Genus Neolucanus Thomson, 1862

Neolucanus Thomson, 1862 . Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., 2 (4): 415. Type species: Odontolabis baladeva Hope, 1842 .

Lucanus (Odontolabis) Hope & Westwood, 1845 . Cat. Lucan. Coleop.: 5 (nec Hope, 1842). Type species: Lucanus delesserti Hope. (nec Guérin-Méneville, 1839). Some species in the current Neolucanus had been placed under this subgenus.

Anoplocnemus Burmeister, 1847 . Handb. Ent., 5: 357. Type species: Lucanus alces Fabricius, 1775 . Hope (1843: 279) firstly used it for a monotype species Anoplocnemus burvicisleri . Parry (1864: 12) proposed this species as a synonym of Odontolabis cuvera (Hope, 1842) . The name was also occupied by Anoplocnemis Stål in Hemioptera in 1873.

Odontolabris Saunders, 1854. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. (N. S.), 3 (2): 47. It was most likely a clerical error or a misprint.

Anodontolabis Parry, 1863 . Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1 (3): 447. Type species: Odontolabis baladeva Hope, 1842 . The name was synonymized by Leuthner (1885: 420).

Calcodes Arrow, 1935 . Trans. R. Ent. Soc. Lond., 83 (1): 107. Some species in Neolucanus were moved into Calcodes by Arrow, which was not completely as same as the genus Calcodes Westwood, 1834 .

Remarks. In the field, members of Neolucanus can distinguish from those of Odontolabis by external characters. In Neolucanus, head in male is relatively small, shorter and narrower than the pronotum, postocular margins often distinctly convex without sharp spine; hind angles of pronotum in female is obtuse, mentum has long and dense hairs or a pair of ridges on the surface. While in Odontolabis, head in male is large, longer and broader than the pronotum, post-ocular margins convex with very sharp spines; hind angles of pronotum in female is sharp, mentum looks flatten, often with very sparse hairs. However, few species in the two genera are so similar in the external morphology that they are difficult to differ. Such as the large male of N. pallescens resembles to the medium-sized and small male of O. sinensis, their females are also very similar to each other. Male and female genitalia of the two genera are also present highly structural similarities. They have close phylogenetic relationship due to their morphology. Systematics of the two genera, including other allied genera, Calcodes and Heterochthes (in the catalogue of Parry, 1864: 17) are in need of detailed study in future.