus bisulcatus Aur., O. Mehl det. 2014”; 1♀ (NHMD), same locality, 04.1996 (local collector), “Derolydnus bisulcatus Aur., O. Mehl det. 2014”; a large series of males and females from Borneo
and Sumatra (NHMD; cAM).
Distribution. Until now, this species has only been known from Borneo and Sumatra [Aurivillius, 1914; Hüdepohl, 1989]. Based on the material studied,
D. bisulcatus is being recorded here from Myanmar, as from Indochina in general, for the first time. I am also aware of individual records from central Vietnam, according to some data to be verified.
Derolus Gahan, 1891: 26 (Pachydissus subgen.); Gahan, 1906:
135; Aurivillius, 1912: 58; Winkler, 1929: 1142; Plavilstshikov, 1931:
85; 1940: 111, 640; Gressitt, 1951: 141; Gressitt, Rondon, 1970: 72;
Catalogue..., 2010: 159; Heffern, 2013: 9; Nga et al., 2014: 432;
Kariyanna et al., 2017: 28; Vitali et al., 2017: 59; Miroshnikov, 2017: 223.
Capnocerambyx Reitter, 1894: 356 (type species: “C. mauritanicus Luc[as].” (sic)).
Type species: Hammaticherus mauritanicus Buquet, 1840, by subsequent designation [Gahan, 1906].
Remarks. The largest genus of the tribe in terms of the number of species, comprising almost 70 species. Adlbauer [2009] reviewed its African representatives. The Asian group of species needs a detailed revision and a diagnostic re-evaluation of the genus as a whole.
Below are some new records of two little-known species, both somewhat expanding their distribution areas.
Derolus glauciapicalis Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (Fig. 202)
Derolus glauciapicalis Gressitt et Rondon, 1970: 75. Type locality: Laos, Sayaboury, 170 m (according to the original description).
_16_Miroshnikov/Image_030.jpg)
Figs 204–234. Cerambycini Latreille, 1802, labels of type and other specimens.
Рис. 204–234. Cerambycini Latreille, 1802, этикетки типовых и других экземпляров.
204–205 – Plavichydissus semiplicatus (Pic, 1926), comb. rest.; 206–207 – P. grossepunctatus (Gressitt et Rondon), comb. n.; 208 – P. sulcicollis
(Gahan, 1893), comb. n.; 209 – P. rufipennis (Pic, 1923), comb. rest.; 210 – Pachydissus parvicollis Gahan, 1891; 211 – P. argentatus Pic, 1923; 212 –
P. birmanicus Gardner, 1926; 213–214 – Margites auratonotatus Pic, 1923; 215 – M. egenus (Pascoe, 1858); 216 – M. fulvidus (Pascoe, 1858); 217 – M. modicus Gahan, 1906; 218 – M. luteopubens Pic, 1926; 219 – M. lajoyei Pic, 1926; 220 – Laomargites singularis Pic, 1923, comb. rest.; 221–222 – Dymasius simplex Gressitt et Rondon, 1970; 223 – D. prominor Gressitt et Rondon, 1970; 224 – D. parvus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970; 225 – D. niger Gressitt et Rondon, 1970; 226 – Lamellocerambyx laosensis Pic, 1923, comb. rest.; 227 – Diorthus cinereus (Fabricius, 1793) (holotype of Diorthus simplex (White, 1853)); 228–229 –
D. vagus (Gahan, 1891); 230–231 – D. sericeus Gardner, 1939; 232–233 – Tapinolachnus lacordairei (J. Thomson, 1864); 234 – T. ?lacordairei (J. Thomson, 1864) (lectotype of Tapinolachnus xyliae (Fisher, 1940), comb. n.).
204–205, 210, 213–214, 232–233 – syntypes; 206, 208–209, 211–212, 215–216, 218–221, 223–228 – holotypes; 217, 231 – lectotypes; 207, 222 –
paratypes; 230 – paralectotype. 204–205, 209, 211, 213–214, 218–219 – photographs by Gérard L. Tavakilian; 212 – photograph by Sudhir Singh; 232–233 – photographs by Azadeh Taghavian.
