diff --git a/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFF2FFFA30CBFAC0F35DFC6C.xml b/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFF2FFFA30CBFAC0F35DFC6C.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..7c492d7e80e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFF2FFFA30CBFAC0F35DFC6C.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,535 @@
+
+
+
+New or poorly known species of Sinodrepanus Simonis, 1985 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Oniticellini), with the first identification key for the genus
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Montanaro, Giulio
+
+text
+
+
+Zootaxa
+
+
+2024
+
+2024-11-12
+
+
+5537
+
+
+4
+
+
+577
+595
+
+
+
+
+http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5537.4.10
+
+journal article
+10.11646/zootaxa.5537.4.10
+1175-5326
+14240160
+4BDF6685-879A-474B-BD8D-FC23323A0947
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sinodrepanus exsul
+(
+Sharp, 1875
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+(
+Figs. 1a–b
+,
+2a–d, 2i
+,
+3a, 3c, 3e
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Oniticellus exsul
+Sharp, 1875: 53
+
+
+(original description)
+
+
+
+
+
+Drepanochirus exul
+
+[
+sic
+!]:
+
+Boucomont & Gillet, 1921: 19
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Cyptochirus exsul
+
+:
+
+Boucomont & Gillet, 1927: 103
+
+
+
+
+
+Drepanocerus exsul
+
+:
+
+Arrow, 1931: 381
+
+, 385;
+
+Janssens, 1953: 36
+
+, 37;
+
+Balthasar, 1963: 66
+
+(as synonym of
+
+D. falsus
+
+);
+
+Biswas & Chatterjee, 1985: 151
+
+(as synonym of
+
+D. falsus
+
+; probably to be ascribed to
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+);
+
+Sewak, 2003: 253
+
+(to be ascribed to
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+?);
+
+Sewak, 2004: 106
+
+, 121;
+
+Sewak, 2006: 219
+
+(as synonym of
+
+D. falsus
+
+);
+
+Sewak, 2009a: 35
+
+;
+
+Sewak, 2009b: 56
+
+;
+
+Sewak, 2009c: 36
+
+
+
+
+Drepenocerus exsul
+
+[
+sic
+!]:
+
+Sewak, 2003: 283
+
+(to be ascribed to
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+?)
+
+
+
+Sinodrepanus exsul
+
+:
+
+Simonis, 1985: 98
+
+;
+
+Krikken, 2009: 21
+
+(as synonym of
+
+S. falsus
+
+);
+
+Montanaro, 2021: 585
+
+
+
+
+Sinodrepanus excul
+
+[
+sic
+!]:
+
+Kabakov & Napolov, 1999: 73
+
+(as synonym of
+
+S. falsus
+
+)
+
+
+
+
+Type locality
+: Siam.
+
+
+Type material examined
+.
+
+
+Holotype
+
+,
+♂
+(
+MNHN
+):
+Siam
+/
+Mouhot
+[wc, line 1 hb, line 2 pb] //
+
+Oniticellus
+
+/
+
+exsul
+
+/ Type D.S. [wc, hb except “Type” pb] // Ex Musaeo / D. Sharp 1890 [wc, pb] // MUSÉUM PARIS / 1952 / COLL.
+R. OBERTHÜR
+[wc, pb] //
+A. Janssens
+det. 195 /
+Drepanocerus
+/
+falsus Sharp
+♂ / (sub nom. exsul) [wc, hb except line 1 pb] // TYPE [rc, pb] // HOLOTYPE [rc, pb] // HOLOTYPE /
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+/
+
+exsul
+(Sharp)
+
+[wc, pb] // MNHN / EC8104 [wc, pb]
+
+.
+
+
+Additional material examined
+(
+5♂♂
+,
+9♀♀
+).
+
+
+Laos
+
+:
+Champasak province
+, Bolaven Plateau,
+Ban Thôngvay (=Xékatam) vicinity
+, old logging road N of village, selectively logged forest,
+15°13.96’N
+106°31.731’E
+,
+
+1035m
+
+,
+carrion trap
+(squid),
+
+8–16.vi.2008
+
+,
+A. Solodovnikov
+,
+M. Thayer
+&
+A. Newton
+legit
+[
+5♂♂
+,
+7♀♀
+,
+FMNH
+]
+
+;
+
+Champasak province
+, Bolaven Plateau,
+Muang Paxong
+,
+Ban Thôngvay
+, edge of disturbed primary rainforest, near clearing,
+15°14.054’N
+106°31.867’E
+,
+
+1200m
+
+,
+fruit baited trap on ground
+,
+
+8–16.vi.2008
+
+,
+A. Solodovnikov
+&
+J. Pedersen
+legit
+[
+1♀
+,
+ZMUC
+]
+
+;
+
+Champasak province
+, Bolaven Plateau,
+Ban Thôngvay
+,
+disturbed forest
+,
+
+10-16.vi.2008
+
+,
+S. Tarasov
+legit
+[
+1♀
+,
+MZH
+]
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+Diagnosis
+.
