Sagriva vittata Spinola, 1850

Rédei, Dávid, 2017, A revision of Sagriva (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Dinidoridae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 57 (1), pp. 73-95 : 78-86

Sagriva vittata Spinola, 1850

( Figs 1–8 , 13–17 , 22–27 , 32–37 , 41–42 , 49 , 51–52 )

Sagriva vittata Spinola, 1850b: 77 . HOLOTYPE: ♀, “Indie orientali” [= East Indies ]; MRSN, examined.

Atelides centrolineatus Dallas, 1852a: 361 . HOLOTYPE: ♀, [ Bangladesh:] Sylhet; depository unknown, lost? Synonymized by ATKINSON (1889: 96), DISTANT (1902: 289) (doubtfully) and BERGROTH (1904: 37).

Atelides sumatranus Breddin, 1904: 18 . LECTOTYPE ( GAEDIKE 1971: 100, by use of “ holotypus ”): ♀, [ Indonesia:] Sumatra, “Battak-Gebirge” [= Batak Highlands]; SDEI, examined. Synonymized by DURAI (1987: 236).

Sugriva depressicornis: CASALE (1981: 49). Unavailable name (nomen nudum) ( ICZN 1999: Art. 13.1).

Sagriva vittata: SPINOLA (1852b) : 117 (re-publication of original description), STÅL (1876): 127 (listed, distribution), LETHIERRY & SEVERIN (1893): 240 (catalogue, distribution), BERGROTH (1904): 37 (synonymy), KIRKALDY (1909): 260 (catalogue, distribution), SCHOUTEDEN (1913): 10 (habitus, catalogue, distribution), HOFFMANN (1948): 26 (catalogue, distribution), DURAI (1986): 6 (listed, distribution), DURAI (1987): 236 (redescription, synonymy, figures, records, distribution), LIS (1990): 142 (listed, distribution), LIS (1991): 84 , 91 (in key, record, description and figure of larva), LIS (1992): 38 (records), ROLSTON et al. (1996): 62 (catalogue, bibliography), KOCOREK & DANIELCZOK- DEMSKA (2002): 93 (spermatheca, figure).

Sagrina [inadvertent error] vittata: KIRKALDY (1910) : 62 (record, pterygopolymorphism).

Atelides centrolineatus: DALLAS (1852b) : 436 (redescription), WALKER (1868): 500 (listed, distribution), ATKINSON (1889): 95 (reproduction of original description, record, distribution, synonymy), LETHIERRY & SEVERIN (1893): 240 (catalogue, distribution), DISTANT (1902): 289 (synonymy, redescription, habitus, distribution), BREDDIN (1904): 18 (comparison with A. sumatranus ), AHMAD & KHAN (1979): 5, 8 (listed, habitus, distribution), DATTA et al. (1985): 5 (diagnosis, genitalia, figure), ZHANG et al. (1994): 60 (listed, distribution), TAN (2005): 303 (record).

Atelides centro-lineatus: STÅL (1870) : 89 (listed, distribution).

Atelides sumatranus: GAEDIKE (1971) : 100 (type material).

Sagriva sumatrana: BERGROTH (1908) : 188 (catalogue).

Sagriva sumatranus: KIRKALDY (1909) : 260 (catalogue, distribution), SCHOUTEDEN (1913): 10 (catalogue,distribution).

Type material examined. Sagriva vittata Spinola, 1950 . HOLOTYPE: macropterous ♀ without own label; “ Sagriva depressicornis \ m. – N.G.? \ D. Dupont, \ 1846. \ Ind. orient.” [yellow hw label pinned to the bottom of the drawer next to the specimen with two short pins]; pinned, wings abducted, both antennae broken off but one of them glued to card pinned with the specimen, tarsus of left fore and tarsal segments II–III of right fore leg lacking, distal portion of membrane of right fore wing damaged ( MRSN).