204–205, 210, 213–214, 232–233 – синтипы; 206, 208–209, 211–212, 215–216, 218–221, 223–228 – голотипы; 217, 231 – лектотипы; 207,
222 – паратипы; 230 – паралектотип. 204 –205, 209, 211, 213–214, 218–219 – фотографии Ж. Тавакиляна; 212 – фотография С. Сингха; 232–233 – фотографии А. Тагвьян.
Table 1. Corrections that should be made in Miroshnikov [2017]. Таблица 1. Исправления к статье Мирошникова [2017].
Page Страница | Column Колонка | Line Строка | As printed Напечатано | Correct form Следует читать |
165 | left | 6 | label of the holotype | labels of the syntypes |
216 | right | 38 | scuttelum | scutellum |
219 | right | 19 | scuttelum | scutellum |
221 | – | 3 | 398–399 – holotypes | 398 – syntype; 399 – holotype; |
221 | – | 7 | 398–399 – голотипы | 398 – синтип; 399 – голотип; |
Material. 1♂, holotype (BM) (photograph); 1♂ (cAM) (Fig. 202), NW Thailand, Lamphun, Mae Tha, 20.04.2011 (local collector).
Distribution. Until now, this species has only been known from Laos [Gressitt, Rondon, 1970]. Based on the material studied, D. glauciapicalis is being recorded here from Thailand for the first time.
Derolus argentesignatus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970 (Fig. 203)
Derolus argentesignatus Gressitt et Rondon, 1970: 76. Type locality: Laos, Vientiane Province, Nong Tevada, 170 m (according to the original description).
Material. 1♂, holotype (BM) (photograph); 1♂ (cAM) (Fig. 203),
NW Thailand, Mae Hong Son Prov., Pai env., ~600 m, road on Mae Yen waterfall, 19°21ʹ42ʺN / 98°27ʹ46ʺE – 19°22ʹ01ʺN / 98°30ʹ29ʺE, 27.04– 9.05.2013 (leg. I. Melnik); 1♀ (cAM), N Thailand, Chiang Rai Prov., Doi Chang env., 640–750 m, 19°46ʹ01ʺN / 99°28ʹ11ʺE – 9°47ʹ44ʺN / 99°27ʹ06ʺE, 11–15.05.2013 (leg. I. Melnik).
Distribution. Until now, this species has only been known from Laos [Gressitt, Rondon, 1970]. Based on the material studied, D. argentesignatus is being recorded here from Thailand for the first time.
Since several of my previous publications [Miroshnikov, 2016, 2017, 2018; Miroshnikov, Tichý, 2018] contain some misprints, their corrections are listed below. In these works, when comparing the lengths of individual segments of the posterior tarsus, mainly in the species descriptions, instead of the correct terms and connotations “metatarsomere 1” and “metatarsomeres 2
and 3 combined”, “tarsomere 1” and “tarsomeres 2 and 3 combined” are mistakenly indicated.
The corrections that should also be made to Miroshnikov [2017] see in Table 1.
Besides this, in preparing the layout of the manuscript of Miroshnikov [2017] and checking the spelling of often repeated names of its sections, due to a software failure, the spelling of the Distribution section in a number of cases turned out to be erroneous, namely, “Disribution”. Unfortunately, this incorrect spelling remained unnoticed when the layout of the corresponding journal volume was delivered to the printing house.
