Rhinocypha Rambur, 1842
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.1481114 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6485252 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0395A91C-AC78-FF88-95EE-FC53FB08FDD3 |
treatment provided by |
PlaziZenodoSync |
scientific name |
Rhinocypha Rambur |
status |
|
Genus: Rhinocypha Rambur View in CoL
Selected references
Rhinocypha . — RAMBUR (1842): 232–233 (original diagnosis; type species: Rhinocypha tincta Rambur [designated by KIRBY 1890: 114]) — SELYS (1853): sep. 59–64 (revision, downgraded to subgenus, new species described); SELYS (1854): 198–225 (monograph); SELYS (1869): sep. 18–21 (additions to revision); SELYS (1873a): 487–493, 507–519 (sep. 23–29, 43–55) (additions to revision, table with classification); SELYS (1873b): 614–615 (sep. 61–62) (descriptions of Rhinocypha monochroa and R. albistigma); SELYS (1879): sep. 39–51 (additions to revision); SELYS (1882): 21–22 (Philippines); KIRBY (1890): 112–114 (upgraded to genus; species included, selection of type species); SELYS (1891): 213–216 (Philippines, discussion R. semitincta); RIS (1915): 87–89 (New Guinea); RIS (1916): 310–313 (revision species Celebes, key); FRASER (1926): 484 (R. tincta type locality Java [in error]); LIEFTINCK (1935): 175–177 ( Rhinocypha species of Celebes); COW- LEY (1937): 1–18 (penis of Chlorocyphidae , group character); LIEFTINCK (1938): 49–70 (species of New Guinea described and illustrated); FRASER (1949): 10–16, figs. 1(4) ( Chlorocyphidae revised, diagnoses of genera, key to genera); LAIdLAW (1950): 257–280 (classification of Chlorocyphidae , series Rhinocypha subdivid- ed, new genera erected); FRASER (1957): 70–74 (classification of Chlorocyphidae , with key to genera); VAN TOL & GASSMANN (2007): 66–67, fig. 10 ( Rhinocypha tincta group discussed); MICHALSKI (2012): 73–79 (summary taxa New Guinea).
Diagnosis
Here we repeat the diagnosis as provided by FRASER (1949: 10 f.):
»Species varying from moderately large to rather small and slim stature. Wings of males, with few exceptions, coloured and marked with brilliant iridescent, vitreous and opaque fasciae or spot, the opaque areas often with hyaline vitreous spots or striae. Wings of females colourless or rarely with opaque tips, or, in old adults, often assuming an uniform brownish or yel- lowish tint. Shape of wings of males very variable, very narrow and elongate or broader, the hind wings often very broad and imparting an anisopterous character to the insects. Mesothoracic triangle variable, small and incon- spicuous or extending the whole length of dorsum and markedly dilated below. Body markings usually restricted and not ordinarily conspicuous, but occasionally blue, greenish yellow or even brick red on the male abdomen. MA entirely straight throughout its course and rather closely parallel with CuP to as far as wing margin: at least 2 intercalated veins between R2 and R3, the longer of which extends inwards to proximal of the pterostigma. Anal vein and CuP extending well beyond level of nodus; antenodals very numerous and always one or more secondaries between the two primaries.«
LAIdLAW (1950: 270 ff.) split the genus as defined by Fraser, and limited the genus Rhinocypha to those species with a short mesothoracic triangle, with brownish black areas in the wings of the males, and deeply tinged wings with milky-white patch at the apex of the hind wings in the female. Species with an enlarged mesothoracic triangle were assigned to Calocypha Fraser , Sundacypha Laidlaw , Heliocypha Fraser , Heterocypha Laidlaw and Aristocypha Laidlaw. At present there is some debate concerning the classification of the Chlorocyphidae , with, for example, Heliocypha and Aristocypha be- ing included as subgenera of Rhinocypha by some authorities (DIJKSTRA et al. 2014).
The generic attribution of the species on Sulawesi is undisputed. All spe- cies are closely allied to the type species of the genus Rhinocypha , viz., Rhinocypha tincta Rambur.
Remarks
No descriptions of secondary genitalia or anal appendages are included, since these structures exhibit little variation in Chlorocyphidae (COWLEY 1937; LIEFTINCK 1938; LAIdLAW 1950), while all species of the Rhinocypha tincta group share a similar penis structure (‘type II’ of Cowley). Anal appendages are simple and lack diagnostic characters.
Key to the Rhinocypha View in CoL species of Sulawesi and adjacent islands
1a – Males ........................................................................................................ 2
1b – Females .................................................................................................... 10
2 – Males
2a – Head with paired blue or bluish white spot on frons ( Fig. 3 View Figure 3 ); size of spots with substantial variation between populations ( Figs 30– 33 View Figures 30–33 , 35 View Figure 35 ); median lobe of pronotum black; blue stripe on synthorax ( Fig. 27 View Figures 25–29 ) with distinct posterior projection over metepisternum, reaching posterior border of synthorax; ante-humeral stripe distinct in anterior part of mesepisternum ( Rhinocypha frontalis View in CoL complex) ................................................................................................... 3
2b – Head with frons black, without pale spot; median lobe of prono- tum black, or with blue marking, usually extending on lateral cornerofanteriorlobe(e.g., Fig.20 View Figures 19–23 );bluestripeonsynthorax (e.g., Figs 21 View Figures 19–23 , 63 View Figures 61–65 ) dorsally straight, or with short projection over met- episternum, but with variation between populations; ante- humeral stripe absent .............................................................................. 5
3a – Opaque dark patch in wing medially usually from level well basal to nodus (population of SW Sulawesi even from Ax5–6); blue markings on median lobe of pronotum relatively small; blue markings on frons variable, but usually much larger than in next species; hind wing length 23–30 mm; Sulawesi ( R. frontalis View in CoL ) .............. 4
3b – Opaque dark patch of wing only distal to nodus; blue markings on median lobe of pronotum extensive; blue markings on frons small; hind wing length 19–20 mm; Sangihe Is ...................... ... ............................................................................... R. sangihensis View in CoL sp. nov.
