Poecilonotini Jakobson, 1913

Bílý, Svatopluk, Kubáň, Vítězslav & Volkovitsh, Mark G., 2009, A study on the tribe Poecilonotini, with a revision of the subtribe Nesotrinchina subtrib. nov. and the description of a new genus and species from Papua New Guinea (Coleoptera: Buprestidae: Chrysochroinae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 49 (2), pp. 729-767 : 732-735

Tribe Poecilonotini Jakobson, 1913 sensu novo

Poecilonotina Jakobson, 1913: 786 (as ‘fam. Buprestini : tribus Poecilonotina’; list; characters in key). Type genus: Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829 .

Poecilonotina : OBENBERGER (1930): 310 (catalogue; in synonymy of Buprestini : Dicercites).

Poecilonotini (sensu novo): ALEXEEV & BEBKA (1970a): 6; ALEXEEV & BEBKA (1970b): 158 (both:comment; characters; in ‘Ancylocheirinae’ (now Buprestinae ).

Poecilonotini (sensu novo): VOLKOVITSH (2001) : 55 (catalogue of higher taxa; in Chalcophorinae (now Chrysochroinae )), 84, 96 (comment; characters), 108 (summary); BÍLÝ & VOLKOVITSH (2003) : 108 (catalogue of higher taxa; in Chalcophorinae (in present Chrysochroinae )); BELLAMY (2003): 40 (catalogue of higher taxa; in Chrysochroinae ); NELSON et al. (2008): 61 (catalogue; in Chrysochroinae ); BELLAMY (2008): 594 (catalogue; in Chrysochroinae ).

History of classification. The name ‘Poecilonotina’ was first used by JAKOBSON (1913: 773, 786), who used the name ‘Poecilonotina’ both for the category of tribe (sensu lato) and for the category of subtribe (sensu stricto). He replaced by ‘Poecilonotina’ sensu lato and sensu stricto the formerly used names ‘Buprestini’ and ‘Dicercites’, respectively, of the previously widely used system by KERREMANS (1893); the reason for this change is not clear. JAKOBSON (1913: 786) included three subtribes into ‘Poecilonotina’ (sensu lato), ‘ Poecilonotina = Dicercina’ (sensu stricto), ‘Ancylochirina [nov.] = Buprestina’ and ‘Anthaxiina’, and the following genera into the subtribe Poecilonotina (sensu stricto): Cardiaspis Saunders, 1866 , Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829 , Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829 and Lampra Dejean, 1833 (now Lamprodila Motschulsky, 1860 ). JAKOBSON (1913) initially used only the form of antennal pores to define the Poecilonotini (sensu stricto); RICHTER (1952) mentioned difference between wing venation (position of R-M vein) in Poecilonota and Lampra (now Lamprodila ) versus other Dicercini and also differences between the larvae of Lampra (now Lamprodila ) and Poecilonota versus Dicerca .

The tribe Poecilonotini with the genera Poecilonota and Lampra (now Lamprodila ) was independently created also by ALEXEEV & BEBKA (1970a,b), who separated the Poecilonotini in the subfamily Ancylocheirinae Jakobson, 1913 (now Buprestinae ) on the basis of seven visible abdominal tergites, contrary to Dicerca and other genera in the subfamily Buprestinae sensu ALEXEEV & BEBKA (1970a ,b) (now Chrysochroinae ) with eight visible tergites.

COBOS (1986) newly defined two subfamilies: Chalcophorinae Lacordaire, 1857 (now Chrysochroinae ) and Buprestinae and included the genera Dicerca , Poecilonota and Ovalisia Kerremans, 1900 (= Lampra , now subgenus of Lamprodila ) into the tribe Dicercini of the subfamily Buprestinae (he did not mention the name Poecilonotini ).

HOŁYŃSKI (1993) defined the family Buprestidae in quite a new and revolutionary way. In his concept, the tribe Buprestini includes 18 subtribes (seven of them new and also, e.g., the subtribes Chrysochroina , Chalcophorina , Buprestina and Psilopterina ). Dicerca , Poecilonota and Ovalisia (sensu lato, now Lamprodila ) and further 11 genera were placed in the subtribe Psilopterina Lacordaire, 1857 . One of his new subtribes was the subtribe Haplotrinchina Hołyński, 1993 , in which the genera Cardiaspis (erroneously as ‘ Bellamyola nom. nov. ’, see VOLKOVITSH (1997)), Haplotrinchus Kerremans, 1903 and Melobasina Kerremans, 1900 were included. In a short comment he wrote: ‘The Haplotrinchina str. n. make a very well-defined group, though superficially Bellamyola n.n. [= Cardiaspis ...] looks quite dissimilar from Melobasina KERR. [including Nesotrinchus OBB. , which, in my view, cannot be separated even as a subgenus, “ N. ” coeruleipennis (THS.) being much more closely related to M. fossicollis KERR. than to “ N. ” australicus (KERR.) ]’. BELLAMY (1997: 76, resp. 2002: 62) interpreted this comment as a synonymisation of the genera Melobasina and Nesotrinchus Obenberger, 1924 but this interpretation is wrong.