I am very grateful to Svetlana V. Andreeva (ZIN), Maxwell V.L. Barclay and Michael F. Geiser (BMNH),
James H. Boone (BM), Thierry Deuve, Azadeh Taghavian and Gérard L. Tavakilian (MNHN), Alain Drumont (IRSN), Alexey A. Gusakov (ZMMU), Alexey Yu. Solodovnikov and Sree Gayathree Selvantharan (NHMD) for the opportunity to study the museum material, to Luboš Dembický (Brno, Czech Republic) and Sergey V. Murzin (Moscow, Russia), who have provided various specimens from their private collections. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Alexey Yu. Solodovnikov for his kind permission to retain some material in my personal collection, to Dmitry N. Fedorenko (Institute for Problems of Ecology and Evolution, Moscow, Russia), who was funded by the Russia-Vietnam Tropical Center, for the valuable material he rendered to me for study. I am deeply indebted to Alexandr G. Kirejtshuk (ZIN), again to Sergey V. Murzin and Alexey Yu. Solodovnikov who helped a lot in my prompt receipt of the material for study, to Sudhir Singh (NFIC), Hemant V. Ghate (Department of Zoology, Modern College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Shivajinagar, Pune, India), Karl Adlbauer (Graz, Austria), Nobuo Ohbayashi (Kamimiyada, Miura City, Japan), again to Alexey Yu. Solodovnikov, Azadeh Taghavian and Gérard L. Tavakilian for the helpful provision of various pictures and/or valuable information, to Thomas Pape (NHMD), who advised me on certain nomenclatural issues, to the reviewers for their helpful comments. I give special thanks to Kirill V. Makarov (Moscow Pedagogical State University, Moscow, Russia) for having rendered his great help in the preparation of almost all photographs, and to Luboš Dembický who generously shared the pictures of the holotypes of many species of the tribe Cerambycini. Last but not least, I am most grateful to my wife Tatiana who helped a lot in the preparation of the illustrations for publication.
Adlbauer K. 2002. Die afrikanischen Arten der Gattung Pachydissus Newman, 1838 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycini). Coleoptera, Schwanfelder Coleopterologische Mitteilungen. 6(1/2): 157–185.
Adlbauer K. 2006. Die Cerambycini der Äthiopischen Region. – Die Gattungen Diorthus, Margites, Dissaporus, Graciliderolus, Microderolus und Spiniderolus. (Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae). Coleoptera, Schwanfelder Coleopterologische Mitteilungen. 10: 61–82. Adlbauer K. 2009. Die Cerambycini der Äthiopischen Region. Die Gattung Derolus Gahan. (Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae). Coleoptera,
Schwanfelder Coleopterologische Mitteilungen. 13: 1–34.
Aurivillius Chr. 1912. Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae. In: Coleopterorum Catalogus, auspiciis et auxilio W. Junk, editus a S. Schenkling. Pars 39. Berlin: W. Junk: 3–574.
Aurivillius Chr. 1914. Neue oder wening bekannte Coleoptera Longicornia.
Arkiv för Zoologi. 8(29): 265–318, taf. 1.
Bates H.W. 1873. On the Longicorn Coleoptera of Japan. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History (Ser. 4). 12(68): 148–156.
Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Vol. 6. Chrysomeloidea. (I. Löbl,
Smetana eds). 2010. Stenstrup: Apollo Books. 924 p.
Chou W.-I. 2004. The Atlas of Taiwanese Cerambycidae. Taipei: Owl Publ.
House. 408 p. (in Chinese).
Fabricius J.C. 1793. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, secundun classes, ordines, genera, species, adjectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus. T. 1. Pars 2. 1792. Halfniae:
C.G. Proft. 538 p.
Fabricius J.C. 1801. Systema eleutheratorum secundum ordines, genera, species: adiectis synonymis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus.
T. 2. Kiliae: Impensis Bibliopolii Academici Novi. 687 p.
Fairmaire L.M.H. 1895. Deuxième note sur quelques Coléoptères des environs de Lang-Song. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique. 39: 173–190.
Fisher W.S. 1940. New Cerambycidae from India, II (Coleoptera). Indian Forest Records (New Series). Entomology. 6(5): 197–212.
Gahan C.J. 1891. Notes on longicorn Coleoptera of the group Cerambycinae, with descriptions of new genera and species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 7(6): 19–34.