4a – Opaque dark patch distal to nodus in costal space, medially starting from level 5Ax anterior to nodus; wing length 24–25 mm ................................................................... R. frontalis frontalis View in CoL
4b – Opaque dark patch distal to Ax5 in costal space, medially basis just distal to fork of Rs, but leaving quadrangle free (transparent); wing length 27–28 mm ........... R. frontalis sulselensis ssp. nov .
5a – Mandibles with distinct blue spot, covering at least 50% of man- dible; blue stripe over synthorax with a ventral projection along the metapleural suture ( Figs 41–42 View Figures 39–44 ) ................................. R. monochroa
5b – Mandibles black, or with small pale (blue, or pale yellow) spot only ... 6
6a – Dorsum of abdomen pruinose ( Fig. 8 View Figure 8 ) ............................. R. phantasma
6b – Dorsum of abdomen black, but may have well-defined blue annulae (rings) anteriorly on S4–S9 ....................................................... 7
7a – Distinct annulae anteriorly on S4–S9 of abdomen ( Figs 10, 81 View Figures 78–82 ) .. ..................................................................................... R. virgulata View in CoL sp. nov.
7b – Dorsum of abdomen black in all segments, no anterior annulae on S4–S9 ..................................................................................................... 8
8a – Pronotum black, without larger or smaller blue or creamish spots ( Fig. 73 View Figures 72–76 ); mesopreepisternum black ................... R. togeanensis View in CoL sp. nov.
8b – Pronotum with blue or creamish spots at least in latero-anterior corner of median lobe, and on lateral lobe; mesopreepisternum with blue marking ..................................................................................... 9
9a – Opaque parts of wings fully distal to nodus ( Fig.54 View Figure 54 ); tibiae of mid and hind legs white ............................................... R. pelengensis View in CoL sp. nov.
9b – Opaque parts of wings extending in middle of wing to distal side of quadrangle ( Fig. 18 View Figure 18 ); tibiae of mid and hind legs typically pale yellow, but sometimes difficult to see in museum specimens ................................................................... R. flavipoda View in CoL sp. nov.
10 – Females
10a – Frons with paired pale spot (in some individual specimens rather small and indistinct) ( Figs 29 View Figures 25–29 , 65 View Figures 61–65 ) .......................................... 11
10b – Frons black ............................................................................................ 15
11a – Anterior lobe of pronotum with paired median spot (e.g., Fig. 4 View Figure 4 ) .. 12
11b – Anterior lobe of pronotum black, or with small spot in lateral corners, which continues on median lobe, usually much larger than on anterior lobe ........................................................................... 14
12a – Mainland Sulawesi ( R. frontalis View in CoL ) ........................................................ 13
12b – Sangihe islands (only one teneral and incomplete specimen available) ............................................................... R. sangihensis View in CoL sp. nov.
13a – Distinct transverse brown band on fore and hind wing, extreme distal part of wings somewhat opaque white; base to transverse band usually slightly enfumed ( Fig. 36 View Figures 36–37 ); length of hind wing up to 26 mm .............................................................................. R. f. frontalis View in CoL
13b – Transverse band on wings rather fuzzy, indistinct from approximately Px10 to just anterior to pterostigma (fore wing), or halfway pterostigma (hind wing); base enfumed dark brown ( Fig. 37 View Figures 36–37 ); length of hind wing ca 30 mm .............. .................................................................. R. frontalis sulselensis sp. nov.
14a – Lateral lobe of pronotum with pale, creamy white spot; scapus (base of antenna) pale, only interrupted in middle of this antennal segment ( Fig. 65 View Figures 61–65 ). Sulawesi, Buton ................. R. phantasma
14b – Pronotum black; scapus black ( Fig. 59 View Figures 55–59 ). Banggai Islands only. ................................................................................ R. pelengensis View in CoL sp. nov.
15a – Mandible largely bluish white, only black at base; gena with extensive yellow marking, which is connected with pale stripe along the eye, dorsally running to level of lateral ocelli ( Fig. 44 View Figures 39–44 ) .............................................................................. R. monochroa
15b – Mandible with pale spot covering 50% or less; yellow markings on gena and along eye small and narrow (e.g., Fig. 82 View Figures 78–82 ) .................. 16
16a – Pronotum and mesopreepisternum black. Togian Islands ... .............................................................................. R. togeanensis View in CoL sp. nov.
16b – Pronotum with pale markings; mesopreepisternum creamy white (see Fig. 11 View Figure 11 ) ................................................................................ 17
17a – Median lobe of pronotum latero-anteriorly with large irregular spot, which continues in lateral corner of anterior lobe; lateral lobe of pronotum with large, irregular spot; sides of abdominal S2–S4 against dorsum with a longitudinal or L-shaped mark- ing ( Fig. 11 View Figure 11 ) ............................................................. R. virgulata View in CoL sp. nov.
17b – Median lobe of pronotum latero-anteriorly with small pale spot; lateral lobe of pronotum with small spot; sides of abdom- inal segments against dorsum at most with a semicircular spot (there is a series of longitudinal markings close to ventral side of the tergites) ......................................................... R. flavipoda View in CoL sp. nov.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |