Laemoglyptus sauteri (Pic, 1911)

Pang, Hong, 2017, Taxonomic notes on the genus Laemoglyptus Fairmaire from Taiwan (Coleoptera, Cantharidae), Zootaxa 4318 (3), pp. 587-595 : 588-593

Laemoglyptus sauteri (Pic, 1911)

( Figs. 1–12 )

Drilosilis sauteri Pic, 1911b: 188 .

Laemoglyptus sauteri: Wittmer, 1948: 172 . Laemoglyptus grandis var. atripes Pic, 1921: 7 . Laemoglyptus atripes: Wittmer, 1948: 169 . syn. nov. Drilosilis rubrithorax Pic, 1912a: 13 .

Laemoglyptus rubrithorax: Wittmer, 1948: 172 . syn. nov.

Material examined. Lectotype of Drilosilis sauteri Pic, 1911 (herein designated) ( Fig. 1 )

TAIWAN: ♀ (SDEI): [p] Kosempo [=Jiaxian] / Formosa / Sauter [h] IX. [p] 07-09 // [p] Syntypus // [p] Pic det. // [h] Drilosilis sauteri n. sp. // [p] DEI Coleoptera / # 200074.

Paralecotype of Drilosilis sauteri Pic, 1911 (herein designated)

TAIWAN: ♀ (SDEI): [h] Taihorinsho [=Dalin] / [p] Formosa / Sauter [h] IX. [p] 07-09 // [p] Syntypus // [p] Pic det. // [p] DEI Coleoptera / # 200075.

Holotype of Laemoglyptus grandis var. atripes Pic , 192 1 ( Fig. 2 )

TAIWAN: ♀ (MNHN): [p] Formosa / Hoozan [=Fengshan] / Sauter // [p] 7. IX. // [h] v. atripes Pic // [h] Laemoglyptus / atripes / Det. A. Slipinski 2014// [p] Holotype / [h] Laemoglyptus grandis var. atripes Pic, 1921 .

Remarks. Wittmer (1984) pointed out that the female holotype was deposited in the MNHN. By comparing the label data with the published literature, we consider this specimen, bearing Pic’s handwritten determination label, to the holotype. Pic apparently did not attach a type label nor provide a type designation in his original description.

Holotype of Drilosilis rubrithorax Pic, 1912 ( Fig. 3 )

TAIWAN: ♀ (MNHN): [h] Taihorinsho [=Dalin] / [p] Formosa / Sauter [h] VIII. [p] 07-09 // d'Olivier // [h] Drilosilis / rubrithorax / Pic // Deutsch. ent. Nat. Bibliothek II 1911 no. 24 p. 188 // [h] Laemoglyptus / rubrithorax / (Pic) // [p] det. W. Wittmer // [p] Holotype / [h] Drilosilis rubrithorax Pic, 1912 .

Remarks. By comparing label data with the literature, this specimen appears to be the female holotype that Wittmer referenced in his (1984) paper.

Other materials. TAIWAN: 1 ♂, Kankau ( Koshan ) [= Hengchun ], Formosa, IV. 1912, H. Sauter leg. ( MNHN) ; 1 ♂, Nanzankei [= Nanshanchi ], Formosa, 28. IV. 1965, T. Shirôzu leg., T. Nakane Collection ( EIHU) ; 1 ♀, Fushan , Ilan Co., 26. VI. 1995, S.- S. Lu leg. ( TFRI) ; 1 ♀, Talulintao , Hsinchu, 5. VIII. 2010, Y.- L. Lin leg. ( TARI) ; 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Chileishi, Heping , Taichung, 24-25. V. 2012, collector unknown (YHC) ; 1 ♀, Douna, Maolin , Kaohsiung, 2. IV. 2013, R.- H. Liou leg. (YHC) ; 1 ♂, Wulai , New Taipei, 17. IV. 2016, Y. Hsiao leg. (YHC).

Redescription. Male ( Fig. 4 ). Eyes, head and antennae black. Mandibles brownish black, brownish orange in the distal half. Prothorax reddish orange. Scutellum, elytra, meso- and metaventrites and legs black. Abdomen black, with lateral margins of ventrites I–VI reddish.

Head surface semilustrous, finely and sparsely punctate, with fine, scattered, recumbent grey pubescence. Eyes small, slightly protruding, ratio of eye diameter to interocular space 1:1.60. Mandibles simple. Clypeus short, distal margin rounded, with some black setae on the distal part of the disc ( Fig. 6 ). Antennae pectinate, exceeding middle of elytra. Scape cylindrical, pedicel short, antennomeres 3–10 with strongly broadened projections, distinctly longer than each antennomere.

Pronotum approximately 1.50 times wider than the head and 0.55 times as long as wide; anterior margin rounded, lateral margins protruding laterad in the middle; posterolateral oval emarginations open, situated far from base; posterior margin nearly straight, slightly rounded and sinuate; anterior angles indistinct, posterior angles nearly right-angled; surface semilustrous, punctate like that of head, with sparse and fine brownish pubescence, much denser in oval emarginations.