Atelides sumatranus Breddin, 1904 . LECTOTYPE: brachypterous ♀, “ Sumatra \ Montes Battak \ ex coll. Fruhstorfer ” [yellow, with pr black frame], “Typus.” [red, with pr black frame], “coll. \ Breddin”, “ Atelides \ sumatranus \ Bredd.” [Breddin’s hw], “ Sagriva \ sumatranus Bredd. [hw] \ Edm. Schmidt [pr] \ ♀ [hw] determ. 19 [pr] 31. [hw]”, “Typus [pr, “T” corrected to “t” by hand] \ Holo- [hw]” [red], “ A. SUMATRANUS \ 1978 [hw with blue ballpoint pen] \ det [hw in black] PSS durai [hw with blue ballpoint pen]”, “DEI Hemimetabola \ #100171”; pinned, flagellum of left antenna lacking, apex of abdomen cut off, terminalia preserved in glass vial with glycerol, pinned with the specimen ( SDEI).

Additional specimens examined (b = brachypterous, m = macropterous). INDIA: SIKKIM: iii–iv., leg. H. Fruhstorfer, coll. G. Breddin (1 m ♀ SDEI), coll. E.T. Atkinson, B.M. 92-6 (1 b ♀ BMNH) . WEST BENGAL: Gopaldhara, Rungbong [= Rangbhang] Valley , leg. H. Stevens (1 b ♂ 1 b ♀ BMNH) . ASSAM: coll. E.T. Atkinson, B.M.92-6 (1 m ♂ BMNH), Sibs [agar] [= Sivasagar], [leg.?] S.E. P., coll. W.L. Distant, B.M. 1911-383 (1 b ♀ BMNH). MEG- HALAYA: Khasia Hills [= Khasi Hills], B.M.96-135 (2 b ♂♂ 1 b ♀ BMNH) . — THAILAND: TAK PROV.: Tak , viii.1995, low land, leg. W. Ullrich, coll. C.J. Drake (1 m ♂ USNM) ( Figs 1–2 ) . CHIANG MAI PROV.: Doi Chiang Dao, nr. Chiang Dao , 13.xi.1989, leg. N. Ohbayashi (1 m ♂ NSMT) .— CHINA: YUNNAN: Xishuangbanna: Mengla County, Menglun , Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden , 101°16 ′ 34.6 ʺ E 21°55 ′ 14.6 ʺ E, 560 m, 20.ix.2016, J.Y. Luo (1 m ♂ 2 b ♀♀ NKUM, preserved in 100% ethanol), same locality and collector but 3.x.2016 (1 b ♂ 2 b ♀♀ NKUM, preserved in 100% ethanol), Mengyuan, Nangongshan, 1000 m, 13.viii.2010, leg. Q. Zhao (1 b ♂ NKUM), same locality and date, leg. K. Dang (1 b ♀ NKUM), Manlun, Nanping, 845 m, 14.viii.2010, leg. K. Dang (2 b ♀♀ NKUM) ( Figs 5–6 ) ; Mengla , 21°29 ′ 50.2 ʺ N 101°33 ′ 00.7 ʺ E, 690 m, hillside above city, 29.vii.2012, beaten from unidentified cucurbitacean climbing plant, leg. D. Rédei (1 L 5 NKUM) ( Figs 7–8 ), same locality, 21°29 ′ 50.2 ʺ N 101°32 ′ 59.4 ʺ E, 685 m, 25.ix.2012, canopy net, leg. D. Rédei (1 b ♂ [ Figs 22–27 , 32–37 , 41–42 ] 1 b ♀ HNHM), same locality, 21°29 ′ 49 ʺ N 101°33 ′ 00 ʺ E, 680 m, 28.ix.2012, leg. Y. Cui (2 b ♂♂ 2 b ♀♀ preserved in 100% ethanol; abdomen of two females and genital capsule of one male detached, dissected, mounted on card and preserved dry except of phallus (♂) and genital and postgenital segments (♀♀) [ Figs 49–50 ] which are preserved in plastic microvial with glycerol; NKUM) ; Mengla, Wangtianshu Nature Reserve , along road, 21°37 ′ 35.3 ʺ N 101°35 ′ 17.3 ʺ E, 720 m, 30.vii.2012, beaten and swept from shrubs, leg. D. Rédei (1 b ♂ NKUM, 1 b ♂ HNHM) . — VIETNAM: LAM DONG PROV.: South Annam, Langbian Prov. [now Vietnam, Lam Dong Prov.], Dran , 3000 ft., iii–iv.1918, leg. C. Boden-Kloss, B.M.1919-12 (2 b ♂♂ 2 b ♀♀ 1 m ♀ BMNH) . — LAOS: LOUANGPHRA- BANG PROV.: Pak Neun , 28.ix.1918, leg. R. Vitalis de Salvaza, B.M.1918-1 (1 b ♀ BMNH) . — MALAYSIA: SARAWAK: Bidi , 9.i.1909, leg. C.J. Brooks, B.M.1936-681 (1 b ♀ BMNH) . — INDONESIA: SUMATRA: Fort de Kock [= Tebingtinggi], 920 m, 1926, leg. E. Jacobson (1 5th instar larva RMNH), Res. Tapanoeli [= Tapanuli], leg. A.L. v. Hasselt (1 b ♀ RMNH). BORNEO: Mahakkam [= Mahakam River], Long-Bloe-oe [= Longbloh?], 1898, leg. Nieuwenhuis (1 b ♀ RMNH), Mahakkam, Boven [= Upper Mahakam River], 1894, leg. Nieuwenhuis (1 b ♀ RMNH). — LOCALITY UNKNOWN. “ Atelides \ centrolineatus \ Dall \ Ent. Trans. \ vol 10. pl 5” (1 b ♀ MRSN, coll. Spinola) ; “ Birite ” [unlocated], 13.x.[19]18 (1 m ♀ BMNH) .