From the comments by HOŁYŃSKI (1993), we can judge that he based his study of the genus Melobasina on M. fossicollis ( Kerremans, 1906) but without any specification of studied specimens. He probably saw specimens from BMNH, identified by B. Levey as ‘ fossicollis ’ but in fact belonging to M. apicalis Kerremans, 1900 (see below under M. apicalis ). Characters used for the subtribe Haplotrinchina in his key (couplets u(b), x(cc) and cc(z)) do not explicitly define either Melobasina or Nesotrinchus . The definition of the subtribe Haplotrinchina by HOŁYŃSKI (1993) is quite insufficient and the reasons for the treatement of genera Melobasina and Nesotrinchus in Haplotrinchina is so vague that it is impossible to validate them.

BÍLÝ (1999) mentioned differences between the larvae of Dicerca and Capnodis Eschscholtz, 1829 and the larvae of Lampra (now Lamprodila ) and Poecilonota . BÍLÝ & VOLKOVITSH (2002: Table 2) published a set of larval characters differentiating Lampra (now Lamprodila ) and Poecilonota from the larvae of Dicerca , Dicercomorpha Deyrolle, 1864 , Haplotrinchus and Polybothris Dupont, 1833 [sic!].

JENDEK (2001) found differences in the general structure of the abdomen between the Dicercini on one hand and Lampra (now Lamprodila ) and Poecilonota and Kisanthobia Marseul, 1865 on the other.

VOLKOVITSH (2001) principially disagreed with the concept of HOŁYŃSKI (1993) and presented results of a detailed study of the antennal structures in the Buprestidae (without the Agrilinae ) based on taxa of generic rank. The arrangement and status of suprageneric taxa reflect similarities and presumed evolutionary trends in antennal structures ( VOLKOVITSH 2001: 52 –59); the list used several informal categories: ‘complex’, ‘lineage’, ‘branch’ and ‘generic group’. The term ‘generic group’ was used at three different levels: tribal, subtribal and lower than the subtribal level.

Unlike HOŁYŃSKI (1993), VOLKOVITSH (2001) re-introduced again the subfamily Chalcophorinae (now Chrysochroinae ) but in a rather different concept than did COBOS (1986). Contrary to COBOS (1986) (see above), he placed the genera Dicerca , Poecilonota and Palmar (now a subgenus of Lamprodila ) into the Chalcophorinae (now Chrysochroinae ) and divided this subfamily into two ‘lineages’, Chalcophorioid (now Chrysochroioid) and Psilopterioid (now Dicercioid), and placed the tribe Poecilonotini in the former lineage. The tribe Psilopterini (now Dicercini ) was placed together with the tribe Sphenopterini Lacordaire, 1857 in the latter lineage and divided into four subtribes, including the subtribe Haplotrinchina with the genera Cardiaspis and Haplotrinchus . The definition of the tribes Poecilonotini and Dicercini (as Psilopterini ) was based mainly on the anennal structures (U2 sensillae absent in Poecilonotini but present in Dicercini ) but also other characters such as morphological differences between the larvae of both tribes (see also BÍLÝ & VOLKOVITSH 2002 ) or a serrate elytral margin in the Poecilonotini ( VOLKOVITSH 2001: 69 , 84, 96). Both VOLKOVITSH (2001) and BÍLÝ & VOLKOVITSH (2003) erroneously attributed the authorship of the tribe Poecilonotini to ALEXEEV & BEBKA (1970a,b).

VOLKOVITSH (2001) studied the antennal structures of the following taxa of the Poecilonotini and Haplotrinchina : Palmar subgen. Palmar Schaefer, 1949 (now in Lamprodila ) (one species), Palmar subgen. Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (now Lamprodila ) (two species), Poecilonota (one species), Nesotrinchus (one species), Cardiaspis (one species) and Haplotrinchus (one species); Pseudhyperantha Saunders, 1869 and Melobasina were not studied. As a result of this comparison, VOLKOVITSH (2001: 55, 68, 96) confirmed Nesotrinchus as a valid genus of the tribe Poecilonotini and created for it an independent, informal ‘ Nesotrinchus generic group’.

