Sinodendroides distinctipennis ( Pic, 1938 ) Young, Daniel K., 2015

Young, Daniel K., 2015, Nomenclatural Changes in Pyrochroinae: Three Maurice Pic Types ofPseudodendroidesBlair (Coleoptera: Pyrochroidae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 14) 69, pp. 191-195 : 192-193

Sinodendroides distinctipennis ( Pic, 1938) , new combination

( Figs. 5–6 )

Pseudodendroides distinctipennis Pic, 1938

A single female bearing this name is located in the Pic material. [ China: Kansou (= Gansu)]: 8.V.19 // Licent; {2 nd label} [handwritten, presumably in Pic’ s hand, not clearly legible, but looks like]: olesa [?]; {3 rd label} 372 // Pyrochroa // 1; {4 th label} [handwritten, presumably in Pic’ s hand]: Pseudodendroides // distinctipennis // n sp; {5 th label} [small, red label]: TYPE; {6 th label}MUSEUM PARIS // Coll. LICENT; {7 th label} [label I added] LECTO- TYPE: // ♀ Pseudodendroides // distinctipennis // Pic // Daniel K. Young; {8 th label} [label I added] Sinodendroides // distinctipennis // (Pic) // Daniel K. Young // 2014.

Pic (1938) clearly based his description solely upon the female: “ Pseudodendroides distinctipennis n. sp. ♀ ” and he described the body length as a single number, “Long. 14 mill.” – as opposed to a range. Thus, it is conceivable the single specimen in the Muséum national d’ Histoire naturelle, Paris marked as “Type” is the holotype. However, since the specimen label does not specifically state it is the holotype, and since the description does not unambiguously state the description was based on a single specimen, I believe it must be treated as a syntype per Recommendation 73F of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999): “… an author should proceed as though syntypes may exist and, where appropriate, should designate a lectotype rather than assume a holotype …” Further, because of the historical significance of this individual specimen, I hereby designate the specimen as a lectotype, in keeping with The Code (Recommendation 74.7.3).

The single female of P. distinctipennis ( Figs. 5–6 ) is clearly congeneric with Sinodendroides , exhibiting all the generic features ( Young 2005). From these observations and comparisons, I propose to transfer P. distinctipennis from Pseudodendroides to Sinodendroides .

The female of S. distinctipennis closely resembles that of S. chinensis . The cranial punctation between the eyes is less coarse than that of S. chinensis , and the third antennomere has the ramus clearly developed ( Fig. 6 ) unlike that of S. chinensis . However, the type locality provided by Pic (1938): “ Chine: Kansou” [= Gansu province] is within the distributional range noted by Young (2005) for S. chinensis , and the amount of intraspecific variation in the characters outlined above remains to be seen. As noted above for H. nitidicollis and H. gibbosa , for the present, both S. distinctipennis and S. chinensis are provisionally retained as valid species.

Figures

Figs. 5–8. Sinodendroides distinctipennis, adult female, syntype of Pseudodendroides distinctipennis: 5) Habitus, dorsal view; 6) head, dorsal view. Pseudodendroides sulcatithorax, adult female, holotype of Pseudodendroides nitidicollis v. sulcatithorax: 7) Habitus, dorsal view; 8) Head, dorsal view.