A revision of the click beetle genus Ctenoplus Candèze, 1863 (Coleoptera: Elateridae, Synaptina) Author Fuller, E. Author Platia, G. text Zootaxa 2006 2006-05-26 1217 1 1 76 https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.1217.1.1 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.1217.1.1 1175­5334 5064796 FECFEC7C-0DBF-45E5-AEB6-95B1943902AF Silesis fulvus Fleutiaux Figures 59, 88 Silesis fulvus Fleutiaux 1918: 271 ; sex and number of specimens not stated; type locality: " Tonkin : Hoa­Binh ( DuPort )". Silesis fulvus , Schenkling 1927: 489 . Ctenoplus fulvus , Fleutiaux 1940a: 20 . This species was transferred to Ctenoplus from Silesis by Fleutiaux (1940a) . Fleutiaux (1918) described this species based on an unspecified number of specimens from Vietnam . A single female was received from MNHN. It bears the following labels: “Hoa­Binh; Tonkin 1912" [handwritten]/ “TYPE” [red ink]/ “ Silesis ; fulvus Fleut. ; type” [handwritten]/ “ Ctenoplus ; fulvus Fleut. ” [handwritten]; “COLLECTION FLEUTIAUX”. This specimen is here designated the lectotype . Externally, this species has two shallow periocular pits, but differs from Ctenoplus in having the anteromesal margin of the hypomeron not raised and concave, a visible and subrectangular mesotrochantin, and the dorsal surface of the prosternal spine is much wider than the ventral surface (Fig. 59). In Ctenoplus , the anteromesal margin of the hypomeron is raised and concave, the mesotrochantin is concealed, and except for C. rufoantennatus and C. neosiamensis , the dorsal surface of the prosternal spine is only slightly wider than the ventral surface (c.f., Fig. 58). The female genitalia of S. fulvus ( Fig. 88 ) differs from the species of Ctenoplus in having three spiny plates on the bursa, no free spines on the bursa, and two tubular spermathecae on the tubular extension. In Ctenoplus ( Fig. 86 ), only two spiny plates are present on the bursa, the bursa bears a band of free spines, and a spermatheca, if present, is sac­like. On the basis of these differences, S. fulvus is not regarded as a species of Ctenoplus as defined in this work, and is returned to Silesis , in which it was originally described. Whether or not S. fulvus belongs in Silesis cannot be definitively established at present. S. fulvus differs from other species of Silesis in lacking a ventral lobe on tarsomere 4, traditionally a diagnostic character of Silesis . However, we have concluded that the presence or absence of a lobed tarsomere 4 alone is insufficient to define Silesis or Ctenoplus .