+
+Sinodrepanus exsul
+
+can be easily differentiated from all other
+
+Sinodrepanus
+species
+
+by the combination of the following characters: i) sternites 3–6 almost entirely smooth laterally, except for a narrow transverse anterolateral setigerous band, while they are evenly punctured in all other
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+; ii) the longest setae on elytral interstria 5 irregularly spread, not arranged into tufts; iii) males with a deep obtuse notch between clypeal teeth (
+Fig. 3a
+); iv) parameres with basolateral plate almost absent (
+Figs. 2a–c
+); and v) females with a small third denticle between clypeal teeth (
+Fig. 3d
+). Contrarily to other
+
+Sinodrepanus
+species
+
+, whose females are very similar one another, females of
+
+S. exsul
+
+can be readily distinguished by the median clypeal denticle and the laterally smooth sternites. This species is very close to
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+, from which it can be readily differentiated, in addition to the laterally smooth sternites, the deeply notched male clypeus and male genitalia, by having elongated and not rounded punctures on pronotal disc (
+Fig. 3e
+).
+
+
+
+
+Redescription of the male
+(non-type). Flat, elongated, integument microreticulated, dark brown and partially with metallic lustre; antennae reddish-brown; body surface almost wholly covered by simple or ocellate punctures carrying light brown scale-like setae.
+Length
+:
+9.7 mm
+.
+Head
+. Subpentagonal, clypeus covered by dense ocellate setigerous punctures; vertex with two weak, short longitudinal carinae bearing long testaceous setae; carinae dividing the interocular space into three almost equal segments; presence of an effaced bulge on the frons; head surface smooth above tentorial pits; lateral edge of genae obtusely angular; head margin slightly notched and broadly angular in correspondence of clypeogenal junctions; anterior clypeal margin with two upturned teeth separated by a triangular, obtuse notch.
+Pronotum
+. Subquadrangular, widening anteriorly, lateral margin approximately straight posteriorly; anterolateral angles curved; posterior angles broadly rounded; posterior margin broadly rounded, obtuse medially; covered with ocellate setigerous punctures of uneven size, punctures longitudinally elongated on disc. Pronotal disc with 8 ill-defined longitudinal carinae bearing long testaceous bristles (in order, from medial to lateral): 2 carinae on either side of the midline, reaching the anterior pronotal border but expiring before posterior edge, converging at about the anterior 2/5 of their length, where they are connected by a faint transverse bulge; laterally to these, 2 short carinae connected to the posterior pronotal border and 2 short oblique carinae anteriorly, connecting to the anterior part of the medial carinae; other 2 bulge-like oblique carinae on the posterior and anterior thirds of pronotum, close to the lateral margins.
+Elytra
+. Flat on the whole, interstria 1 raised, interstria 6 depressed longitudinally; interstriae 5–7 obliquely elevated next to humeral callus, interstria 6 depressed a little behind callus; striae broad, their borders clearly ridged, punctures marked, each one carrying a scale-like seta; stria 6 strongly sinuous; interstriae uniformly covered with setigerous punctures; interstriae 1–3, 5 and 7 with a tuft of long setae apically; interstriae 1, 5 and 7 carrying longer setae, setae on interstria 5 irregularly distributed; interstria 8 covered with longer and more scattered setae. Scutellum tapering posteriorly, smooth.
+Legs
+. Anterior surface of femur covered by dense small setigerous punctures and by scattered ocellate punctures carrying thicker setae. Protibia with distal margin obliquely truncated; ventral protibial margin strongly curved, slightly produced distally; apical protibial spur with distal half bent posteriorly; dorsal protibial margin with three small teeth.
+Tergite 8
+. Densely setigerous; strongly swollen medially, with two broad bulges; strongly depressed along anterior margin; with a longitudinal medial carina connected to the anterior margin.
