Prosopocoilus crenulidens ( Fairmaire, 1895 )

Zhong, Fang, Bai, Ming, Ge, Yang & Wan, Xia, 2014, Taxonomic revision of Prosopocoilus gracilis (Saunders, 1854) and its allied species from China (Coleoptera: Lucanidae), Zoological Systematics 39 (1), pp. 136-148 : 142-143

Prosopocoilus crenulidens ( Fairmaire, 1895) ( Figs 3 , 22–30, 55–57)

Cladognathus crenulidens Fairmaire, 1895 . Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg., 39: 173.

Prosopocoilus tonkinensis Pouillaude, 1913 . Insecta, 3: 335.

Dorcus crenulidens: Arrow, 1943 . Proc. R. Ent. Soc. Lond., (B): 138.

Prosopocoelus crenulidens: Didier & Séguy, 1953 . Encycl. Ent., 27(A): 111.

Prosopocoilus crenulidens: Benesh, 1960 . Coleop. Cat., 8(Suppl.): 66.

Length 21.0–55.0 mm. Width 7.5–17.0 mm. Color. Dark brown (Figs 22–30). Head. Inverted trapezoidal, 1.5–2.3 times wider than long in males. Anterior margin at middle slightly concaved, with forming a large, semi-circularly frontal depression (anterior edge of depression processed a triangular projection at middle in large and medium-sized males and absent in small males). Vertex gently raised. In females, the frontal depression small and shallow mainly covered with densely large punctures; vertex almost flatten. Male mandibles. Almost as long as the total length of head and pronotum in large and medium-sized males, but distinctly shorter than the total length in small males. Mandibles of large males slightly curved inwards. A marked sub-apical tooth presented closed to the apex. An internally large, rectangular tooth apically bifurcated, situated at the mandibular base; at the front of this tooth, 12–14 denticles serrated (two of them close to the sub-apical teeth distinctly larger than others in large males). Size of these teeth and the amount of denticles gradually reduced with body size diminishing in males; in small males, the basally rectangle teeth and sub-apical teeth absent totally, merely a row of denticles serrated. Mentum. Almost trapezoidal, front angles rounded, scattered with small punctures. That of female scattered with large punctures, containing sparsely brown setae. Pronotum. 2.0 times wider than long, almost as wide as that of pronotum. Front angles quite acute. Lateral margins slightly serrated and curved, straightly divergent on anterior 2/3, then gently convergent on posterior 1/3. Hind angles obtusely rounded. In females: lateral margins uniformly convex, serrated. Elytra. 1.3–1.5 times longer than wide, almost as wide as that of pronotum. Disc dim and dark brown. Punctures presented densely along the elytra suture. Legs. Front tibiae slender, laterally serrated with 5–7 small teeth. Aedeagus ( Figs 55–57 ). Stout and very sclerotized, the ventrally triangular tooth of PA very large and long (length 3.36 mm from the point angle to the outer margin of PA) and sharply curved so that the two teeth crossed to each other. PES stout, about 2.1 times the length of Tegmen. BP about 3.0 times the length of PA. Female genitalia ( Fig. 62 ). HS almost plate-liked, strongly sclerotised with sub-round apex; paired sclerites of sternite 9 relatively narrow. SD distinctly widened where it joins BC. The apex of S elongate oval-shaped. SG slender with expanded apex.

Type material examined. Holotype of P. tonkinensis Pouillaude , ♂ ( Fig. 3 ), in MNHN, labelled: holotype (red label) / Tonkin, Hagang, 1914, Le R. Vitalis de Salvaza /vitalis (handwritten) / tonkinensis type! Lemee (handwritten).

