Maladera sinica ( Hope, 1845 )

Fabrizi, Silvia, Liu, Wan-Gang, Bai, Ming, Yang, Xing-Ke & Ahrens, Dirk, 2021, A monograph of the genus Maladera Mulsant & Rey, 1871 of China (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae: Sericini), Zootaxa 4922 (1), pp. 1-400 : 312-315

Maladera sinica ( Hope, 1845)

Figure, 74A–D, 128

Serica sinica Hope, 1845: 9 .

Autoserica sinica: Brenske 1897: 406 .

Maladera sinica: Ahrens 2002: 88 ; 2006b: 238; 2007b: 24.

Type material examined. Holotype ( sinica ): ♂ “ China / 60-15 E.T.C./ Type / sinica Hope ” ( BMNH).

Additional material examined. 1 ♂ “ Chine 4.IV.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♂, 4 ♀♀ “ Chine 8.IV.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 3 ♂♂, 1 ♀ “ Chine 12.IV.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen” ( MHNG) , 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀ “ Chine 18.IV.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 7 ♂♂, 4 ♀♀ “ Chine 21.IV.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 3 ♂♂ “ Chine 30.IV.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♀ “ Chine 31.IV.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♂ “ Chine 1.V.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 3 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ “ Chine 4.V.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♀ “ Chine 8.V.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♂, 1 ♀ “ Chine 10.V.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♂, 1 ♀ “ Chine 12.V.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 2 ♂♂ “ Chine 18.V.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♀ “ Chine 29.V.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♂ “ Chine 1.VI.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♂, 1 ♀ “ Chine 4.VI.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 3 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀ “ Chine 12.VI.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 6 ♂♂, 1 ♀ “ Chine 20.VI.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♂ “ Chine 29.VI.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♂, 1 ♀ “ Chine 4.VII.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 4 ♂♂, 1 ♀ “ Chine 6.VII.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 3 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ “ Chine 16.VII.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♂ “ Chine 28.VII.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♀ “ Chine 11.VIII.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen” ( MHNG) , 1 ♀ “ Chine 14.VIII.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♀ “ Chine 2.X.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen” ( MHNG) , 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀ “ Chine 12.X.46 Kuatun, Fukien leg. Tschung-Sen ” ( MHNG) , 1 ♂ “Fukien, S. China, Shaowu, Tachuland 13.vi.1942 / T.C. Maa Bishop Mus.” ( BMH) , 2 ♂♂ “Fukien, S. China, Shaowu, Tachuland 31.v.1942 / T.C. Maa Bishop Museum” ( BMH) , 1 ♂ “Fukien, S. China, Shaowu, Tachuland 6.v.1942 / T.C. Maa Bishop Museum” ( BMH) , 1 ♂ “Fukien, S. China, Shaowu, Tachuland 10.vi.1942 / T.C. Maa Bishop Museum” ( BMH) , 5 ♂♂, 1 ♀ “ China, Fukien 08.IV.1938 leg. Klapperich ZFMK Bonn” ( ZFMK) , 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀ “ China, W Fujian, 9.-28. V. Taining E env. Pitfall traps, 26.9N 117.15E Jaroslav Turna leg., 2005” ( ZFMK) , 1 ♂♂ “ China, W Fujian, 8.-25.V. Wuyi Shan mts. – 10 km W Xingcun pitfall traps, 27.65N 117.85E Jaroslav Turna leg., 2005” ( ZFMK) , 1 ♂ “ China, W Fujian, 1.-2.VII. Emei Feng , 1200-1500m 27°01‘N 117°04‘E Jaroslav Turna leg. 2007” ( ZFMK) , 4 ♂♂ “ China, W Hubei prov. Dashennogiia Nat. Res. Muyu, E slope, 2000m, 12-15 Jun 1997, Bolm lgt.” ( CP) , 1 ♂ “ China, W Zhejiang, 7.VI.-17.VI. Baima Shan , 1270-1520m 28°37‘N 119°09‘E Jaroslav Turna leg. 2008” ( ZFMK) , 2 ♂♂ “ China, Fukien 10.VI.1938 leg. Klapperich ZFMK; Bonn” ( ZFMK) , 3 ex. “ China: S-Hubei Mupushan Tangshan vi.2004 leg. Wen ” ( ZFMK) , 3 ♂♂ “ Tsche-Kiang Ning-Po” ( ZMHB) , 3 ♂♂ “ Yunnan-Sen ” ( ZMHB) , 2 ♂♂ “ Fokien Yun-ling-shan” ( ZMHB) , 1 ♀ “ China Tsche-Kiang” ( ZMHB) , 2 ♂♂ “ China Tschekiang” ( ZMHB) , 3 ♂, 3 ♀♀ “Ningpo China ” ( ZMHB) , 1 ♂ “ Mt. Sanqingshan, Shangrao , Jiangxi, 15-20.IV.2007, leg. Shi Lei ” ( LSSYU) , 1 ♂ “ Mt. Simingshan, Yuyao , Zhejiang, 29.IV.1980, leg. Yang Jikun ” ( CAU) , 1 ♂ “ Aotou, Huangkeng, Jianyang , Fujian, 7.V.1960, 750- 950m, leg. Ma Chenglin ” ( IZAS) , 1 ♂ “ Aotou, Huangkeng, Jianyang , Fujian, 6.V.1960, 650- 950m, leg. Jiang Shengqiao ” ( IZAS) , 1 ♂ “ Mts. Tianmushan , Zhejiang, 7.VI.1964, 1200-1500m, leg. Chen Tailu ” ( IZAS) , 2 ♂♂ “ China: Shanghai VI.1962 ” ( SNUC) , 1 ♂ “ Tiantaishan Tiantai city Zhejiang Prov. alt. 850-900m 11-12-VII-2007 Shen & Xu leg.” ( SNUC) , 22 ex. “ China Foochow 1935- 6 M. S. Yang ” ( BMNH) , 1 ex. “ China. Fo-kien. Ting-hai June 1899 P. de la Garde 1906-89.” ( BMNH) , 1 ♂ “ Serica mutata Fab. China M.S.L.” ( USNM) , 1 ♂ “ Zakow , China VII-16-1924 ” ( USNM) , 1 ♂ “ Zakow , China./ VI.5 1924 coll. H.L. Jaynes ” ( USNM) , 3 ♂♂ “ Zakow , China./ June 2-6 1924 coll. H.L. Jaynes ” ( USNM) , 2 ♂♂ “ Zakow , China./ III-24 to IV-19. 1926 coll. H.L. Jaynes ” ( USNM) , 1 ♂ “ Zakow , China./ VII-6 to VIII-19 1924 coll. H.L. Jaynes ” ( USNM) , 1 ♂ “ Sochow , China / N Gist Gee coll” ( USNM) .