+Ventral body surface
+. Abdominal sternites with a tuft of setae laterally next to the epipleuron; S3 densely setigerous medially, smooth laterally except for a transverse setigerous band along the anterolateral margin; S4–6 with scattered setae medially, smooth laterally except for a transverse setigerous band along the anterolateral margin; sternites 7–8 densely setigerous on the entire surface. Metaventral disc covered by small ocellate punctures intermixed with few bigger punctures, with a pair of symmetrical shallow depressions next to posteromedian margin; lateral metaventral surface microreticulated, with big ocellate puctures intermixed with few smaller punctures.
+Genitalia
+(
+Figs. 2a–d
+). Basolateral plate of parameres almost absent; parameral apices strongly bent ventrally at a straight angle in lateral view; parameral apices slightly tapering in posterior view. Lamella copulatrix (LC) four-lobed: superior left lobe with a flattened digitiform expansion bent posteriorly; superior right lobe sinuous; inferior left lobe thin, arched; inferior right lobe separated from the rest of the LC, associated with an inconspicuous additional sclerite.
+
+
+Description of the female
+(non-type). Similar to the male except for the following characters.
+Head
+. Space between clypeal teeth more broadly curved than in the male, with a small median tooth.
+Legs
+. Protibial teeth larger than in the male; ventral protibial margin not strongly curved.
+Tergite 8
+. Shorter than in the male.
+Ventral body surface
+. S8 longer than in the male.
+Genitalia
+(
+Fig. 2i
+). Vagina relatively poorly but uniformly sclerotised, with many folds; infundibulum bent at a right angle distally; proximal part of receptaculum seminis relatively well developed.
+
+
+Variation
+. Body size ranges from
+7.8 to 10.2 mm
+. Clypeal margin can be more or less notched and angular in correspondence of clypeogenal junction. The medial clypeal tooth of females can be more or less evident, but it is always visible—the only exception among the examined material being very worn specimens in which the denticle is absent and the clypeal notch deeper.
+
+
+Verified distribution
+.
+Laos
+,
+Thailand
+(
+Fig. 4
+).
+Kabakov & Napolov (1999)
+recorded
+
+S. falsus
+
+from
+Vietnam
+, and considered
+
+S. exsul
+
+as a synonym of it. This record should be reassessed and the specimens re-examined to confirm their identity. See the “
+Indian
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+: an overlooked diversity?” section for more comments on its distribution.
+
+
+
+
+Ecology
+.
+
+Sinodrepanus exsul
+
+was found on the Bolaven Plateau (
+Laos
+) on the edges of a logged forest and of a disturbed primary rainforest. It was collected with traps baited with rotting squid and fruit, suggesting rather generalist feeding preferences.
+
+
+
+
+Etymology
+. Latin noun meaning “exile” or “wanderer”.
+
+
+
+
+Remarks
+. This species was confused with
+
+S. falsus
+
+, until
+Montanaro (2021)
+resurrected it from the synonymy with this latter taxon. It was also confused in some collections with
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+, to which it is extremely close.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFF4FFFB30CBFC7BF073FD21.xml b/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFF4FFFB30CBFC7BF073FD21.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..f341d4dfe1a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFF4FFFB30CBFC7BF073FD21.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,650 @@
+
+
+
+New or poorly known species of Sinodrepanus Simonis, 1985 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Oniticellini), with the first identification key for the genus
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Montanaro, Giulio
+
+text
+
+
+Zootaxa
+
+
+2024
+
+2024-11-12
+
+
+5537
+
+
+4
+
+
+577
+595
+
+
+
+
+http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5537.4.10
+
+journal article
+10.11646/zootaxa.5537.4.10
+1175-5326
+14240160
+4BDF6685-879A-474B-BD8D-FC23323A0947
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sinodrepanus falsus
+(
+Sharp, 1875
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Oniticellus falsus
+Sharp, 1875: 52
+
+
+(original description)
+
+
+
+Drepanochirus falsus
+
+:
+
+Boucomont & Gillet, 1921: 19
+
+
+
+
+Cyptochirus falsus
+
+:
+
+Boucomont & Gillet, 1927: 103
+
+;
+
+Paulian, 1945: 128
+
+
+
+
+Drepanocerus falsus
+
+:
+
+Janssens, 1953: 36
+
+, 37;
+
+Balthasar, 1963: 62
+
+, 66;
+
+Biswas & Chatterjee, 1985: 151
+
+(probably to be ascribed to
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+);
+
+Sewak, 2003: 253
+
+, 283 (to be ascribed to
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+?);
+
+Sewak, 2006: 219
+
+
+
+
+Sinodrepanus falsus
+
+:
+
+Simonis, 1985: 98
+
+, 103, 104;
+
+Kabakov & Napolov, 1999: 73
+
+;
+
+
+Ochi
+et al
+., 2004: 355
+
+
+;
+Bezděk & Krell, 2006:
+157;
+Krikken, 2009: 9
+, 14, 21;
+Kabakov & Shokhin, 2014: 58
+;
+Mittal & Jain, 2015: 393
+;
+Bezděk, 2016: 174
+;
+Montanaro,
+2021: 585
+
+
+
+
+Type locality
+: Laos.