Gahan C.J. 1893. Descriptions of some new Longicorn Coleoptera from the Indian Region. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 11(6): 377–390, pl. 19, figs 4–7.
Gahan C.J. 1894. Viaggio di Leonardo Fea in Birmania e Regioni vicine. LVI. A list of the Longicorn Coleoptera collected by Signor Fea in Burma and the adjoining regions, with descriptions of the new Genera and species. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova (Série 2). 14: 5–104, pl. 1.
Gahan C.J. 1906. Cerambycidae. In: The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera. Vol. 1. London: Taylor and Francis. xviii + 329 p.
Gardner J.C.M. 1926. Descriptions of new species of Niponiidae and Cerambycidae from India. The Indian Forest Records (Entomology Series). 1925. 12(7): 193–209, pl. 1, figs 1–8.
Gardner J.C.M. 1939. New Indian Cerambycidae. The Indian Forest Records (New Series). Entomology. 6(1): 1–14.
Gemminger M. 1872. Cerambycidae. In: Gemminger M., Harold E. Catalogus Coleopterorum hucusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus. T. 9. Scolytidae, Brenthidae, Anthotribidae, Cerambycidae. Monachii: E.H. Gummi (G. Beck): 2751–2988 + 11 p.
Gressitt J.L. 1951. Longicorn beetles of China. In: Longicornia. Etudes et notes sur les Longicornes. Vol. 2. (P. Lepesme ed.). Paris: Paul Lechevalier. 667 p. + 22 pls.
Gressitt J.L., Rondon J.A. 1970. Cerambycids of Laos (Disteniidae, Prioninae, Philinae, Aseminae, Lepturinae, Cerambycinae). In: Gressitt J.L., Rondon J.A., Breuning S. von. Cerambycid-beetles of Laos. Pacific Insects Monograph. Vol. 24. Honolulu: Entomology Department, Bernice P. Bishop Museum: 1–314.
Hayashi M. 1981. On some longicorn beetles of Nepal (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Bulletin of the Osaka Jonan Women’s Junior College. 14: 1–20.
Heffern D.J. 2013. A Catalog and Bibliography of Longhorned Beetles from Borneo (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae, Disteniidae and Vesperidae). Electronic Version, 2013.1. 107 p. Available at: https://www.zin.ru/ animalia/coleoptera/pdf/heffern_2013_borneo_catalog.pdf (accessed 31 October 2018).
Holzschuh C. 1984. Beschreibung von 21 neuen Bockkäfern aus Europa und Asien (Cerambycidae, Col.). Koleopterologische Rundschau. 57: 141–165.
Holzschuh C. 1989. Beschreibung von 8 neuen Bockkäfern aus Bhutan (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Entomologica Basiliensia. 13: 391–402.
Holzschuh C. 1990. Beschreibung von neuen Bockkäfern aus dem Himalaya (Insecta: Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Berichte des Naturwissenschaftlich-Medizinischen Vereins in Innsbruck. 77: 185–
197.
Holzschuh C. 1991. 45 neue Bockkäfer aus Asien, vorwiegend aus Thailand (Coleoptera: Disteniidae und Cerambycidae). FBVA Berichte: Schriftenreihe der Forstlichen Bundesversuchsanstalt in Wien. 51: 35–75.
Holzschuh C. 1995. Beschreibung von 65 neuen Bockkäfern aus Europa und Asien, vorwiegend aus Thailand und China (Coleoptera: Disteniidae und Cerambycidae). FBVA Berichte: Schriftenreihe der Forstlichen Bundesversuchsanstalt in Wien. 84: 1–63.
Holzschuh C. 1999. Beschreibung von 71 neuen Bockkäfern aus Asien, vorwiegend aus China, Laos, Thailand und Indien (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). FBVA Berichte: Schriftenreihe der Forstlichen Bundesversuchsanstalt in Wien. 110: 1–64.
Holzschuh C. 2005. Beschreibung von neuen Bockkafern aus SE Asien, vorwiegend aus Borneo (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Les Cahiers Magellanes. 46: 1–40.