Diagnosis. Its characteristic habitus and colour ( Figs 1–6 ) allow an immediate recognition of this species not only within the genus Sagriva but also in Dinidoridae . The male and female genitalia are illustrated in Figs 22–27 , 32–37 , 41–42 , 49 , 51–52 . The most conspicuous differences between this species and S. banna sp. nov. are provided in Table 1.

Redescription. The original description of this species ( SPINOLA 1850b) is detailed and rather accurate. Further detailed descriptions or redescriptions and illustrations allowing recognition of the species were provided by DALLAS (1852a,b), DISTANT (1901) and DURAI (1987). Therefore it is unnecessary to present another redescription of the external morphology of the species here, but some diagnostic characters useful for separating this species from S. banna sp. nov. are figured ( Figs 13–17 ), and the external male and female genitalia are described and illustrated in detail.

External male genitalia ( Figs 22–27 , 32–37 , 41–42 ). Genital capsule ( Figs 22–25 ): outline in most exposed view of its morphologically posterior surface elongate oval, posteriorly deeply and broadly emarginate medially ( Fig. 22 ); dorsal sinus of posterior aperture oval, completely occupied by anal tube; infolding of dorsal rim moderately impressed laterad of dorsal sinus, neighbouring lateral portions provided with relatively long and dense pilosity; cuplike sclerite ( Figs 23–25 : cs) broad, subrectangular ( Fig. 25 ), completely fused with ventral margin of posterior aperture, with a short and broad, apically emarginate median projection ( Fig. 23 ), with a pair of rather straight suspensory apodemes ( Fig. 25 : sus). Paramere ( Figs 26–27 ) broad, subrectangular in most exposed view ( Figs 22, 27 ). Phallus: in repose as in Figs 32–33 ; in inflated condition as in Figs 35–37 . Articulatory apparatus ( Fig. 34 ) broad, with thick, robust basal plates ( Fig. 34 : bp) and support bridge complex ( Fig. 34 : sbc), the latter including a relatively thin ponticulus transversalis ( Fig. 34 : pt); ductus ejaculatorius ( Fig. 34 : dej) associated with a pair of thick, robust submedian projections of support bridge complex ( Figs 34–35 : smp) which extend in the support bridge prolongations; erection fluid pump ( Fig. 34 : erp) relatively large; support bridge prolongations ( Fig. 36 : sbp) fused into a thick, trough-like band U-shaped in cross-section, closely surrounding ductus seminis ventrally and laterally but open dorsally. Phallotheca ( Fig. 35 : phth) moderately sclerotized, its ventral side posteriorly with a deep median excision neighboured by a pair of posterior lobe-like projections (cf. Fig. 33 ) which is associated with the base of cp-II (cf. Figs 35–36 ). Conjunctiva short; with a large, elongate, membranous dorsal lobe ( Fig. 35, 37 : cp-I); with a pair of short lateral lobes ( Fig. 36 : cp-II) each composed of a larger, membranous dorsal portion and a smaller ventral portion, the latter portion is associated with a pair of sclerites ( Figs 36 , 42 : scp-II), the ventral portions of which are fused medially, forming a closed ring around ductus seminis, dorsal portions produced into a pair of broad, diverging