+
+
+Type material examined
+.
+
+
+Holotype
+
+,
+♀
+(
+MNHN
+):
+Laos
+/ Mouhot [wc, line 1 hb, line 2 pb] //
+Oniticellus
+/ falsus / Type D.S. [wc, hb except “Type” pb] // Ex Musaeo / D. Sharp 1890 [wc, pb] // MUSÉUM PARIS / 1952 / COLL.
+R. OBERTHÜR
+[wc, pb] //
+A. Janssens
+det. 1953 /
+Drepanocerus
+/
+falsus Sharp
+♀ / Type [wc, hb except “A. Janssens det. 195” pb] // TYPE [rc, pb] // HOLOTYPE [rc, pb] // HOLOTYPE /
+Sinodrepanus
+/
+falsus (Sharp)
+[wc, pb] // MNHN / EC8103 [wc, pb]
+
+.
+
+
+Additional material examined
+(
+37♂♂
+,
+20♀♀
+).
+
+
+China
+
+: S
+Yunnan province
+,
+Xishuangbanna
+,
+Guangpin
+environment, 0km [sic!] N
+Jinghong
+,
+
+1000m
+
+,
+
+19–27.i.2003
+
+,
+S. Murzin
+legit
+[
+1♂
+,
+PMOC
+]
+
+;
+
+S
+Yunnan province
+,
+Jinghong
+,
+
+9–14.vii.1990
+
+,
+R. Červenka
+legit
+[
+2♂♂
+,
+NMPC
+]
+
+.
+
+
+Laos
+
+:
+Xayaboury province
+,
+Hongsa
+environment, 19°40–44’N 101°20’E,
+
+550–750m
+
+,
+
+2–3.vii.2010
+
+,
+D. Hauck
+legit
+[
+1♀
+,
+JSCS
+]
+
+;
+
+Paklay
+,
+
+viii.1917
+
+,
+R.V. de Salvaza
+legit
+[
+1♂
+,
+BMNH
+]
+
+;
+
+Louangphrabang
+,
+Thong Khan
+,
+19°35’N
+101°58’E
+, ~
+
+750m
+
+,
+
+11–21.v.2002
+
+,
+Vit Kubáň
+legit
+[
+10♂♂
+&
+6♀♀
+,
+NMPC
+]
+
+;
+
+Phongsaly province
+,
+Ban Sano Mai
+environment,
+21°21’N
+102°03’E
+, ~
+
+1150m
+
+,
+
+19–26.v.2004
+
+,
+Vit Kubáň
+legit
+[
+2♂♂
+,
+NMPC
+]
+
+;
+
+Xayaboury province
+,
+Pak Lay
+env., 18°13’N 101°22–24’E,
+
+12–13.vii.2010
+
+,
+David Hauck
+legit
+[
+4♂♂
+,
+2♀♀
+,
+NMBS
+;
+2♂♂
+,
+1♀
+,
+JSCS
+]
+
+.
+
+
+Thailand
+
+: Ban Tao Phan,
+
+11.iii.1918
+
+[likely
+Ban Phan Tao
+in
+Chiang Mai province
+;
+1♂
+,
+BMNH
+]
+
+;
+
+Chiang Mai province
+,
+Chiang Dao
+,
+Chiang Dao Hill Resort
+environment,
+19°33’28.37”N
+99°4’34.20”E
+,
+
+2–11.vii.2019
+
+,
+Vishnyakov Alexey
+legit
+[
+1♂
+,
+GMOC
+]
+
+;
+
+Chiang Mai province
+,
+Chiang Dao
+,
+19°33’28”N
+99°4’34”E
+,
+
+14.vi.2017
+
+,
+Prosvirov
+legit
+[
+1♀
+,
+GMOC
+]
+
+;
+
+Chiang Mai province
+,
+Chiangdao Hill Resort
+,
+19°33’29.19”N
+99°04’33.34”E
+,
+
+1-15.vii.2019
+
+,
+Ustinov V.
