Physopelta Amyot & Serville, 1843

Stehlík, Jaroslav L., 2013, Review and reclassification of the Old World genus Physopelta (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Largidae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 53 (2), pp. 505-584 : 510-512

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5739959

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:8D64B275-C6AF-411E-B79D-A3EBEB3D093FD

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5740258

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B66912-FFB3-0462-FE1C-FC2AFBC0FC89

treatment provided by

Marcus

scientific name

Physopelta Amyot & Serville, 1843
status

 

Physopelta Amyot & Serville, 1843

Physopelta Amyot & Serville, 1843: 271 .

Type species: Physopelta erythrocephala Amyot & Serville, 1843 (= Cimex albofasciatus DeGeer, 1773 ), subsequent designation by HUSSEY (1929: 28).

Note. DISTANT’ s (1903a: 97) designation of Cimex albofasciatus De Geer as the type species of Physopelta is unavailable, because its synonymy with Physopelta erythrocephala Amyot & Serville , an originally included nominal species, was not mentioned by Distant (see KERZHNER 2001: 246).

Physopelta: STÅL (1861) : 195 (key to genera, list of species); STÅL (1863): 390 (revision of species); STÅL (1866): 2 (key to genera, diagnosis); STÅL (1868): 79 (diagnosis); STÅL (1870): 91, 99 (key to genera and species, catalogue, distribution); WALKER (1873): 17 (key to species, catalogue, distribution); LETHIERRY & SEVERIN (1894): 241 –242 (catalogue, distribution); BREDDIN (1901): 175 (distribution); KIRKALDY & EDWARDS (1902): 165 (taxonomy); DISTANT (1903a):94, 97–99 (key to genera,diagnosis, revision of Indian fauna); BERGROTH (1913):167 (catalogue); HUSSEY (1929): 28–33 (type species designation, catalogue, distribution); SCHMIDT (1931): 45–47 (catalogue, distribution); CACHAN (1952):72–73 (diagnosis, revision of Madagascar fauna); VILLIERS (1952): 120 (diagnosis); STEHLÍK (1965a): 287–289 (taxonomy); LESTON (1969): 225–227 (key to species of Ghana, biology, ecology); LIU (1981): 222–224, pl.28 (key, revision of the fauna of China and Taiwan); AHMAD & ABBAS (1987): 132, 136–138, 141–142 (key to genera, redescription, figures, phylogeny, distribution); ZAMAL & CHOPRA (1990): 3–7, 10–12 (key to genera, revision of Indian fauna); STEHLÍK & KERZHNER (1999): 121–122 (taxonomy); KERZHNER (2001): 245–246 (catalogue); CASSIS & GROSS (2002): 625–627 (catalogue); ROBERTSON (2004): 2, 4–5 (key to African genera and species, catalogue, distribution); STEHLÍK (2006a): 658 (differences from Jindraia ); VOIGT (2006): 223–225 (key to Palaearctic genera and species); RÉDEI et al. (2009): 11–12 (morphology, distribution, fauna of Taiwan); ZHU et al. (2012): 193–198 (ecology, distribution).

Diagnosis. Head not shortened, not positioned much lower than pronotum. Callar lobe of pronotum usually strongly gibbose in male and less gibbose in female (different among subgenera). Pronotum not constricted, its lateral margins narrow, only slightly concave medially. Profemora ventrally with a longitudinal furrow ( Figs 5 View Figs 1–5 , 19 View Figs 17–19 , 51 View Figs 48–51 , 66−67 View Figs 64–69 , 98 View Figs 93–98 ). Stridulatory organs (when present) on coxa and trochanter of fore leg ( Figs 1−2 View Figs 1–5 , 17−18 View Figs 17–19 ). Macropterous. Male abdomen never prolonged behind apex of hemelytra. Body length 9.5–20.0 mm.

Discussion. The present revision of the genus Physopelta in its traditional concept (i.e., excluding Delacampius ) revealed that it is not a monophyletic taxon. While Physopelta festiva and Ph. apicalis must be excluded from the genus, the remaining species belonging to Physopelta can be further divided into four well-delimited subgenera. In contrast with the two Afrotropical subgenera proposed in the present paper ( Afrophysopelta subgen. nov., Physopeltoides subgen. nov.) which lack any sexual dimorphism, the two subgenera from the Oriental and Australian Regions ( Physopelta s. str., Neophysopelta sensu novo) have developed sexual dimorphism: males have more gibbose callar lobe, incrassate profemora, and a longitudinal row of small denticles on the ventral surface of the protibia. This sexual dimorphism is also connected with allometry causing individual differences among the conspecific males. This sexual dimorphism and allometry were described by STEHLÍK (2007: 127) who provided colour photos of a normal male, an allometric male, and a female of Physopelta (Neophysopelta) gutta gutta ( Burmeister, 1834) and Ph. (N.) quadriguttata Bergroth, 1894 . Moreover, males of Physopelta s. str. have a strong spine anteapically on the ventral surface of the protibia, which is missing in females. The presence of a longitudinal row of small denticles on the ventral surface of the meso- and metafemora, which could be sexually dimorphic and may also vary within the allometry in males, is recognized here as useful character for defining genera within Physopeltinae . This character was used for the first time in descriptions of Physopelta trimaculata Stehlík & Jindra, 2008 and Ph. kotheae Stehlík & Jindra, 2008 ( STEHLÍK & JINDRA 2008a). In some cases, a longitudinal furrow on the ventral surface of the metafemora may even be present.

The Oriental subgenera Physopelta s. str. and Neophysopelta possess stridulatory organs, which has a specific structure in both of the subgenera, and which are missing in the Afrotropical Physopeltoides subgen. nov. and Afrophysopelta subgen. nov. These stridulatory organs, described here for the first time, seems to be unique within all known Heteroptera .

Key to the subgenera of Physopelta

1(4) Stridulatory organs present on procoxa and protrochanter ( Figs 1−2 View Figs 1–5 , 17−18 View Figs 17–19 ). Peritreme of metathoracic scent glands horizontal, scimitar-shaped, directed laterad to posterolaterad ( Figs 3−4 View Figs 1–5 , 20, 22 View Figs 20–25 ). Sexual dimorphism and allometry in males well developed. Mostly large species (with few exceptions, 10.5–21.0 mm). Oriental and Australian Regions....................................................................................................................................2

2(3) Antennomere 1 longer than antennomere 2. Males with a strong, orthogonally directed apical tooth on ventral surface of protibia ( Figs 5 View Figs 1–5 , 15 View Figs 13–16.13–15 ). Stridulatory organ in form of a strong tooth (strigil) on protrochanter and a depression on ventral surface of procoxa (plectrum) ( Figs 1−2 View Figs 1–5 ). Peritreme of metathoracic scent glands directed laterad ( Figs 3−4 View Figs 1–5 ). Paramere with apex longer and narrower, outer margin angulately produced basally ( Figs 8−12 View Figs 6–12 ). Large species: 15.7–21.0 mm. ................................... ........................................................................... Physopelta Amyot & Serville, 1843

3(2) Antennomere 1 shorter than antennomere 2 (except Ph. finisterrae ). Tibiae in males apically without tooth. Stridulatory organ in form of a tooth on procoxa (strigil) and a wrinkled cuticule on protrochanter (plectrum) ( Figs 17−18 View Figs 17–19 ). Peritreme of metathoracic scent glands directed posterolaterad ( Figs 20, 22 View Figs 20–25 ). Paramere with apex shorter and narrower, outer margin without distinct angulate process ( Figs 30−34 View Figs 30–34 ). Smaller species: 10.5–15.1 mm. ................................ Neophysopelta Ahmad & Abbas, 1987 stat. nov.

4(1) Stridulatory organs on fore leg absent ( Figs 48−49 View Figs 48–51 , 64−65 View Figs 64–69 ). Peritreme of metathoracic scent glands longitudinal, crescent-shaped, projecting both anteriad and posteriad ( Figs 68−69 View Figs 64–69 ). Sexual dimorphism and allometry in males not developed.Antennomere 1 shorter than antennomere 2. Smaller species (8.5–12.6 mm). Subsaharan Africa including Madagascar and Mascarenes. ..................................................................................... 5

5(6) Callar lobe distinctly gibbose; profemora incrassate ( Figs 60−61 View Figs 60–63. 60–61 ); meso- and metafemora of both sexes ventrally with a row of small denticles along their entire length. ............ ....................................................................................... Physopeltoides subgen. nov.

6(5) Callar lobe weakly gibbose; profemora not incrassate ( Figs 62−63 View Figs 60–63. 60–61 ); meso- and metafemora ventrally without row of small denticles. .......... Afrophysopelta subgen. nov.

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Hemiptera

Family

Largidae

Loc

Physopelta Amyot & Serville, 1843

Stehlík, Jaroslav L. 2013
2013
Loc

Physopelta: STÅL (1861)

ZHU G. - P. & WANG X. - J. & BU W. - J. & LIU G. - Q. 2012: 193–198
REDEI D. & TSAI J. - F. & YANG M. - M. 2009: 11-12
STEHLIK J. L. 2006: 658
VOIGT K. 2006: 223–225
ROBERTSON I. A. D. 2004: 2, 4–5
CASSIS G. & GROSS G. F. 2002: 625–627
KERZHNER I. M. 2001: 245-246
STEHLIK J. L. & KERZHNER I. M. 1999: 121-122
ZAMAL S. & CHOPRA N. P. 1990: 3–7, 10–12
AHMAD & ABBAS 1987: 132, 136–138, 141–142
LIU S. - L. 1981: 222–224
LESTON D. 1969: 225–227
STEHLIK J. L. 1965: 287–289
CACHAN P. 1952: 72–73
VILLIERS A. 1952: 120
SCHMIDT E. 1931: 45–47
HUSSEY F. 1929: 28–33
DISTANT W. L. 1903: 94, 97–99
KIRKALDY G. W. & EDWARDS S. 1902: 165
BREDDIN G. 1901: 175
LETHIERRY L. & SEVERIN G. 1894: 241
WALKER F. 1873: 17
STAL C. 1870: 91, 99
STAL C. 1868: 79
STAL C. 1866: 2
STAL C. 1863: 390
STAL C. 1861: 195
BERGROTH (1913) :167
1861
Loc

Physopelta

Amyot & Serville 1843: 271
1843