lobes; with a pair of large, voluminous ventrolateral lobes ( Figs 35, 37 : cp-III?), of peculiar shape, joining to the ventromedian, stem-like portion of conjunctiva, but only communicating with its inner lumen through a narrow, aperture-like pathway (cf. Fig. 36 ); the latter pair of conjunctival processes is of uncertain identity, potentially representing a ventral branch of cp-II, but judging from the fact that it is not associated with the support bridge prolongation it is more probably homologous with cp-III of TSAI et al. (2011). Aedeagus ( Figs 36 : aed, 41) short, greatly concealed by voluminous conjunctival processes (cf. Fig. 36 ), almost straight; endophallic reservoir ( Fig. 41 : res) small, simple, mainly formed by the ventrobasal lumen of endophallic duct, subdivided into two chambers by a vertical septum; ductus seminis ( Figs 36 , 41 : ds) directly opens into the ventrobasal lumen ( Fig. 41 : vbl); endophallic sperm efferent system composed of two lumina, its wall moderately sclerotized and pigmented, outer wall of aedeagus rather thick but weakly sclerotized and pigmented, with a well-traceable inner chamber ( Fig. 41 : ich) between them; apex of aedeagus transversely truncate, phallotreme directed anteroventrally in inflated condition (cf. Fig. 36 ).

External female genitalia ( Figs 49 , 51–52 ). Terminalia ( Figs 49 , 51 ). Tergite VIII transversal, with a pair of distinct submedian impressions, posterior margin weakly but clearly emarginate at level of lateral margin of laterotergite IX; laterotergite VIII ( Fig. 51 : lt

8

) subtriangular, posteromesal angle very broadly rounded; valvifer VIII ( Fig. 51 : vf 8) distinctly longer than broad; laterotergite IX ( Fig. 51 : lt 9) longer than broad, posterior margin broadly arched at level of segment X, with broad transverse impression close to its anterior margin; contralateral valvifers IX ( Fig. 51 : vf 9) fused along midline, membranous; valvula IX ( Fig. 51 : va 9) relatively short, broadly rounded, ramus IX strongly curved, its basal third thick, then constricted, apical third narrower, gradually tapering towards apex. Gynatrium ( Fig. 52 : gy) relatively small, saccular, its wall moderately sclerotized and distinctly pigmented in its whole surface but particularly in the area of a pair of rounded lateral sclerites (derivatives of fecundation sclerite?); orifice of spermathecal duct surrounded by a small, oval sclerite (fecundation sclerite?). Spermatheca with a short basal duct-like section lacking cross-striation, then abruptly broadened into a pair of large, saccular lobes ( Fig. 52 : lsl), finally distal portion continued as an elongate, saccular, but rather narrow lobe ( Fig. 52 : dsl) in the midline; left one of the pair of large, saccular lobes provided with a narrow, indistinctly cross-striated duct opening close to midline but distinctly submedially, terminating in a conspicuously short intermediate part with large proximal and distal flanges and a globose apical receptacle ( Fig. 52 : ar); about middle 70% of intermediate portion desclerotized, only sections immediately distad of proximal flange and immediately proximad of distal flange are sclerotized and pigmented.