+legit
+[
+2♂♂
+,
+GMOC
+]
+
+;
+
+
+100km
+N Chiang Mai
+
+,
+Chiang Dao hill Resort
+,
+
+20-30.VI.2008
+
+,
+S. Murzin
+legit
+[
+1♂
+,
+PMOC
+]
+
+;
+
+Loei province
+,
+Na Haeo biological station
+,
+cow dung
+,
+
+5–12.v.2001
+
+,
+Constant
+&
+Grootaert
+legit
+[
+4♂♂
+,
+6♀♀
+,
+RBINS
+]
+
+;
+
+Loei province
+,
+Na Haeo
+,
+zebu dung
+,
+
+18.v.2003
+
+,
+J. Constant
+&
+K. Smets
+legit
+[
+2♂♂
+,
+2♀♀
+,
+RBINS
+]
+
+;
+
+Umphang river
+,
+16°07’N
+99°00’E
+,
+
+1000m
+
+,
+
+28.iv– 6.v.1991
+
+,
+Vit Kubáň
+legit [
+4♂♂
+,
+1♀
+,
+NMPC
+]
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+Diagnosis
+.
+
+Sinodrepanus falsus
+
+can be distinguished from other species by the characters provided by
+Montanaro (2021)
+. Additionally, this species is rather distinctive for having a particularly uneven body surface, with strong pronotal carinas that delimit well-marked spaces on the pronotum, recalling those of the genus
+
+Cyptochirus
+Lesne, 1900
+
+—see also
+Simonis (1985)
+and
+Simonis & Zunino (1980)
+. See also the dichotomous key provided below.
+
+
+
+
+Description
+: see
+Montanaro (2021)
+.
+
+
+Variation
+. Body size ranges from
+7.2 to 9.8 mm
+. No other significant variation was observed.
+
+
+
+
+Verified distribution
+.
+China
+(
+Yunnan
+),
+Laos
+,
+Thailand
+(
+Fig. 4
+).
+Kabakov & Napolov (1999)
+recorded
+
+S. falsus
+
+from
+Vietnam
+, considering
+
+S. exsul
+
+as a synonym of it.
+Kabakov & Shokhin (2014)
+recorded
+
+S. falsus
+
+from
+China
+(
+Sichuan
+). These records should be reassessed to understand the true identity of such species. See also the “
+Indian
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+: an overlooked diversity?” section for more distributional comments.
+
+
+
+
+Ecology
+. Some specimens were collected in cow and zebu dung.
+
+
+
+
+Etymology
+. Latin adjective meaning “deceived”, “tricked”; by extension “false”, “untrue”. It is probably referred to the cryptic appearance of this species, shared with all other
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+, that camouflages these beetles within dung and other fibrous substrates.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFF5FFF430CBFCB7F3CCFD45.xml b/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFF5FFF430CBFCB7F3CCFD45.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..17e9582f2e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFF5FFF430CBFCB7F3CCFD45.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,855 @@
+
+
+
+New or poorly known species of Sinodrepanus Simonis, 1985 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Oniticellini), with the first identification key for the genus
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Montanaro, Giulio
+
+text
+
+
+Zootaxa
+
+
+2024
+
+2024-11-12
+
+
+5537
+
+
+4
+
+
+577
+595
+
+
+
+
+http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5537.4.10
+
+journal article
+10.11646/zootaxa.5537.4.10
+1175-5326
+14240160
+4BDF6685-879A-474B-BD8D-FC23323A0947
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sinodrepanus rex
+(
+Boucomont, 1912
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+(
+
+Figs.
