Coptotermes hekouensis Xia & He, 1986

Chen, Guan-Yu, Ke, Yun-Ling, Liang, Wei-Ren & Li, Hou-Feng, 2020, Redescription of Formosan subterranean termite, Coptotermes formosanus (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae), with three new synonyms from China, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae (Acta. Ent. Mus. Natl. Pragae) 60 (2), pp. 599-608 : 604-607

Coptotermes hekouensis Xia & He, 1986 syn. nov.

Type locality. China: Yunnan Province: Hekou County [云南河口].

Type material examined. Sඒඇඍඒඉൾ: China: Yunnan Province: Hekou County [云南河口], 11-V-1962, W.-L. Xඎ [徐ǿh], 2A, 4S, No. 1282. Additional material examined. CHINA: Yඎඇඇൺඇ: Hekou County [云 南河口], IV-1962, 2N,>10S,>10W, No. 1270. Hekou County [云南河 口], 11-V-1962, 1A, 7S,>10W, No. 1269.

Remarks. According to Xංൺ & Hൾ (1986), C. hekouensis can be differentiated from C. formosanus by three characters of the winged imagos: color of head capsule yellow brown in C. hekouensis , in contrast to reddish brown in C. formosanus , and C. hekouensis with narrower pronotum and shorter hind tibia than C. formosanus . One diagnostic character of soldiers was mentioned: head capsule elliptical or rounded in C. hekouensis , in contrast to pear-shaped head in C. formosanus . The type specimens of C. hekouensis examined in this study have been preserved for more than 50 years and their coloration likely faded ( Fig. 4 ). We do not consider color as a valid reference because the preserving condition of the specimen may affect the color. The head shapes of the soldiers of C. hekouensis ( Fig. 4c ) are overlapping with the shape series of C. formosanus ( Figs 3a–d ). In addition, no differences were found between C. hekouensis and C. formosanus in the setae distribution and other characters examined by us. The morphometric measurements of these two species highly overlapped and the differences proposed by Xංൺ & Hൾ (1986) were not detected in the present study ( Table 3 and 4).

Measurement (mm) C. formosanus a range (mean ± SD) C. suzhouensis b C. hekouensis c C. changtaiensis d Length of head to lateral base of mandible 1.34–1.81 (1.54 ± 0.14) 1.69–1.75 (1.73 ± 0.02) 1.55–1.67 (1.62 ± 0.06) 1.65–1.75 (1.72 ± 0.01) Maximum width of head 1.08–1.40 (1.22 ± 0.10) 1.31–1.39 (1.38 ± 0.03) 1.27–1.39 (1.33 ± 0.06) 1.29–1.35 (1.34 ± 0.01) Maximum width of fontanelle 0.15–0.22 (0.18 ± 0.01) 0.18–0.20 (0.18 ± 0.01) 0.16–0.20 (0.18 ± 0.02) 0.16–0.18 (0.16 ± 0.01) Maximum length of left mandible 0.77–1.19 (1.00 ± 0.12) 1.04–1.08 (1.06 ± 0.01) 1.04–1.06 (1.05 ± 0.01) 1.02–1.04 (1.03 ± 0.01) Maximum length of postmentum 0.88–1.24 (1.00 ± 0.09) 1.06–1.16 (1.13 ± 0.03) 0.88–1.04 (0.94 ± 0.09) 1.08–1.10 (1.09 ± 0.01) Maximum width of postmentum 0.37–0.49 (0.42 ± 0.03) 0.43–0.50 (0.49 ± 0.03) 0.43–0.45 (0.44 ± 0.01) 0.43–0.47 (0.44 ± 0.01) Minimum width of postmentum 0.21–0.29 (0.25 ± 0.02) 0.24–0.33 (0.31 ± 0.04) 0.24–0.25 (0.25 ± 0.01) 0.27–0.29 (0.28 ± 0.01) Maximum length of labrum 0.35–0.55 (0.42 ± 0.05) 0.43–0.49 (0.46 ± 0.02) 0.37–0.43 (0.41 ± 0.03) 0.43–0.47 (0.45 ± 0.01) Maximum width of labrum 0.25–0.37 (0.30 ± 0.03) 0.31–0.35 (0.34 ± 0.01) 0.29–0.31 (0.31 ± 0.01) 0.31–0.33 (0.33 ± 0.01) Maximum length of pronotum 0.40–0.63 (0.49 ± 0.07) 0.55–0.59 (0.58 ± 0.02) 0.57–0.57* 0.51–0.57 (0.54 ± 0.02) Maximum width of pronotum 0.76–1.07 (0.87 ± 0.09) 0.92–1.00 (0.97 ± 0.02) 0.90–0.96* 0.92–0.98 (0.95 ± 0.02)

and the measurement is not available. of Coptotermes spp.