Additional material examined. Vietnam, Tonkin, Hoa-Binh , October 1939, 3♂, 7♂, July 1939, 3♂; July 1940, 10♂, 4♀, A. de Cooman leg.; Hoa-Binh, Mt. Bevi , alt. 800–1 000 m , July 1941, 2♀, A. de Cooman leg. (in MNHN) . China, Hainan, 30 May–5 June 1932, 37♂, 10♀, Qi He leg. ; 22 May–5 June 1934, 8♂, 4♀, collector unknown; 7–19 August 1934, 2♂, 1♀, collector unknown; 7 October 1934, 1♂, collector unknown; Feng-Ling Jian, 11 April 1980, 1♀, Fu-Ji Pu leg.; same locality , 10 July 1983, 1♂, Mao-Bing Gu leg.; Mt. Diaoluo , 3 August 1981, 1♂, You-Dong Lin leg.; Guangdong, Tongshi , 29 June 1960, 14♂, 3♀, Xue-Zhong Zhang leg. ; same locality, alt. 340 m , 5 August 1960, 2♂, Gui-Fu Li leg.; Qionghai, July 1967, 2♂, collector unknown; Qiongnan, Nanfeng Forest Factory , 16 June 1977, 2♂, collector unknown. Guangxi, Pingxiang , 11 June 1976, 1♂, 1♀, Bao-Lin Zhang leg.; Shangsi, alt. 250 m, 30 May 1999, 1♂, Xue-Zhong Zhang leg. (in NZMC) ; Mt. Daming, Baise , 10 ♂, 1♀, 1 August 2011, Chen-Li Lei and Sheng-Chen Yang leg. (in MAHU) .

Distribution. China (Guangdong, Hainan, Guangxi); N. Vietnam.

Remarks. There are different opinions about taxonomy of Prosopocoilus crenulidens . Didier (1928) thought it was a good species and treated P. tonkinensis Pouillaud as its junior synonym. Bomans (1978) considered it as a doubtful species because its original description was not very corresponding with the current “ P. crenulidens ” we had known. What was worse, syntypes of P. crenulidens were missing in Paris Museum. We also tried to look for them in BMNH and OXUM, but any of them could not been found. In our view, Fairmaire’s description in males presented some targeted characters: “ 25–42 mm long, brown, quite shiny; similar to gracilis Saunders , but bigger and wider; mandible stronger and flatter with many more denticles; basal teeth sturdy, 3 apical teeth stronger; front tibiae processed multi-denticles, the others only with one median spine, … etc.”. The description is mainly matched with the currently known males of P. crenulidens . Therefore, as Didier (1928) indicated that P. crenulidens was a clear species and P. tonkinensis was its junior synonym. It was most possible that Didier had examined type of P. tonkinensis , some specimens of P. crenulidens and other allied species from Mr. Boileau’s good collections due to these records in his paper (p. 20: piceipennis Westw. (6♂, 1♀), gracilis Saund. (57♂, 23♀), crenulidens Fairm. (35♂, 11♀); denticulatus Boil. Type (11♂, 2♀), cilipes Thomos. (35♂, 9♀)…]”. According to the female described by Fairmire, its large size (30 mm) was slightly doubtful. Normally, females of P. gracilis species group were no more than 30mm. Anyway, the female was not important to identify this species because it was very simply described in the original description.

In addition, geographic variation is remarkable. Some males from Hainan (Figs 26–30) process broader mandibles than that of those from Guangxi (Figs 22–25), but the male genitalia are almost same. As it was above-mentioned, the variation should be influenced by compressive pressures from sexual selection, habitat fragmentation and niche competition in different eco-system.

Figures

Figs 1–4. Labels, type specimens in MNHN. 1. Lectotype of Prosopocoilu gracilis (Saunders). 2. Holotype of Prosopocoilus piceipennis. 3. Holotype of Prosopocoilus tonkinensis. 4. Lectotype of Prosopocoilus denticulatus. Scale bars = 10mm.

Figs 43–60. Aedeagus in ventral view, dorsal view and lateral view. 43–48. Prosopocoilus gracilis (Saunders). 43–45. Specimen from Fujian. 46–48. Specimen from Yunnan. 49–51. Prosopocoilus similis. 52–54. Prosopocoilus piceipennis. 55–57. Prosopocoilus crenulidens. 58–60. Prosopocoilus denticulatus. Scale bars = 1mm.

Figs 61–63. Female genitalia. 61. Prosopocoilus gracilis. 62. Prosopocoilus crenulidens. 63. Prosopocoilus denticulatus. Scale bars = 1mm.