+3g
+–h
+
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Drepanocerus rex
+Boucomont, 1912: 277
+
+
+(original description);
+
+Janssens, 1953: 25
+
+
+
+
+
+Drepanocerus arrowi
+Balthasar, 1932
+
+(original description): 64;
+
+Janssens, 1953: 37
+
+(as synonym of
+
+S. rex
+
+)
+
+
+
+
+Sinodrepanus rex
+
+:
+
+Simonis, 1985: 98
+
+;
+
+Krikken, 2009: 21
+
+;
+
+
+Bai
+et al
+., 2011: 10
+
+
+;
+
+Kabakov & Shokhin, 2014: 57
+
+;
+
+
+Bai
+et al
+., 2017: 42
+
+
+;
+
+
+Li
+et al
+., 2018: 416
+
+
+;
+
+Bezdĕk, 2016: 174
+
+;
+
+Bezděk & Krell, 2006: 157
+
+
+
+
+
+Sinodrepanus arrowi
+
+:
+
+Simonis, 1985: 96
+
+(as putative synonym of
+
+S. rex
+
+);
+
+Krikken, 2009: 21
+
+(as putatively valid species);
+
+Kabakov & Shokhin, 2014: 57
+
+(as synonym of
+
+S. rex
+
+);
+
+
+Roggero
+et al
+., 2015: 154
+
+
+, 156, 174;
+
+Bezdĕk, 2016: 174
+
+(as synonym of
+
+S. rex
+
+);
+
+Bezděk & Krell, 2006: 157
+
+(as synonym of
+
+S. rex
+
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+Type
+locality
+
+:
+Yunnan
+.
+
+
+Type material examined
+.
+
+Drepanocerus rex
+
+.
+
+
+Syntype
+no. 1
+
+,
+♂
+(
+MNHN
+):
+Yunnan
+[wc, pb] // MUSÉUM PARIS / [1?]936 / COLL.
+A. BOUCOMONT
+[wc, pb] // ♂ [wc, pb] // A. Janssens vid., 1953 /
+Drepanocerus
+/ rex ♂ / Boucomont / Type [wc, hb except “A. Janssens” and “., 195” pb] // Typus [rc, pb] // SYNTYPE [rc, pb] // SYNTYPE /
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+/
+
+rex
+(Boucomont)
+
+[wc, pb] // MNHN / EC8105 [wc, pb]
+
+.
+
+
+Syntype
+no. 2
+
+,
+♂
+(
+MNHN
+):
+Yunnan
+[wc, pb] // MUSÉUM PARIS / [1?]936 / COLL.
+A. BOUCOMONT
+[wc, pb] // Typus [rc, pb] // SYNTYPE [rc, pb] // SYNTYPE /
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+/
+
+rex
+(Boucomont)
+
+[wc, pb] // MNHN / EC8106 [wc, pb]
+
+.
+
+
+
+Drepanocerus arrowi
+
+.
+
+Lectotype
+
+(by present designation),
+♂
+(
+NMPC
+) (
+
+Fig.
+3g
+–h
+
+): Giufu-Shan / Szechuan / Em. Reitter [wc, pb] // Typus [rc, hw] // Det. Dr. Balthasar /
+D. Arrowi
+m. [wc, line 1 pb, line 2 hb] // 249 /
+♂
+/ BPR [wc, hb] // ex. coll. V. Balthasar / National Museum /
+Prague
+,
+Czech Republic
+[wc, pb] //
+LECTOTYPE
+/
+Drepanocerus arrowi
+/
+Balthasar, 1932
+/ G. Montanaro des. 2023 [rc, hb; dissected genitalia are mounted on a separate microscope slide marked with “249”, preserved in the same box of the
+lectotype
+].
+
+Paralectotype
+no. 1
+
+,
+♀
+(
+NMPC
+): Giufu-Shan / Szechuan / Em. Reitter // Typus // Det. Dr. Balthasar /
+D. Arrowi
+m. // ex coll. V. Balthasar / National Museum /
+Prague
+,
+Czech Republic
+//
+Drepanocerus
+/ arrowi / Balth.
+
+Paralectotype
+no. 2
+
+,
+♀
+(
+NMPC
+): Typus // Giufu-Shan / Szechuan / Em. Reitter // Det. Dr. Balthasar /
+D. Arrowi
+m. // ex coll. V. Balthasar / National Museum /
+Prague
+,
+Czech Republic
+.
+
+Paralectotype
+no. 3
+
+,
+♂
+(
+NMPC
+): Typus // Giufu-Shan / Szechuan / Em. Reitter // Det. Dr. Balthasar /
+D. Arrowi
+m. // ex coll. V. Balthasar / National Museum /
+Prague
+,
+Czech Republic
+[the head is missing].