Coptotermes suzhouensis Xia & He, 1986 syn. nov. Type locality. China: Jiangsu Province: Suzhou City [江n'n'州].

Type material examined. Sඒඇඍඒඉൾ: China: Jiangsu Province: Suzhou City [江n'n'州], 25-V-1959, K.-L. XIA, X.-S. HE & Y.-Q. YE [Rffiẅ, 何Ē松, 叶fiũ], 8A, 20S, 3W, No. 1853.

Additional material examined. CHINA: JංൺඇGඌඎ: Suzhou City [江n' n'州], 25-V-1959,>10W,No.3836.Suzhou City [江n'n'州], 25-V-1959,

10S, No. 3831. Suzhou City [江n'n'州], 25-V-1959,>10S, No. 3837. Suzhou City [江n'n'州], 1959. V.25,>10W, No. 3842. Suzhou City [江 n'n'州], 25-V-1959, 9A, 1S,>10W, No. 3302. Suzhou City [江n'n'州], 25-V-1959,>10S, No. 3841. Suzhou City [江n'n'州], 25-V-1959, 3S, 2W, No. 3835.

Remarks. Lං et al. (2018) collected termite samples from Feixi County in Hefei, Anhui Province and identified them as C. suzhouensis . The mitochondrial genome of their samples is almost identical to that of C. formosanus , and they further suggested that C. suzhouensis is the junior synonym of C. formosanus . However, no evidence supported the samples they used represented C. suzhouensis . Lං et al. (2018) did not use the type specimens for sequencing, and the samples were not collected from the type locality, Suzhou, Jiangsu, either. The mitochondrial genome provided by Lං et al. (2018) simply proved they misidentified C. formosanus as C. suzhouensis .

According to the key provided by Xංൺ & Hൾ (1986), C. suzhouensis can be differentiated from C. formosanus by five characters of the winged imago: (1) head shape: C. suzhouensis subcircular, C. formosanus rounded; (2) compound eye: C. suzhouensis subcircular, C. formosanus rounded; (3) ocellus: narrower in C. suzhouensis than in C. formosanus ; (4) anterior and posterior margin of pronotum: more concave in C. suzhouensis than in C. formosanus ; and (5) wings: wider in C. suzhouensis than in C. formosanus . In addition to winged imago, Xංൺ & Hൾ (1986) mentioned the soldier head capsule of C. suzhouensis was elliptical or rounded and that of C. formosanus was pear-shaped. However, in this study, we found the winged imagos of C. suzhouensis and C. formosanus were similar in the shape of head, compound eye, and pronotum. The measurements of the minimum length of ocellus were not significantly different ( Table 4). The head shape of C. suzhouensis soldiers we examined ( Fig. 5c ) overlap with the shape series of C. formosanus ( Figs 3e–h ). Apart from that, no differences between C. suzhouensis and C. formosanus were found in the setae distribution and other characters examined by us. The morphometric measurements of these two species highly overlapped and the differences proposed by Xංൺ & Hൾ (1986) are not detected in the present study ( Tables 3–4).

Figures

Fig. 4. The type specimens of Coptotermes changtaiensis Xia & He, 1986 and C. hekouensis Xia & He, 1986. a–b – C. changtaiensis: a – soldiers; b – labels. c–h – C. hekouensis: c – soldiers; d – labels; e–f – alate in dorsal view (e – pronotum facing up; f – head facing up); g – forewing; h – hind wing.

Fig. 3. Morphological variation of fontanelle shape and head shape of Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki, 1909. a–h – variability of head shapes: a–d – gradual shape change from rounded to pear-shape; e–h – gradual shape change from rounded rectangle to pear-shape. i–l – variability of fontanelle shapes: i–k – triangle; l – arched.

Fig. 5. The type specimens of Coptotermes suzhouensis Xia & He, 1986. a – habitus of winged imago; b – imago in dorsal view; c – soldiers; d – labels.