Dactylispa (Triplispa) cervicornis Gressitt, 1950

Sekerka, Lukáš, Jia, Fenglong, Pang, Hong & Borowiec, Lech, 2016, Cassidinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) types deposited at Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, Zootaxa 4084 (1), pp. 50-78 : 64

Dactylispa (Triplispa) cervicornis Gressitt, 1950

( Fig. 21 )

Dactylispa cervicornis Gressitt, 1950: 113 .

Type locality. China, Fujian prov., Shaowu Co., Dazhulan, approx. 27°41.7′N, 117°39.0′E, 1000 m a.s.l.

Original type series. Holotype ( LMNH) one paratype from same locality but collected on 10th June 1943 ( CAS).

Type material examined. Holotype, glued: ‘Fukien, S. China | ShaoWu,TaChuFung | KwanYinLang | I- 14 [hw] -4[p]3[hw] T.C.Maa [w, p, cb] || L-61 [w, t, cb] || HOLOTYPE | DACTYLISPA [hw] | CERVICORNIS [hw] | J.L.Gressitt [r, p + hw by Gressitt, cb] || DACTYLISPA [hw] | CERVICORNIS [hw] | GRESS. [hw] | J.L.Gressitt-Det.19[p]50[hw] [w, p + hw by Gressitt, cb] || [vernacular name of the genus in Chinese] | 606 [w, hw, cb] || En-289747 | [Data Matrix barcode] SYS [w. p, cb]’.

Current status. Valid species in the subgenus Triplispa Weise, 1897 .

Remarks. Gressitt (1950) stated in the original description ‘Ta-Chu-Lan’ as the type locality while on the label is ‘Ta-Chu-Fung’ but both actually refer to the same place, known as Dazhulan.

Chen et al. (1986) distinguished D. cervicornis from other Triplispa species by first two prothoracic spines having long common base. However, the holotype does not have particularly longer base of lateral prothoracic spines in comparison to other species. It is more distinct by the second elytra interval having only three spines and the first interval with spine in basal third. According to these characters D. cervicornis falls in the couplet 42 near D. carinata Chen & T’an, 1961. Both species have nearly identical position of spines but according to the description and figure given by Chen et al. (1986) D. carinata seems to have somewhat shorter spines and body much more widened apically. However, these characters might be just products of intraspecific variability as in other species and thus comparison of types of both taxa would be desirable to confirm their status.

Figures

FIGURES 20 – 25. 20. Asamangulia longispina Gressitt, 1950 (holotype, 2.5 mm); 21. Dactylispa cervicornis Gressitt, 1950 (holotype 5.0 mm); 22. D. kaulina Gressitt, 1950 (holotype, 5.5 mm); 23. D. mauliki Gressitt, 1950 (holotype, 4.1 mm); 24. D. paucispina Gressitt, 1939 (holotype, 3.7 mm); D. piceomaculata Gressitt, 1939 (holotype, 5.1 mm).