BELLAMY (2003, 2008) accepted the results of VOLKOVITSH (2001) but treated Nesotrinchus as a junior subjective synonym of the genus Melobasina (misinterpretation, see above). He also included the genus Pseudhyperantha ( Figs. 1–6 , 120 ) into the subtribe Haplotrinchina (in Chrysochroinae : Dicercini ), a traditional concept introduced by KERREMANS (1893). On the contrary he did not accept the opinion of TOYAMA (1989), who transferred the genus Pseudhyperantha into the tribe Buprestini (in Buprestinae ) near to the genus Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 . Finally, HOŁYŃSKI (2008) transferred Pseudhyperantha back to the Buprestinae but into the tribe Stigmoderini .

Placement of the genus Pseudhyperantha . Antennal structures of Pseudhyperantha correspond with those of the Buprestini ( Fig. 120 ): antennomeres triangular, bilaterally flattened, apical pits large, irregular, situated somewhat ventrally. Lateral sensory fields large, formed by B4c sensillae, U2 sensillae missing (see VOLKOVITSH 2001: 71 , Figs. 128–130 ). The antennal structured of the Stigmoderini were treated in detail by GARDNER (1989: 303, Figs. 36–41 ) and VOLKOVITSH (2001: 72, Figs. 144–149). The prosternal process is of buprestine type in Pseudhyperantha ( Fig. 5 ), with preapical lobes missing (see also KOLIBÁČ 2000, Fig. 11 ); the prosternal processes of Stigmoderini was discussed in GARDNER (1989: 305, Figs. 61–62 ). Wing venation of Pseudhyperantha (see TOYAMA 1989: 194, Fig. 1 ) corresponds to Buprestis (see KOLIBÁČ 2000: 152, Fig. 138; FEDORENKO 2009: 260, Fig. 57 ) rather than a stigmoderine type (see GARDNER 1989: 311, Fig. 66 ): radial cell (rc) long, vein Rr distinct, Mr stretching far beyond intersection with ‘r-m’, ‘wedge’ cell (2a) closed; for the nomenclature of veins ( Fig. 121 ) see VOLKOVITSH (2008, Fig. 54 ) and FEDORENKO (2009: 260, Figs. A103–A106 ).

Moreover, the ovipositor of Pseudhyperantha ( Fig. 2 ) possesses all characters of Buprestini : it is simple and tubular with simple styli and without a dorsal valve (more complex structures and a dorsal valve are the synapomorphies of the Stigmoderini (see GARDNER 1989)). The placement of Pseudhyperantha into the tribe Stigmoderini by HOŁYŃSKI (2008) thus cannot be maintained. We accept the opinion of TOYAMA (1989) who attributed this genus to the tribe Buprestini . The subtribal position and closest affinities of Pseudhyperantha within the Buprestini remain unclear. We suppose it should be separated as distinct monogeneric subtribe but this assumption requires further investigations.

The genera Melobasina and Nesotrinchus . We have studied seven specimens of Melobasina (four species) and 29 specimens of Nesotrinchus (three species). Species of Nesotrinchus are very similar to each other; they are undoubtedly congeneric and distributed only on the Pacific islands of Fiji, Tonga, Niue and Wallis. Species of Melobasina are also very similar to each other. They are distributed on the Solomon and Maluku Islands and differ from Nesotrinchus by the colouration and body shape (see Table 1 and Figs. 59–97 ). The frons of Melobasina species is regularly convex and much wider than that of Nesotrinchus , and the latter genus also possesses well-developed supraantennal carinae and deep frontal depression.

New concept of the tribe Poecilonotini . Having studied representatives of the genera mentioned above (see also the list in Material and methods) and further representatives of the genus Lamprodila (subgenera Cinyrisia Hołyński, 2000 , Erialata Zykov, 1998 and Mabomisia Hołyński, 2000 ), we define newly the tribe Poecilonotini and the subtribe Poecilonotina and suggest a new concept of the tribe Poecilonotini (sensu novo) containing subtribes Poecilonotina and Nesotrinchina subtrib. nov.

Figures

Figs. 1–18. 1, 3–6 – Pseudhyperantha jucunda Saunders, 1869, male, 17.0 mm, Borneo. 2 – P. bloetei Théry, 1935, female, Sumatra. 7–13 – Cardiaspis pisciformis Théry, 1904, India (7–9, 11, 13 – female, NMPC, 17.0 mm; 10, 12 – male,NMPC).14–18 – Haplotrinchus philippinensis Obenberger, 1928,syntype, female,15.5 mm, Philippines, Luzon. 1, 7, 14 – habitus, dorsal view; 2 – ovipositor, dorsal view; 3, 8, 15 – habitus, lateral view; 4, 9, 16 – head, frontal view; 5, 10–11, 17 – prosternal process; 6, 12–13, 18 – anal ventrite.

