Eupolyphaga thibetana ( Chopard, 1922 ), 2018
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4506.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6F70EE34-FCD0-4426-958E-F734994225F3 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5978903 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4A1B87C9-9E06-195A-FF3C-FE47FDBFFE1C |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Eupolyphaga thibetana ( Chopard, 1922 ) |
status |
stat. nov. |
Eupolyphaga thibetana ( Chopard, 1922) View in CoL stat. rev.
( Figs. 6 View FIGURE 6 A–I; 7 A–C; 14 D–F; 23 A–D)
Polyphaga thibetana Chopard, 1922: 195 View in CoL , type locality: “Thibet: Gynangtse” (“Gyangtse” on label), pl. 2, figs. 1-2 for males; Hanitsch 1927: 41.
Eupolyphaga thibetana: Chopard 1929: 267 View in CoL , figs. 32-33, pl. IX, fig. 11 for holotype; Bey-Bienko 1938: 124, “E. Tibet: Poshö (correctly “Pashö”= Baxoi County) and Lhodzong Poshö (correctly “Lho Dzong”)” (probably E. yunnanensis View in CoL ); Bey- Bienko 1950: 286; Princis 1952: 34; Woo 1981: 58, fig. 1b, 1d, fig. 2a-d, with a table comparing with E. yunnanensis View in CoL ; Feng, Guo & Woo 1997: 171.
Eupolyphaga limbata: Wu 1935 View in CoL ; Princis 1959: 149; Princis 1962: 54.
Material examined. CHINA: Tibet: 1 male (SWU), Bainang County [白朗县], Shigatse City [日喀则市], 3920m, 2.VIII.1961, Lin-Yao Wang leg.; 2 males, 5 females and 3 nymphs (3 females in SWU, the rest in IZCAS) ,
Bainang County, Shigatse City, 3920m, 2.VIII.1961, Lin-Yao Wang leg; 1 male and 1 female (male in SWU, female in IZCAS), Shigatse City , 3800m, 15.VII.1961, Lin-Yao Wang leg. ; 2 males ( IZCAS), Shigatse City , 3800m, 13.V.1961, Lin-Yao Wang leg. ; 2 males ( MHBU), Shigatse City , 2.VIII.2009 , Guo-Dong Ren et al. leg.; 2 males ( SWU), Aima Township [艾玛乡], Namling County [南木林县], Shigatse City , 4.VIII.1978 , no collector recorded; 1 female, 5 nymphs ( MHBU), Jiacuo Township [甲措乡], Namling County, Shigatse City , 2.VIII.2009 , Guo-Dong Ren et al. leg.; 1 male, 1 female and 2 nymphs ( MHBU), Dinggyê County [定 结县], Shigatse City , 4217m, 2.VIII.2011 , Guo-Dong Ren et al. leg.; 1 male ( MHBU), Lhazê County [拉孜 县], Shigatse City , 27.VIII.2002 , Ming-Sheng Zhu et al. leg.; 1 nymph ( MHBU), Jilonggou / Gyirong River [吉隆沟], Gyirong County [吉隆县], Shigatse City , 1.IX.2002 , Ming-Sheng Zhu et al. leg.; 5 females, 2 nymph ( MHBU), Woma Village [沃 玛村], Zongga Town [宗嘎镇], Gyirong County, Shigatse City , 3960m, 1.VIII.2014 , Guo-Dong Ren, Xing-Long Bai & Jun-Sheng Shan leg.; 1 male ( MHBU), Maizhokunggar County [墨竹工卡县], Lhasa City [拉萨市], 5.VII.2002, Guo-Dong Ren leg. ; 8 nymphs ( MHBU), Maizhokunggar County, Lhasa City , 4200m, 11.VII.2008 , Guo-Dong Ren et al. leg.; 2 females and 2 nymph ( IZCAS), The Potala Palace, Lhasa City , 3800m, 17-18.V.1980 , no collector recorded; 1 female ( MHBU), Qüxü County [曲水县], Lhasa City , 6.VII.2002, Guo-Dong Ren leg. ; 1 male ( IZCAS), Chanang County [扎囊县], Lhoka City [山南市], 3700m, 14.VIII.1960, Chun-Guang Wang leg. ; 1 female, 3 nymph ( MHBU), Jiangtang Village [江塘村], Sangri County [桑日县], Lhoka City , 30.VII.2009 , Guo- Dong Ren et al. leg.; 1 female ( SWU), Qonggyai County [琼结县], Lhoka City , 1.VIII.1974, Fu-Sheng Huang leg.
Type material examined. Holotype of Polyphaga thibetana , male (NHM, No. #876183), CHINA: Tibet: “Gyangtse. (Gyantse County)/ 13,000 ft. (about 3962m)/ June 1904. / Tibet Exped. / H. J. Walton. 1905-172.”, with a determined label: “ Polyphaga thibetana Chop type (handwritten)/ L. CHOPARD. det.”. Cotype of Polyphaga thibetana : 1 male (MNHN, No. 745), same data as the holotype, with a determined label: “ Polyphaga thibetana Chop. cotype (handwritten)/ L. CHOPARD. det.”. Paratype of Polyphaga thibetana : 1 male (NHM, No. #876184), same data as the holotype, with a determined label: “ Polyphaga thibetana Chop. (handwritten)/ L. CHOPARD. det.”.
