Laccophilus flexuosus AUBÉ 1838

Ewalka, Pešić, V. & Darvishzadeh, I., 2012, Faunistic notes on some Hydradephaga from the Khuzestan, Hormozgan and Sistan & Baluchestan provinces in Iran, with descriptive notes on the female of Glareadessus franzi WEWALKA & BISTRÖM 1998 (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae, Noteridae), Linzer biologische Beiträge 44 (2), pp. 1057-1070 : 1061-1062

Laccophilus flexuosus AUBÉ 1838

Laccophilus flexuosus AUBÉ 1838: 430 (original description); SHARP 1873: 53; 1882: 310 (misidentification); RÉGIMBART 1889: 151; 1899: 256; ZIMMERMANN 1920: 18; 1930: 115; GUIGNOT 1959b: 11; VAZIRANI 1977: 12; BRANCUCCI 1983: 318 (description, distribution); HÁJEK, J. 2003: 117; HÁJEK & ŠŤASTNÝ 2005: 56; GHOSH et al. 2011: 9; NILSSON 2012 (distribution).

This species was described by AUBÉ (1838: 430) from " Pondichéry " (= Pondicherry or Puducherry, in southern India (Oriental zoogeographical region); ca. 11.93N 79.78E). SHARP (1873: 53; 1882: 310) recorded under this name a species from " Mesopotamia " [more or less identical with todays Iraq] and " Persia " [= Iran] (among other countries) which later on RÉGIMBART (1889: 151) identified as another species which that author described as Laccophilus sharpi in the same publication. Some confusion about the distribution of L. flexuosus might have come up because VAZIRANI (1977: 12) provided as distribution area "from Iraq to Japan-Iran", however, most probably by citing only Sharp's data from 1882.

Laccophilus sharpi belongs to the complicatus -group of the genus ( BRANCUCCI 1983: 346), while L. flexuosus is a member of to the chinensis -group (l.c. p. 315). The latter species was recorded by BRANCUCCI (l.c. p. 318) from Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. It was recorded also from Pakistan by GUIGNOT (1959b: 11) and for the first time from Laos by HÁJEK & ŠŤASTNÝ (2005: 56). All these countries are also given in NILSSON (2012). Both species (identity checked by us via study of the median lobe) have been found together in the same pool ( Fig. 22 ; together with Hydroglyphus angularis (KLUG 1834) , and Canthydrus laetabilis ( WALKER 1858) – see below) near the border to Pakistan, in the Sistan & Baluchestan province (= Ostān-e Sīstān-o Balūchestān): 1, 1, " 13.7.2011 Iran, Seistan, Chabahar, Guerduig vill., 5 km to Koch vill., pool, 25º46.084N 60º54.968E, Pešić leg. IR5" ( Fig. 23; asterisk). Laccophilus flexuosus ( Fig. 16 ) resembles not only L. sharpi ( Fig. 17 ), but also somewhat paler individuals of the widely distributed Laccophilus poecilus KLUG 1843 (chinensis -group) ( Fig. 18 ). All three species occur in Iran. They can easily be distinguished by the shape of their median lobes ( Figs 10-12 ). This is the f i r s t (reliable) r e c o r d of L. flexuosus from Iran.

N o t e s: The collecting site (a pool) is well recognisable with Google-Earth (accessed in July 2012).

Figures

Figs 19-22: Collecting sites of Glareadessus franzi: (19) and (20) river at Rudan (Hormozgan provinz), (21) river at Banglayan (Hormozgan provinz); of Laccophilus flexuosus and Canthydrus laetabilis: (22) pond at Guerduig (Sistan & Baluchestan province).

Figs 16-18: Habitus of (16) Laccophilus flexuosus (specimen from Guerduig), (17) L. sharpi (specimen from Guerduig), (18) L. poecilus (specimen from Repetek, Turkmenistan).

Figs 10-12: Median lobes in lateral view of: (10) Laccophilus flexuosus, (11) L. sharpi, (12) L. poecilus. These figures are reproductions from the figs 180, 183 and 194 in BRANCUCCI (1983). In this work L. poecilus is given under the name Laccophilus obsoletus [misidentification of Haliplus obsoletus WESTHOFF 1881].