Figs. 109–120. 109, 111–115 – Ulaikoilia jelineki Bílý & Kubáň, gen. nov., sp. nov., holotype, male (109 – head, frontal view; 111 – prosternal process; 112 – anal ventrite; 113 – aedeagus; 114 – right antenna; 115 – subhumeral portion of elytral margin). 110, 116–117 – Nesotrinchus coeruleipennis (Fairmaire, 1877) (110 – head, frontal view; 116 – subhumeral portion of elytral margin; 117 – aedeagus, dorsal view). 118 – N. thomsoni Bílý & Kubáň, nom. nov., aedeagus, dorsal view. 119 – N. australicus (Kerremans, 1903), aedeagus, dorsal view. 120 – Pseudhyperantha jucunda Saunders, 1869, male, Malaysia, right antennomere 7, ventral view, apical fossa and lateral field (Photo: M. G. Volkovitsh).

Figs. 121–130. 121, 127 – Nesotrinchus australicus (Kerremans, 1903): paralectotype of a synonym N. simondsi Obenberger, 1924, female, Fiji, NMPC. 122, 129 – Ulaikoilia jelineki Bílý & Kubáň, gen. nov., sp. nov., holotype, Papua New Guinea. 123 – Melobasina apicalis Kerremans, 1900, female, Guadalcanal Island. 124 – Lamprodila (Ovalisia) auricollis (Deyrolle, 1864), female, Halmahera Island. 125 – Cardiaspis pisciformis Théry, 1904, female (NMPC), India.126 – Haplotrinchus pyrochlorus (Fairmaire, 1877), syntype, female (NMPC),Fiji.128 – Melobasina ignita (Théry, 1937) (synonym of M. apicalis), holotype, female, Bougainville Island. 130 – Haplotrinchus philippinensis Obenberger, 1928, syntype, female, Philippines, Luzon. 121–126 – right wing, dorsal view; 127–130 – abdomen, dorsal view; T7 = visible tergite 7; T8 = visible tergite 8.

Figs. 34–43. 34–39 – Lamprodila (Erialata) auripilis (Obenberger, 1922), syntype, female, 10.5 mm, Borneo; 39 – the same, female from Pahang. 40–43 – L. (E.) pubescens (Fisher, 1930), holotype, 10.5 mm, Perak (photos by M. G. Volkovitsh). 34, 40 – habitus, dorsal view; 41 – habitus, ventral view; 35 – habitus, lateral view; 36, 42 – head, frontal view; 37 – prosternal process; 38–39, 43 – anal ventrite.

Figs. 59–70. 59–64 – Melobasina apicalis Kerremans, 1900, lectotype, female, 13.5 mm, Tagula Island (except 60 – female, 11.5 mm, Guadalcanal Island).65 – M.ignita (Théry, 1937) (synonym of M.apicalis), holotype, female, 12.5 mm, Bougainville Island. 66–70 – M. suturalis (Deyrolle, 1864), female (NMPC), 13.0 mm, Halmahera Island. 59–60, 65–66 – habitus, dorsal view; 61, 67 – habitus, lateral view; 62, 68 – head, frontal view; 63, 69 – prosternal process; 64, 70 – anal ventrite.

Figs. 44–58. 44–48 – Lamprodila (Cinyrisia) psilopteroides (Deyrolle, 1864), female (NMPC), 19.0 mm, Borneo. 49–53 – L. (Mabomisia) sexspinosa (Thomson, 1857), syntype, 15.5 mm, Borneo. 54–58 – Melobasina solomonensis (Théry, 1937), holotype, female, 12.0 mm, Solomons. 44, 49, 54 – habitus, dorsal view; 45, 50, 55 – habitus, lateral view; 46, 51, 56 – head, frontal view; 47, 52 – prosternal process; 57 – habitus, ventral view; 48, 53, 58 – anal ventrite.

Figs. 98–108. 98–102 – Lamprodila (Ovalisia) auricollis (Deyrolle, 1864), female, 11.0 mm, Halmahera Island. 103–108 – Ulaikoilia jelineki Bílý & Kubáň, gen. nov., sp. nov., holotype, male, 9.8 mm, Papua New Guinea. 98, 103 – habitus, dorsal view; 99, 104 – habitus, lateral view; 105 – right antenna; 100, 106 – head, frontal view; 101, 107 – prosternal process; 102, 108 – anal ventrite.