Redescription. Length: 9.6 mm, length of elytra: 7.1 mm, width: 6.1 mm. Body oblong-oval, dark reddish to reddish brown, antenna yellow, shiny, labroclypeus shiny, dorsal face nearly glabrous.

Labroclypeus wide and subtrapezoidal, widest at base, lateral margins weakly convex and strongly convergent anteriorly, anterior angles moderately rounded, anterior margin weakly emarginate, margins weakly reflexed; lateral margin and ocular canthus produce an indistinct angle; surface weakly convex medially, finely, densely punctate, glabrous; frontoclypeal suture indistinctly incised, weakly curved; smooth area anterior to eye convex, twice as wide as long; ocular canthus short and narrow (1/4 of ocular diameter), finely densely punctate, with a terminal seta. Frons with dense and fine punctures, with a few single setae beside eyes. Eyes small, ratio diameter/ interocular width: 0.54. Antenna with ten antennomeres, club composed of three antennomeres and straight, little shorter than remaining antennomeres combined. Mentum elevated and slightly flattened anteriorly.

Pronotum transverse, widest shortly before base, lateral margins evenly convex and convergent anteriorly, anterior angles distinctly produced and sharp, posterior angles blunt; anterior margin straight, with fine marginal line, base without marginal line; surface finely and densely punctate, with minute setae in punctures being as long as puncture diameter, otherwise glabrous; anterior and lateral margin sparsely setose; hypomeron carinate, not produced ventrally. Scutellum wide, triangular, with fine, dense punctures.

Elytra widest at posterior third, striae finely impressed, finely and densely punctate, intervals moderately convex, with fine, moderately dense punctures concentrated along striae and with minute setae in punctures, odd interval with a few single erect setae; epipleural margin robust, ending at apical external angle of elytra, epipleura densely setose; apical border of elytra membraneous, with a very fine rim of microtrichomes (visible at ca 100x magnification).

Ventral surface shiny, finely and densely punctate, metasternum including disc sparsely setose; metacoxa glabrous, with a few longer setae laterally. Abdominal sternites finely and densely punctate, punctures with minute setae, each sternite with a transverse row of punctures each bearing a fine seta. Mesosternum between mesocoxae as wide as mesofemur. Ratio of length of metepisternum/metacoxa: 1/1.45. Pygidium moderately convex, dull, finely and densely punctate, without smooth midline, with numerous long setae along apical margin.

Legs moderately long and wide, shiny; femora with two longitudinal rows of setae, finely and sparsely punctate. Metafemur in widest part shiny, anterior margin acute, without adjacent continuous serrated line, anterior row of setae complete; posterior ventral margin smooth, weakly widened at ventral apex, dorsal posterior margin smooth, neither serrate, with a few single long setae. Metatibia short and moderately wide, widest at middle, ratio of width/length: 1/3.2, sharply carinate dorsally, with two groups of spines, basal group at middle, apical group at three quarters of metatibial length, in basal half with a few fine single setae but without serrated line; lateral face longitudinally convex, except a few sparse punctures on base smooth and glabrous; ventral margin finely serrate, with three nearly equidistant robust setae; medial face smooth and glabrous; apex finely serrate, concavely emarginate interiorly near tarsal articulation. Tarsomeres dorsally impunctate, glabrous, neither laterally nor dorsally carinate, moderately setose ventrally; metatarsomeres with a strongly serrated ridge ventrally and a smooth subventral longitudinal carina, glabrous; first metatarsomere distinctly shorter than following two tarsomeres combined and distinctly longer than dorsal tibial spur. Protibia short, distinctly tridentate; anterior claws symmetrical, basal tooth of both claws bluntly truncate at apex.

Aedeagus: Fig. 74 A–C. Habitus: Fig. 74D .

Remarks. The specimens cited from Taiwan as M. sinica ( Ahrens 2002) belong to a different species, which is likely to be M. japonica (Motschulsky, 1860) . Miyake & Yamaya (1995, p. 35) described Maladera japonica korai Miyake & Yamaya, 1995 from northern Korea, which closely resembles M. sinica (Hope) ; however, we could not confirm its identity since we did not have the opportunity to examine the holotype of this species. According to Dr. O. Toole, no additional syntypes of M. sinica are present in the Hope Collection (Oxford). Contributions to the identity of Maladera japonica (Motschulsky, 1860) , made by several authors ( Arrow 1927; Nikolaev 1982) need to be treated with care: Nikolaev (1982) synonymized Maladera orientalis ( Motschulsky, 1858) with M. japonica (Motschulsky, 1860) . He based his conclusion only on the fact that the ‘type specimen of M. japonica bears labels of Arrow on which is noticed the identity of the former with M. orientalis .’ However, the labels say exactly: “ S. japonica, Mots. = orientalis, Brsk. G.J. Arrow det.” (see also Arrow 1927, p. 70). In fact, Arrow (1927) treated Maladera orientalis ( Motschulsky, 1858) and M. japonica (Motschulsky, 1860) as two valid species as a result of the study of the Motschulsky types. The species are easily distinguished in that M. japonica has a third lateral tooth of the front tibia ( Arrow 1927). However, it remains unclear which specimens of “ M. orientalis Brenske ” Arrow had for examination. Unfortunately, the syntypes of M. japonica are both females, thus the true identity of M. japonica may be recognized only with some difficulty based on the geographical provenience of the species ( Japan). Consequently, we may say, Maladera orientalis ( Motschulsky, 1858) is not synonymous with M. japonica (Motschulsky, 1860) (having examined types of the both species during this study), and M. japonica is distinct from M. sinica (Hope) as well. Thus, we follow the interpretation of Nomura (1973) of M. japonica ). Maladera sinica is rather similar to Maladera maedai Nomura, 1974 , however, the left paramere of the former is not bluntly widened laterally as it is in M. maedai .

Distribution. See map ( Fig. 128 ) and Table 1.

Figures

FIGURE 74. A–D: Maladera sinica (Hope, 1845) (China: Fukien); E–H: M. danfengensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n. (holotype). A, E: aedeagus, left side lateral view; C, G: aedeagus, right side lateral view; B, F: parameres, dorsal view; D, H: habitus. Scale: 0.5 mm. Habitus not to scale.

FIGURE 128. Distribution of the Maladera sinica group: Maladera danfengensis sp. n., M. kreyenbergi (Moser, 1918), M. nigrobrunnea (Moser, 1926), M. opacifrons (Fairmaire, 1891), M. sinica (Hope, 1845).