Measurements (brachypterous males, N = 4 / brachypterous females, N = 4) (in mm). Total length 15.3–16.7 / 16.9–19.2, length of head along midline from base to an imaginary transverse line connecting apices of mandibular plates 2.45–2.61 / 2.56–2.67, width across eyes 3.38–3.43 / 3.32–3.65, interocular distance 2.07–2.13 / 1.86–2.29; lengths of antennal segments (greatest diameter in brackets): scape 0.93–1.09 (0.47–0.55) / 0.93–1.09 (0.50–0.55), pedicel 3.22–3.27 (0.47–0.52) / 3.22–3.86 (0.49–0.52), basiflagellum 1.53–1.47 (0.39–0.39) / 1.25–1.63 (0.36–0.39), distiflagellum 1.58–1.80 (0.28–0.31) / 2.73–3.20 (0.28–0.34); lengths of labial segments (I) 1.47–1.49 / 1.65–1.69, (II) 1.76–1.82 / 1.82–2.09, (III) 1.00–1.05 / 0.96–1.04, (IV) 0.69–0.72 / 0.70–0.72; length of pronotum along midline 3.39–3.92 / 3.81–4.09, greatest width 6.26–6.79 / 6.81–7.37, length of scutellum 3.27–3.92 / 3.21–3.81, width across base 3.54–4.09 / 3.81–4.31; greatest width of abdomen 8.59–9.51 / 9.74–10.90. Pterygopolymorphism. The following wing morphs are recognized:

Macropterous ( Figs 1–2 ). Surface of membrane about as large as that of corium and clavus combined. In males the tip of the membrane surpasses that of the pregenital abdomen and approaches or reaches the posterior margin of the genital capsule when the wings are at rest. The wings of macropterous females are built in the same way, but as such individuals have a greatly enlarged abdomen, tergite VIII and frequently the posterior portion of tergite VII remain exposed.

Brachypterous ( Figs 3–6 , 16 ). Corium short, reaching about the level of the apex of scutellum; membrane truncate, forming a narrow, subtriangular band at the distal end of corium; claval furrow clearly recognizable in both sexes. As the reduced wings of S. vittata are shorter than the usual condition found in morphs usually called as brachypterous in other heteropteran groups (e.g. Lygaeoidea), the morph might be termed “micropterous” as well; both terms are frequently used in various groups of Heteroptera, but no clear-cut definition of them exists. The usage of the term “brachypterous” in this species is intended to reflect the presence of a claval furrow and a remnant of the membrane.

Individuals of this species are predominantly brachypterous; of 16 male and 27 female adults, only four macropterous males and four macropterous females have been examined during the present study.

Immatures. A fifth instar larva is illustrated in Figs 7–8 ; its terminalia indicate that it is a female. The same instar was described and figured by LIS (1991).

Bionomics. Adults and larvae were collected from unidentified species of climbing cucurbitacean plants in Yunnan, China.

