Glyphocassis trilineata szechuana Gressitt, 1952

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 : 59-60

Glyphocassis trilineata szechuana Gressitt, 1952

( Fig. 11 )

Glyphocassis trilineata szechuana Gressitt, 1952: 480 .

Type locality. China, Chongqing, Beipei, approx. 29°48′N, 106°24′E.

Original type series. Holotype ( LMNH) and one paratype from the same locality but collected on 27th July ( CAS).

Type material examined. Holotype, pinned: ‘Szechuan, W. China | Pe-Pei, N. of Chung- | king. 300 M. VII- 29 | 1940. J.L. Gressitt [w, p, cb] || Glyphocassis | trilineata [w, hw, s] || M-1041 [w, hw, cb] || HOLOTYPE | GLYPHOCASSIS [hw] | SZECHUANA [hw] | J.L.Gressitt [r, p + hw by Gressitt, cb] || 526 [w, hw, cb] || En- 289744 | [Data Matrix barcode] SYS [w. p, cb]’; paratype, pinned: ‘Szechuan, W. China | Pe-Pei, N. of Chung- | king. 300 M. VII-29 | 1940. J.L. Gressitt [w, p, cb] || PARATYPE | GLYPHOCASSIS [hw] | SZECHUANA [hw] | J.L.Gressitt [y, p + hw by Gressitt, cb] || [vernacular name in Chinese, hw] | Glyphocassis trilineata [hw] | szechuana Gressitt [hw] | det. Li-Zhong Hua [in Chinese, p] 1987 [hw] [w, p, cb] || En-289745 | [Data Matrix barcode] SYS [w. p, cb]’.

Current status. Glyphocassis trilineata szechuana Gressitt, 1952 .

Remarks. Gressitt (1952) stated that the paratype is deposited in CAS, however, there is no such specimen (Vincent Lee 2015, pers. comm.) in that collection. In fact it is also deposited in LMNH. There is a little inconsistency as Gressit stated that the specimen was collected on 27th but on the label is 29th like in the holotype otherwise the specimen agrees with the description and the discrepancy in dates is probably result of erroneous transcription of the data.

Borowiec (1985) synonymized the subspecies szechuana with the nominotypical form based on dorsal colouration. Later on, Borowiec (2001) informally restored its status and stated that it differs in structural characters and might represent even a distinct species. Borowiec & Sekerka (2010) listed it as subspecies. However, the previous papers were based on additional material from China and not on the actual type specimens.

Based on examination of the types we consider it as a valid subspecies of G. trilineata . It differs from the nominotypical subspecies in following characters (those of the typical G. trilineata are in parentheses): distinctly finer and sparser punctation of the elytra with distance between punctures 3.00–5.00× as wide as puncture diameter (vs. 1.50–3.00×) and distinctly stouter body with length/width ratio 1.30–1.32 in males, female specimens not available (vs. 1.34–1.40 in males and 1.44–1.48 in females).

Gressitt (1952) also separated both taxa by convexity of the elytra and colouration. The convexity depends on the sex of the specimen, males appear slightly convex while females have the disc of the elytra sligtly depressed on the top. The colouration is very variable though all specimens of the subspecies szechuana we examined had elytral spots separated by pale colour while the nominotypical subspecies is often predominantly black.

Figures

FIGURES 4 – 11. 4. Cassida expansa Gressitt, 1952 (holotype, 6.7 mm); 5. C. imitatrix Gressitt, 1952 (holotype, 4.8 mm); 6. C. juglans Gressitt, 1942 (holotype, 4.8 mm); 7. C. inflata Gressitt, 1952 (holotype, 7.0 mm); 8. C. laticollis Gressitt, 1952 (holotype, 6.0 mm); 9. C. spaethi Gressitt, 1942 (holotype, 6.9 mm); 10. Glyphocassis tetrasticta Gressitt, 1942 (holotype, 5.4 mm); 11. G. trilineata szechuana Gressitt, 1952 (holotype, 5.5 mm).