Diagnosis. This species is very similar to E. yunnanensis , but can be distinguished from the latter by the much wider interocular space (details see diagnosis under E. yunnanensis ). This species also resembles E. everestiana ssp., but can be easily distinguished from the latter by the much longer tegmina and pronotum.
Redescription. Male. General: measurements (mm): body length: 16.3–20.2, overall length: 28.6–32.0, pronotum length×width: 4.7–5.5×8.4–9.5, tegmen length: 26.5–28.5. Size median, light brown to brown, with brown maculae on tegmina ( Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 A–B). Head: vertex and frons black. Interocular space wide, the same as the distance between ocelli; ocelli large, drop-shaped, ocelli ridge straight, anterior edge pubescent; frons flat, posterior yellowish, wrinkled, pubescent. Antennae brownish yellow. Clypeus distinct; ante-clypeus widely occupies the lateral and hind margins of the clypeus, light brownish yellow; post-clypeus yellowish brown to light brown. Labrum wide, yellowish brown, pubescent, lateral corners of distal margin round. Maxillary palpi and labial palpi light brown (Fig. 14 E–F). Pronotum: dark brown, anterior margin narrowly yellowish, subtransparent, the margin gradually narrower towards lateral parts of the pronotum. Surface generally with small yellowish-brown pubescence, lateral fore margins with additional long yellowish-brown setae. Pronotum widest on the fore border, cephalic margin strong convex and truncated, slightly curved, lateral fore margins round, then becoming straight, hind margin softly arched (Fig. 14 D). Tegmina and wings: extended the end of abdomen about 9.5–14.3 mm. Tegmina hyaline, evenly and incompactly with irregular brown speckles; the outer margins usually dark brown mudded, each base of the margins with a yellowish spot. Wings hyaline, with distinct brown speckles at distal half. Legs: light brown to brown depending on specimen, slightly pubescent, tibial spines reddish brown. Abdomen: brown, darker towards the apex, each segment with two dimples laterally except the last two. Supra-anal plate pubescent, apex arched ( Fig. 23 A View FIGURE 23 ). Subgenital plate asymmetrical, dark brown, left part smaller than the right part, lateral corners slightly quadrated; styli similar, left one slightly longer than the right one ( Fig. 23 B View FIGURE 23 ). Genitalia: well sclerited. Left phallomere: L1 short, with round anterior apex, left with a robust process, two hind lobes stout; L2 strong curved, the right end with a less sclerite process; pda well developed, long, paa slightly protruded; L3 thin, with sharp but less curve apex. Right phallomere: very large. R1M robust, well sclerotized, with hollow and transparent posterior portion; R1L weak; R3 concave, thick; R2 well sclerotized, irregular quadrate-shaped ( Fig. 23 View FIGURE 23 C–D).
Female. Measurements (mm): body length: 21.1–22.8, body width: 12.9–15.0. Unicolored, orange to dark brown depending on specimen, pubescent; supra-anal plate protruded type, median with a longitudinal line (Fig. C–E).
Nymph. Similar to the female.
Ootheca. Unknown.
Variation. Males may vary in the outer margins of tegmina and body shape (including tegmina). Most specimens we examined with dense brownish muddy maculae on the outer margins of tegmina ( Fig. 6 A View FIGURE 6 ), but some specimens with less muddy parts ( Fig. 6 H View FIGURE 6 ). The body shape varied, most individuals (from Shigatse) with broad body and short tegmina, but we also examined specimens with slender body and longer tegmina. Females differs in the coloration, the specimens with coloration ranging from orange to dark brown.
Natural History. According to Woo (1981), males and females of the species were found under the mud wall of a temple’s granary in Tibet, which were considered as a rice pest.
Distribution. China (Tibet: Shigatse City, Lhasa City and Lhoka City) ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 ).
Remarks. This species was wrongly synonymized under E. limbata ( Wu, 1935; Princis, 1959, 1962). In the catalogue, Wu (1935) treated it as a synonym of E. limbata without given any reason; Princis (1959, 1962) treated it as a synonym of E. limbata only based on the spines on the front tibia. E. limbata is a new name for Homoeogamia sinensis (= Heterogamia sinensis ), after examining the type, Homoeogamia sinensis is confirmed as a synonym of Eupolyphaga sinensis (See remarks of E. sinensis ), the management of Princis is unreasonable, thus the name E. thibetana is revived.
IZCAS |
Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences |
SWU |
Sungshin Women's University |
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 |
|
Genus |
Eupolyphaga thibetana ( Chopard, 1922 )
Qiu, Lu, Che, Yang-Li & Wang, Zong-Qing 2018 |
Eupolyphaga limbata: Wu 1935
Princis, K. 1962: 54 |
Princis, K. 1959: 149 |
Eupolyphaga thibetana:
Feng, P. - Z. & Guo, Y. - Y. & Woo, F. - C. 1997: 171 |
Woo, F. - C. 1981: 58 |
Princis, K. 1952: 34 |
Bey-Bienko, G. Y. 1950: 286 |
Bey-Bienko, G. 1938: 124 |
Chopard, L. 1929: 267 |
Polyphaga thibetana
Hanitsch, R. 1927: 41 |
Chopard, L. 1922: 195 |