Holzschuh C. 2006. Beschreibung von 51 neuen Bockkafern aus der palaearktischen und orientalischen Region, vorwiegend aus Borneo und China (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Entomologica Basiliensia et Collectionis Frey. 28: 205–276.
Holzschuh C. 2007. Beschreibung von 80 neuen Bockkäfern aus der orientalischen und palaearktischen Region, vorwiegend aus China, Laos und Borneo (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Entomologica Basiliensia et Collectionis Frey. 29: 177–286.
Holzschuh C. 2008. Beschreibung von 60 neuen Bockkäfern und einer neuen Gattung aus der orientalischen Region, vorwiegend aus Laos und Borneo (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Entomologica Basiliensia et Collectionis Frey. 30: 149–241.
Holzschuh C. 2015. Zehn neue Bockkäfer aus Südostasien und Bemerkungen zur Gattung Microdymasius Pic, 1946 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Les Cahiers Magellanes. 19: 41–53.
Holzschuh C. 2017. Beschreibung einer neuer Gattung und neuer Arten von Bockkäfern aus Asien (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Les Cahiers Magellanes. 28: 62–88.
Hua L.-Z. 1984. A list of the longicorn beetles of Laos (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Guangzhou: Institute of Entomology, Zhongshan University. 155 p.
Hua L.-Z. 2002. List of Chinese Insects. 2. Guangzhou: Zhongshan (Sun Yatsen) University. 612 p.
Hua L.-Z., Nara H., Saemulson [Samuelson] G.A., Langafelter [Lingafelter] S.W. 2009. Iconography of Chinese Longicorn Beetles (1406 Species) in Color. Guangzhou: Sun Yat-sen University Press. 474 p.
Hüdepohl K.-E. 1989. Über südostasiatische Cerambyciden, IV (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Cerambycinae: Cerambycini und Callichromini; Lamiinae: Pteropliini). Entomofauna. Zeitschrift fur Entomologie. 10(5): 45–72.
Kariyanna B., Mohan M., Gupta R., Vitali F. 2017. The checklist of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) from India. Zootaxa. 4345(1): 1–317. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4345.1.1
Kariyanna B., Mohan M., Mahendiran G. 2018. Distribution and species diversity of longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera) of Gujarat. Multilogic in Science. 8: 165–168.
Kojima K., Hayashi M. 1969. Longicorn Beetles. In: Insects’ life in Japan.
Vol. 1. Osaka: Hoikusha Publishing. 295 p. (in Japanese).
Kusama K., Takakuwa M. 1984. The longicorn-beetles of Japan in color. Kodansha (Tokyo): Japanese Society of Coleopterology. 565 p. + 96 pls. (in Japanese).
Lacordaire J.T. 1868. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des Coleopteres, ou expose methodique et critique de tous les genres proposes jusqu’ici dans cet ordre d’insectes. T. 8. 1869. Paris: Librairie encyclopedique de Roret. 552 p.
Lee S.-M. 1982. Longicorn Beetles of Korea (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). In: Insecta Koreana. Ser. 1. Seoul: Editorial Commitee of Insecta Koreana. 101 p.
Longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae, Coleoptera) of the West Palaearctic region presented by Michal Hoskovec, Petr Jelínek and Martin Rejzek. Available at: http://www.cerambyx.uochb.cz/index.php (accessed 31 October 2018).
Makihara H., Mannakkara A., Fujimura T., Ohtake A. 2008. Checklist of longicorn coleoptera of Sri Lanka (1). Vesperidae and Cerambycidae excluding Lamiinae. Bulletin of FFPRI. 7(2)(407): 95–110.
Miroshnikov A.I. 2016. A new species of the genus Dymasius J. Thomson, 1864 from Vietnam, with new data on little-known taxa (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycini) from India, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, and Indonesia. Caucasian Entomological Bulletin. 12(2): 269–272, color pls 7–10. DOI: 10.23885/1814-3326-2016-12-2-269-272
Miroshnikov A.I. 2017. The longicorn beetle tribe Cerambycini Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae) in the fauna of Asia.
1. New or little-known taxa, mainly from Indochina and Borneo, with reviews of some genera. Caucasian Entomological Bulletin. 13(2): 161–233, color pls 1–6. DOI: 10.23885/1814-3326-2017-13-2-161- 233
Miroshnikov A.I. 2018. The longicorn beetle tribe Cerambycini Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae) in the fauna of Asia. 2. A new or little-known species of the genus Neocerambyx
J. Thomson, 1861. Russian Entomological Journal. 27(1): 33–39. DOI: 10.15298/rusentj.27.1.05
Miroshnikov A.I., Tichý T. 2018. The longicorn beetle tribe Cerambycini Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae) in the fauna of Asia. 3. A new or little-known species of the genus Elydnus
Pascoe, 1869. Russian Entomological Journal. 27(3): 277–280. DOI: 10.15298/rusentj.27.3.06
Natural History Museum of Denmark. Diitalized asserts. Available at: http:// www.daim.snm.ku.dk/search-in-types (accessed 31 October 2018).
Newman E. 1838. Entomological Notes. The Entomological Magazine. 5(5): 483–500.
Nga C.T.Q., Long K.D., Thinh T.H. 2014. New records of the tribe Cerambycini (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae) from Vietnam. Tap Chi Hoc. 36(4): 428–443.
Nonfried A.F. 1895. Coleoptera nova exotica. Berliner entomologische Zeitschrift. 40(3): 279–312.
Ohbayashi N. 1964. A list of Cerambycidae from the Tokara and the Amami Islands (Coleoptera). Reports of the Scientific Researches to the Tokara and the Amami Islands of the Ehime University. 1: 37–43, pl. 17.
Olivier A.G. 1795. Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des Insectes, avec leurs caractères génériques et spécifiques, leur description, leur synonymie, et leur figure enluminée. Coléoptères. Tome quatrième. Paris: de Lanneau. 519 p. + 75 pls.
Özdikmen H., Turgut S. 2009. On Turkish Cerambyx Linnaeus, 1758 with zoogeogrephical remarks (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae). Munis Entomology & Zoology. 4(2): 301–319.
Pascoe F.P. 1857. On New Genera and Species of Longicorn Coleoptera. Part II. The Transactions of the Entomological Society of London (N.S.). 4(4): 89–112, pls. 22–23.
Pascoe F.P. 1858. On New Genera and Species of Longicorn Coleoptera. Part III. The Transactions of the Entomological Society of London (N.S.). 4(6): 236–266, pl. 25.
Pascoe F.P. 1859. II. On New Genera and Species of Longicorn Coleoptera. Part IV. The Transactions of the Entomological Society of London (N.S.). 5(1–2): 12–61, pl. 2.
Pascoe F.P. 1869. Longicornia Malayana; or, a Descriptive Catalogue of the Species of the three Longicorn Families Lamiid., Cerambycid. And Prionid. collected by Mr. A. R. Wallace in the Malay Archipelago (Part VI). The Transactions of the Entomological Society of London. 3(3): 497–552, pl. 20.
Pascoe F.P. 1888. On some new Longicorn Coleoptera. The Transactions of the Entomological Society of London. 4: 491–513, pl. 14.
Pic M. 1923a. Coléoptères exotiques en partie nouveaux (Suite.) L’Échange, Revue Linnéenne. 39(412): 7–8.
Pic M. 1923b. Nouveautés diverses. Mélanges Exotico-Entomologiques. 39: 3–32.
Pic M. 1926a. Nouveautés diverses. Mélanges Exotico-Entomologiques. 45: 1–32.
Pic M. 1926b. Coléoptères exotiques nouveaux ou peu connus. Annales de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon. 72: 73–77.
Pic M. 1933. Nouveautés diverses. Mélanges Exotico-Entomologiques. 61: 3–36.
Pic M. 1937. Coléoptères exotiques en partie nouveaux (Suite.). L’Échange, Revue Linnéenne. 53(468): 6–8.
Pic M. 1946. Refutations d’anciennes critiques et fausses synonymies.
Miscellanea Entomologica, Narbonne. 1945. 42(9): 105–111.
Plavilstshikov N.N. 1931. Cerambycidae I. Teil. Cerambycinae: Disteniini, Cerambycini I (Protaxina, Spondylina, Asemina, Saphanina, Achrysolina, Oemina, Cerambycina). In: Bestimmungs-Tabellen der europäischen Coleopteren. Heft 101. Troppau. 102 p.
Plavilstshikov N.N. 1940. Fauna SSSR. Nasekomye zhestkokrylye. T. 22. Zhuki-drovoseki (Ch. 2) [Fauna of the USSR. Insects, Coleoptera. Vol. 22. Longhorn beetles (Part 2)]. Moscow – Leningrad: Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 785 p. (in Russian).
Reitter E. 1894. Uebersicht der Arten der Coleopteren-Gattung Cerambyx
L. und einer Darstellung der mit dieser zunächst verwandten Genera der palaearctischen Fauna. Entomologische Nachrichten. 20(23): 353–356.
Roonwal M.L. 1954. A list of insect pests of forest plants in India and the adjacent countries, arranged alphabetically according to plant genera and species, for the use of forest officers. Indian Forest Bulletin. 171(1): [1] + 1–93.
Ślipiński S.A., Escalona H.E. 2016. Australian Longhorn Beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Vol. 2. Subfamily Cerambycinae. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing. 640 p.
The first Web-site about the World-wide Cerambycoidea. Available at: http://www.cerambycoidea.com/index.asp (accessed 31 October 2018).
Thomson J. 1864. Systema Cerambycidarum ou expose de tous les genres compris dans la famille des Cerambycides et familles limitrophes. Liege: H. Dessain: 1–352.
Thomson J. 1865a. Systema Cerambycidarum ou expose de tous les genres compris dans la famille des Cerambycides et familles limitrophes. Liege: H. Dessain: 353–578.
Thomson J. 1865b. Diagnoses dʼespèces nouvelles qui seront décrites dans lʼappendix du systema cerambycidarum. Mémoires de la Société Royale des Sciences de Liège. 19: 541–578.
Thomson J. 1878. Typi cerambycidarum musei Thomsoniani. Paris:
E. Deyrolle. 21 p.
Vitali F., Gouverneur X., Chemin G. 2017. Revision of the tribe Cerambycini: redefinition of the genera Trirachys Hope, 1843, Aeolesthes Gahan, 1890 and Pseudaeolesthes Plavilstshikov, 1931 (Coleoptera,
Cerambycidae). Les Cahiers Magellanes. 26: 40–65.
Wang Z.-C., Hua L.-Z. 2009. Collect and revision of list on longicorn beetles in China. Journal Beihua University (Natural Science). 10(2): 159–192. Weigel A. 2006. Checklist and Bibliography of Longhorn Beetles from Nepal (Insecta: Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). In: Biodiversität und Naturausstattung im Himalaya II. Verein der Freunde und Förderer
des Naturkundemuseums Erfurt e. V.: 495–510.
Weigel A., Meng L.-Z., Lin M.-Y. 2013. Contribution to the fauna of longhorn beetles in the Naban River Watershed National Nature Reserve. Formosa Ecological Company. 219 p.
White A. 1853. Longicornia I. In: Catalogue of the coleopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum. Part 7. London: Taylor and Francis: 1–174, pls. 1–4.
Winkler A. 1929. Phytophaga. Cerambycidae. In: Catalogus Coleopterorum regionis palaearcticae. Pars 9–10. Wien: Albert Winkler: 1135–1226.
Received / Поступила: 6.11.2018 Accepted / Принята: 15.12.2018