Oodescelis (Acutoodescelis) punctatissima emmerichi Kaszab, 1940

Bai, Xing-Long, Li, Xiu-Min & Ren, Guo-Dong, 2019, A review of the genus Oodescelis Motschulsky, 1845 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae Platyscelidini) from China, Zootaxa 4656 (3), pp. 401-430 : 407

Oodescelis (Acutoodescelis) punctatissima emmerichi Kaszab, 1940 stat. n.

( Figs. 3–4 , 15–16 , 43–44 , 70 )

Oodescelis (Acutoodescelis) emmerichi Kaszab, 1940: 953 ; Egorov, 2004: 649 (incorrect spelling as emerichi); 2008: 294; 2009a: 60.

Type material (studied). Syntypes: 1♂ ( HNHM), NW.- CHINA, S.-SCHENSI // emmerichi, Reitter // Co-Typus, Oodescelis emmerichi n. sp. 1938, Kaszab ( Figs. 43 , 70 ); 1♀ ( HNHM), NW.- CHINA, S.-SCHENSI // emmerichi, Reitter // emmerichi // Co-Typus, Oodescelis emmerichi n. sp. 1938, Kaszab.

Other material. CHINA: Gansu: 1♀ ( HNHM), Kansou S. E. // Mi tch’ing ngai // 3.V.19, Licent // Mu- seum Tientsin // emmerichi // Oodescelis emmerichi Kasz. , det. dr. Kaszab; 1 ♂, 1♀ ( MHBU), Mawu, Min Xian, 8.VII.2009, Guo-Dong Ren, Yi-Bin Ba & Yong Zhou leg.; 1♀ ( MHBU), Mawu, Min Xian, 2200 m, 8.VII.2009, Guo-Dong Ren, Yi-Bin Ba & Yong Zhou leg.; Shaanxi: 1♀ ( MHBU), Taibai Shan Medicine Farm, 12.V.1983, Tong Chen leg., coll. NWAFU; 1 ♂ ( MHBU), Taibai Shan, Mt. Qinling, 17.VII.2002, Guo-Dong Ren leg.; 1 ♂, 2♀♀ ( MHBU), Niubeiliang, Zhashui, 1056 m, 22–29.VIII.2011, Xi-Chao Zhu & Yu Zhao leg.; 1 ♂, 1♀ ( MHBU), Hou- zhenzi, Zhouzhi, 33°50′47″ N, 107°50′00″ E, 1354 m, 27.VIII.2013, Xi-Chao Zhu & Ying Tian leg.

Distribution. China: Gansu (new record), Shaanxi ( Kaszab, 1940; Egorov, 2008), Shanxi ( Egorov, 2008).

Remarks. O. emmerichi was described from South Shaanxi and compared with O. punctatissima Fairmaire, 1886 from Beijing. Later, O. pyripenis Ren, 1999 was described from Shaanxi and compared with O. emmerichi .

Morphology. Although, O. emmerichi , O. punctatissima and O. pyripenis , are closely related, they can be easily distinguished based on type specimens and original descriptions. In total, more than 1200 specimens were collected from different localities and examined for this study. O. emmerichi can be separated from the remaining species by having round punctures on pronotum (sometimes merging into very short longitudinal striae at sides), elytral punctures as large as those on pronotum and sparser, metatibiae straight. Meanwhile, variable characteristics were identified in O. punctatissima and O. pyripenis . Lateral margins of pronotum not emarginate before base and punctures merging into long longitudinal striae at sides in many of individuals of O. punctatissima , which are the typical characters of O. pyripenis ; lateral margins weakly emarginate before base in a paratype of O. pyripenis , which is exactly the typical characters of O. punctatissima on the contrary. However, parameres emarginate after apex at sides in O. punctatissima ( Fig. 19 ) whereas parameres almost parallel-sided towards apex (in the original description) in O. pyripenis . In spite of all, aedeagus of O. pyripenis much longer (5.0 mm) than O. punctatissima (ca. 3.0 mm) caused our suspicion, which also doubted by Egorov (2009a). Unfortunately, the aedeagus of holotype of O. pyripenis has been lost. In this case, a unique male paratype was dissected, and its aedeagus (2.6 mm long and 0.7 mm wide) is most similar to those in O. emmerichi but differs from the latter in more parallel sides of apex of parameres (0.7 mm long and 0.5 mm wide, Fig. 21 ).

Geographic distribution. O. pyripenis is only known from the type locality in South Mt. Qinling ( Fig. 3 ). O. emmerichi is distributed along the Mt. Qinling from South Gansu in Western to South Shaanxi in Eastern ( Fig. 3 ). O. punctatissima is widely distributed in Mt. Qinling, Loess Plateau and North China Plain ( Fig. 3 ). In addition, two specimens of O. punctatissima from Taiwan are not marked on the map.

In molecular study. Results of species delimitation using two different methods (ABGD and GMYC) and three mitochondrial gene fragments (COI, Cytb and 16s) show that O. punctatissima and O. emmerichi are recovered in one clade (C1) with strong support ( Fig. 4 ). However, additional specimens from Henan, which are most similar to O. emmerichi , are clustered in a separate clade (C2) with very strong support ( Fig. 4 ).

In conclusion, we suggest that O. punctatissima and O. emmerichi should be treated as two subspecies of O. punctatissima . O. pyripenis is not included in the phylogeny, however, it should be treated as a synonym of O. punctatissima according to morphological study at present time.

Figures

FIGURE 3. Distribution of the subgenus Acutoodescelis.

FIGURE 4. Molecular phylogenetic relationships and species boundaries of the genus Oodescelis.

FIGURES 15–30. Parameres of male aedeagus in dorsal and lateral view. 15–16. Oodescelis punctatissima emmerichi; 17–18. O. punctatissima henanana; 19–20. O. punctatissima punctatissima; 21–22. O. pyripenis; 23–24. O. acutanguloides; 25–26. O. oblonga; 27–28. O. affinis; 29–30. O. ovalis.

FIGURES 43–48. Habitus. 43–44. Oodescelis punctatissima emmerichi (males; 43. syntype); 45–46. O. punctatissima henanana (45. male, holotype; 46. female, paratype); 47–48. O. punctatissima punctatissima (47. female, lectotype).

FIGURES 67–72. Habitus and type labels. 67–69. Habitus: 67. Oodescelis kansouensis (male); 68–69. O. lii (68. male, holotype; 69. female, paratype). 70–72. Type labels: 70. O. punctatissima emmerichi; 71. O. punctatissima punctatissima; 72. O. pyripenis.