Pericalus (s. str.) ornatus formosanus Dupuis, 1913

Shi, Hongliang & Liang, Hongbin, 2018, Revision of genus Pericalus from China, with descriptions of four new species (Carabidae, Lebiini, Pericalina), ZooKeys 758, pp. 19-54: 36

publication ID

publication LSID

persistent identifier

treatment provided by

ZooKeys by Pensoft

scientific name

Pericalus (s. str.) ornatus formosanus Dupuis, 1913


Pericalus (s. str.) ornatus formosanus Dupuis, 1913  Figs 12, 25, 26, 39, 46, 57, 59

Dupuis 1913: 83 (type locality: Taiwan [Moozan, Sokutsu]; syntypes in IRSN); Jedlička 1963: 379; Kabak 2003: 437 (catalogue).

Type localities.

“Moozan” is a misspelling of Hoozan (sometimes also Hozan), referring to Fengshan (N22.61, E120.35) in Kaohsiung county, south Taiwan. Sokutsu refers to Hsiaolin (N23.16, E120.64) in Kaohsiung county.

Material examined

(13 ex.). 1 male (CCCC), "Taiwan, Pingtung County, Chunri, Dahanshan, 2009.V.3 D". 1 male, 2 females (CCCC), "Taiwan, Kaohsiung County, Hsiaoguanshan, 1996.X.12, Chou Wen-I leg". 1 female (CCCC), "Taiwan, Kaohsiung, Tengjhih, 2008.V.24 N". 2 males, 2 females (CCCC), "Taiwan, Nantou county, Xitou, 1995.III.25". 1 male, 1 female (CCCC), "Taiwan, Miaoli county, Sanyi, Guandaoshan, 1995.VI.2". 1 female (CCCC), "Taiwan, Yilan county, Datong, Renze, 1998.IV.11". 1 female (CCCC), "Taiwan, Taichung county, Heping, Anmashan".


Medium size species, body length 9.5-10.5 mm; dorsal surface black, elytra usually with faint cyan hue; anterior patch transverse, a little zigzag (more transverse and zigzag than P. o. ornatus  ), usually in the fourth to sixth intervals; posterior patch separate, composed of three small spots, in intervals 2-3, 4-5, and 7 respectively. Pronotum transverse, PW/PL 1.50-1.58; lateral margins sinuate before posterior angles, posterior angles nearly rectangular; disc with fine wrinkles. Elytra flat; apical truncation distinctly curved; outer apical angles usually obtuse (Fig. 25), occasionally rounded (Fig. 26) or acute; sutural angles blunt; third interval usually with two setigerous pores (occasionally three as other species), the middle one usually missing. Median lobe of aedeagus with apical orifice opened to left-dorsal side (Fig. 39).


This subspecies is different from the nominate subspecies in: (1) elytral anterior patch generally more or less transverse (width a little more than length), and somewhat zigzag in P. o. formosanus  (Fig. 12); nearly round (width subequal to the length) and not zigzag in P. o. ornatus  (Figs 9-11). (2) P. o. formosanus  generally with only two setigerous pores on the third elytral interval (occasionally three); in P. o. ornatus  always with three setigerous pores; (3) in P. o. formosanus  , the elytral outer apical angles obtuse in most examined specimens (Fig. 25); in P. o. ornatus  usually acute (Figs 22, 24). But for some individuals, the shape of elytral outer apical angles cannot differentiate these two subspecies. The male genitalia of these two subspecies have no significant differences (Figs 38, 39).

Pericalus o. formosanus  is very similar with P. acutidens  in elytra pattern, but can be distinguished by two pores on elytral third interval, different male genitalia, and distribution. This subspecies is endemic and the only Pericalus  species in Taiwan.


Only known from Taiwan (Fig. 59).


According to our examined specimens, the male genitalia of P. formosanus  have no significant differences from those of P. ornatus  from the Asian continent. Considering the external differences between P. ornatus  as well as their allopatric distributions, it is preferable to assign P. formosanus  as a subspecies of P. ornatus  rather than synonymize them. Fedorenko (2017) recorded P. formosanus  from S. Vietnam based on a misidentification of P. acutidens  sp. n.

In most examined specimens have only two setigerous pores in the elytral third interval (the middle one missing), except for two specimens with three pores on right elytron only (Fig. 12). We consider the presence of the middle pore as individual aberration, and consider that the number of pores in third elytral interval is a good taxonomical character to distinguish between these two subspecies. For the elytral outer apical angles, most examined specimens have an obtuse angle (Fig. 25), but it is rounded in one specimen from Nantou (Fig. 26), and acute in one specimen from Kaohsiung and two of the five photographed syntypes (