Elytra approximately 1.15 times wider than the pronotum and 2.2 times as long as wide, moderately widening posteriorly; surface semilustrous, rugulose-lacunose, with fine, grey, short semierect pubescence.

Aedeagus ( Figs. 8–9 ) stout, parameres fused, forming ventral process and dorsal plate; ventral process shorter than dorsal plate, distal margin notched in middle, forming lateral angles; dorsal plate constricted laterally, distal margin rounded and roundly concave in middle, distal third of ventral surface densely covered with setae; laterophyse tapered, with rounded apex, emarginated in middle. Median lobe distinctly divided distally.

Body length: 6.0– 6.5 mm; width: 1.9–2.0 mm.

Female ( Figs. 1–3 , 5 ). Coloration, punctation and pubescence similar to males, except distal part of clypeus brownish. Eyes somewhat smaller and less protruding than in males, ratio of eye diameter to interocular space 1:5.5. Mandibles simple, larger than in males. Clypeus short, distal margin truncated, with some black setae on the distal part of the disc ( Fig. 7 ). Antennae pectinate, shorter than in males, extending to the proximal one-third length of elytra. Scape cylindrical, pedicel short, antennomeres 3–10 with broadened projections, longer than each antennomere, projections shorter than in males. Pronotum subelliptic, approximately 1.40 times wider than the head and 0.60 times as long as wide; anterior margin rounded, lateral margins arcuate, distinctly constricted before posterior angles, posterior margin rounded and faintly sinuate; anterior angles rounded and indistinct, posterior angles acute. Elytra approximately 1.45 times as wide as the pronotum and 2.0 times as long as wide, gradually widening posteriorly. Ventrite VII ( Fig. 10 ) broadly depressed on the disc of both sides, lateral margins straight, distal margin triangularly emarginated in the middle.

Female genitalia ( Fig. 11 ). Vagina stout and rounded in proximal half, abruptly narrowed as thick duct in distal half; diverticulum arising from apex of thick duct of vagina; diverticulum considerably broad and oval; spermathecal duct thin, arising from base of diverticulum; spermatheca provided with thick and curved tube, nearly as long as spermathecal duct; accessory gland thin and long, much longer than spermatheca.

Body length: 6.5–7.0 mm; width: 1.9–2.1 mm.

Diagnosis. This remarkable species can be easily distinguished from other members from Taiwan by the following combination of characters: eyes considerably small in males; clypeus short, distal margin rounded in males, truncated in females; antennae pectinate in both sexes, projections of antennomeres 3–10 strongly broadened in males; aedeagus: ventral process notched in middle, forming lateral angles, dorsal plate narrowed on middle of lateral sides, distal margin rounded and roundly concave in middle, laterophyse tapered, with rounded apex, emarginated in middle, median lobe distinctly divided distally; ventrite VII of females broadly depressed on the disc of both sides, triangularly emarginated in the middle of distal margin.

Remarks. The examination of type specimens shows that Laemoglyptus sauteri (Pic, 1911) , L. atripes Pic, 1921 and L. rubrithorax (Pic, 1912) are the same species, since there is no difference among them in the morphological characters, especially the pectinate antennae, ventrite VII and shape of clypeus, which was proposed as a useful character for identifying Laemoglyptus species (Hsiao et al. 2015). Because L. sauteri (Pic, 1911) was named earliest among the three species, and according to the principle of priority of the ICZN Code (Article 23), we regard L. atripes and L. rubrithorax as junior synonyms of L. sauteri (ICZN 1999).

Distribution ( Fig. 12 ). Taiwan (endemic).

Figures

FIGURE 11. Female genitalia of Laemoglyptus sauteri (Pic, 1911), lateral view. Abbreviations: ag = accessory gland; di = diverticulum; sd = spermathecal duct; sp = spermathecal; va = vagina. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.

FIGURE 12. The distribution map of Laemoglyptus sauteri (Pic, 1911).

FIGURES 1 – 3. 1. Laemoglyptus sauteri (Pic, 1911), female lectotype (herein designated); 2. Laemoglyptus grandis var. atripes Pic, 1921, female holotype; 3. Drilosilis rubrithorax Pic, 1912, female holotype. Scale bar = 1 mm.

FIGURES 4 – 5. Habitus of Laemoglyptus sauteri (Pic, 1911), dorsal view. 4. Male; 5. Female. Scale bar = 5 mm.

FIGURES 6 – 10. Clypeus, aedeagus and ventrite of Laemoglyptus sauteri (Pic, 1911). 6 – 7. Clypeus: 6. male; 7. female. 8 – 9. Aedeagus: 8. ventral view; 9. dorsal view; 10. Ventrite VII of female, ventral view. Scale bars: 6 – 7 = 0.1 mm; 8 – 10 = 0.5 mm.