Distribution. This species has been reported from disjunct localities ranging from Northeastern India to Borneo ( Fig. 56 ), and it is rare in collections. Two publications ( ZHANG et al. 1994, TAN 2005) listed it (as Atelides centrolineatus ) from Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of China, without explicitly pointing out it represented a new country record, and as a result this record has remained largely overlooked (e.g. LIS 2006); the occurrence of this species in southern China is hereby confirmed. New country records are presented for Thailand and Laos. The available information on the distribution of the species is summarized as follows (exclamatory points indicate records verified during the present study):

INDIA. Sikkim!; West Bengal!; Assam!; Meghalaya! — BANGLADESH. Sylhet (DALLAS 1852). — CHINA. Yunnan!; Guangxi: Tianlin ( ZHANG et al. 1994), Langping ( TAN 2005). — THAILAND (new country record). Tak Prov.!; Chiang Mai Prov.! — VIETNAM. Rivière Claire [= Song Lo]: Upper Tong-kong ( KIRKALDY 1910); Ha Giang Prov.: Hagiang [= Ha Giang] ( LIS 1992); Lam Dong Prov.! — LAOS (new country record). Louangphrabang Prov.! — MALAYSIA. Sarawak: Bidi!, Kuching ( LIS 1992). — INDONESIA. Sumatra!; Borneo: env. of Mahakam River!

Remarks. The original description of Sagriva vittata explicitly states that the type material consists of a single female with long wings ( SPINOLA 1850b). Two females, one macropterous and one brachypterous, are present in M. Spinola’s collection deposited in MRSN (cf. also CASALE 1981); the first is considered as the holotype, the second, bearing an identification label as Atelides centrolineatus , is a non-type. The handwritten label next to the specimens bears the name “ Sugriva depressicornis ” (cf. also CASALE 1981); it is probably an unpublished tentative name for the genus and species. The examined female perfectly matches the original description, therefore its identity as the holotype of S. vittata is without question.

The holotype of Atelides centrolineatus , a brachypterous female (DALLAS 1852), is supposed to be deposited in the BMNH were most of the types of species described by W. S. Dallas are currently located, however, it was not found during a visit there. DURAI (1987), who accessed the collections of the BMNH, also did not mention the type material of this species, therefore it is considered unlocated, probably lost. The original description and the accompanying excellent illustrations leave no doubt about the synonymy of this species with Sagriva vittata , as it was suspected by ATKINSON (1889) and DISTANT (1902) and explicitly proposed by BERGROTH (1904).

Atelides sumatranus was described based on an unspecified number of “aptere” (= apterous) females ( BREDDIN 1904); the original description, however, makes it clear that the individual(s) in concern were brachypterous. A single specimen deposited at SDEI was interpreted as holotype by GAEDIKE (1971), thus effectively designating it as a lectotype according to ICZN (1999: Article 74.6). As a consequence, the act of DURAI (1987) designating the same specimen as lectotype was invalid. The above mentioned lectotype has been reexamined during the present study and its synonymy with S. vittata proposed by DURAI (1987) is hereby confirmed.

Figures

Figs 1–4. Sagriva vittata Spinola, 1850, macropterous (Figs 1–2) and brachypterous (Figs 3–4) male. Figs 1, 3: dorsal view; Figs 2, 4: ventral view. Scale bar in mm.

Figs 5–8. Sagriva vittata Spinola, 1850, brachypterous female (Figs 5–6) and fifth instar larva (Figs 7–8). 5, 7 – dorsal view; 6, 8 – ventral view. Scale bars in mm.

Figs 13–21. Diagnostic characters of Sagriva vittata Spinola, 1850 (Figs 13–17) and S. banna sp. nov. (Figs 18–21) (brachypterous females). 13, 14, 18 – head, dorsal view; 15, 19 – antenna; 16, 20 – pronotum, scutellum and fore wings, dorsal view; 17, 21 – pterothoracic pleuron, hypocostal lamina, and abdominal ventrite II, most exposed view, evaporatorium densely dotted. Scale bars in mm. Lettering: hcl = hypocostal lamina; sp2 = spiracle of abdominal segment II; v2 = abdominal ventrite II.

Figs 22–31. Male genitalia of Sagriva vittata Spinola, 1850 (Figs 22–27) and S. banna sp. nov. (Figs 28–31). 22, 23, 28, 29 – genital capsule, posterodorsal view (parameres removed in Figs 23 and 29); 24 – segments VIII and IX, lateral view (outline of phallus shown with dotted line); 25 – genital capsule, posteroventral view; 26, 27, 30, 31 – left paramere, each from two different views. Scale bars in mm. Lettering: at = anal tube (= segment X); cs = cuplike sclerite; sus = suspensory apodeme. Arrows in Fig. 24 show aspects of Figs 22 and 25, respectively.

Figs 32–40. Phallus of Sagriva vittata Spinola, 1850 (Figs 32–37) and S.banna sp.nov. (Figs 38–40).32, 38 – phallus in repose, lateral view; 33, 39 – same, ventral view; 34, 40 – articulatory apparatus, most exposed (anterior) view; 35 – inflated phallus, lateral view; 36 – same but proximal portion and right cp-III omitted, most of left cp-III cut away; 37 – inflated phallus, posterior view. Scale bars in mm. Lettering: aed = aedeagus; bp = basal plates; cp-I, cp-II, cp-III? = dorsal, lateral and ventrolateral conjunctival processes, respectively (identity of cp-III doubtful); dej = ductus ejaculatorius; ds = ductus seminis; erp = erection fluid pump; phth = phallotheca; pt = ponticulus transversalis; sbc = support bridge complex; sbp = support bridge prolongation; smp = submedian projections of sbp; scp-II = sclerite associated with cp-II.Arrows in Figs 35 and 36 shows aspects of Figs 37 and 42, respectively.

Figs 41–48. Phallus of Sagriva vittata Spinola, 1850 (Figs 41–42) and S. banna sp. nov. (Figs 43–48). 41, 47 – aedeagus, lateral view (path of seminal fluid indicated by arrows); 42, 48 – sclerites associated with lateral conjunctival processes (cp-II) and adjacent portion of endophallic reservoir, aspects shown by arrows in Figs 36 and 47, respectively; 43 – inflated phallus, lateral view; 44 – distal part of phallotheca, conjunctiva, and proximal part of aedeagus, ventral view; 45 – dorsal lobe of conjunctiva, posterior view; 46 – ventral process of aedeagus, most exposed (posterior) view. Scale bars in mm. Lettering: aed = aedeagus; con = conjunctiva; cp-I, cp-II = dorsal and lateral conjunctival processes, respectively; dal = dorsoapical lumen of endophallic duct; ds = ductus seminis; end = terminal portion of endophallic duct; ich = inner chamber enclosed by endophallic duct and outer wall of phallus; phth = phallotheca; res = endophallic reservoir; scp-II = sclerite associated with cp-II; vbl = ventrobasal lumen of endophallic duct; vpae = ventral process of aedeagus. Arrow in Fig. 47 shows aspect of Fig. 48.

Figs 49–50. Female terminalia of Sagriva vittata Spinola, 1850 (Fig. 49) and S. banna sp. nov. (Fig. 50) in posterior view. Scale bars in mm.

Figs 51–55. External female genitalia of Sagriva vittata Spinola, 1850 (Figs 51–52) and S. banna sp. nov. (Figs 53–55). 51, 53 – terminalia, posterior view, left valvifer VIII opened; 52, 54 – genital and postgenital segments as seen in dorsal view after removal of pregenital abdomen; 55 – proximalmost section of spermathecal duct in dorsal view. Scale bars in mm. Lettering: ar = apical receptacle of spermatheca; cod = common oviduct; dsl = dorsal lobe of spermatheca; fec = fecundation sclerite; gy = gynatrium; lsl = lateral lobe of spermatheca; lt8, lt9 = laterotergite VIII, IX; va9 = valvula IX; vf8, vf9 = valvifer VIII, IX.

Figs 56–57. Distribution of Sagriva vittata Spinola, 1850 (Fig. 56) and S. banna sp. nov. (Fig. 57). Solid circles represent specimens examined during the present study, empty circles unverified literature data.