+
+Paralectotype
+no. 4
+
+,
+♂
+(
+NMPC
+): Typus // Giufu-Shan / Szechuan / Em. Reitter // Typus // Det. Dr. Balthasar /
+D. Arrowi
+m. // 248 /
+♂
+/ BPR // ex coll. V. Balthasar / National Museum /
+Prague
+,
+Czech Republic
+.
+
+Paralectotype
+no. 5
+
+,
+♂
+(
+BMNH
+): Co- / type [wc, pb, circled in yellow] // Typus [rc, hb] // Giufu-Shan / Szechuan / Em. Reitter [wc, pb] //
+BMNH
+(E) / 1237594 [wc, pb; genitalia mounted on a cardboard pinned with the specimen].
+
+
+
+FIGURE 1.
+Habitus of
+
+Sinodrepanus
+species
+
+, dorsal view.
+
+S. exsul
+
+: male (a) and female (b).
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+: male paratype from Laos (c) and female paratype from India (d).
+
+
+
+
+FIGURE 2.
+Genitalia of
+
+Sinodrepanus
+species.
+
+
+S. exsul
+
+: aedeagus in lateral (a), posterior (b) and dorsal (c) views; lamella copulatrix (d); female genitalia (i).
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+: aedeagus in lateral (e), posterior (f) and dorsal (g) views; lamella copulatrix (h); female genitalia (j).
+
+
+
+
+FIGURE 3.
+Details of
+
+Sinodrepanus
+species.
+
+
+S. exsul
+
+: male (a) and female (c) head; posterior pronotal punctuation (e).
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+: male (b) and female (d) head; posterior pronotal punctuation (f).
+
+S. arrowi
+
+, lectotype (g) and its labels (h) (pictures by Jiří Hájek, NMPC).
+
+
+
+
+Additional material examined
+(
+1♂
+,
+1♀
+).
+
+China
+
+:
+Giufu-Shan
+,
+Szechuan
+, Em. Reitter [
+1♀
+,
+NMPC
+; found within the series of
+
+D. arrowi
+
+syntypes but not labeled as a
+syntype
+]; Thibet, Tse Kou, 1902,
+R. P. J. Dubernard
+legit
+[
+1♂
+,
+JSCS
+]
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+Diagnosis
+.
+
+Sinodrepanus rex
+
+shares with
+
+S. besucheti
+
+,
+
+S. rosannae
+Simonis, 1985
+
+,
+
+S. thailandicus
+
+and
+
+S. tsaii
+
+the presence of delimited tufts of setae on interstria 5. Major males can be separated from males of
+
+S. besucheti
+
+and
+
+S. tsaii
+
+due to the narrowly protruding clypeus (truncated medially in the other species), and from
+
+S. thailandicus
+
+by the wider, rectangular-shaped (not rounded laterally) tip of the medial clypeal tooth. However, the examination of male genitalia remains the most effective way to get a sure identification, with the most apparent character being the strong tooth on the superior right branch of the lamella copulatrix (
+Simonis 1985
+), much less developed in all other species. Compared to
+
+S. thailandicus
+
+, the basolateral plate of paramere is well developed, almost reaching the posterior edge of parameral apex in lateral view (ending clearly before the parameral apex in
+
+S. thailandicus
+
+).
+
+Sinodrepanus rosannae
+
+has clearly shorter parameres, with basolateral plate overlapping with parameral apex in lateral view. See also the identification key below. Females can be distinguished from those of
+
+S. rosannae
+
+by the protibiae with 4 teeth (
+3 in
+
+S. rosannae
+
+), but the association with males is required to reasonably exclude the remaining taxa.
+
+
+
+
+Distribution
+.
+China
+(
+Boucomont 1912
+;
+Balthasar 1932
+,
+1963
+;
+Kabakov & Shokhin 2014
+;
+
+Li
+et al
+. 2018
+
+).
+Balthasar (1963)
+recorded this species from
+Vietnam
+(as
+
+S. arrowi
+
+); however, this record should be considered as doubtful due to the proven confusion made by the Czech author between
+
+S. arrowi
+
+and
+
+S. besucheti
+
+(see below).
+
+
+
+
+Etymology
+.
+
+Rex
+
+is a Latin noun meaning “king”.
+
+
+
+
+Remarks
+.
+
+Drepanocerus arrowi
+
+was described by
+Balthasar (1932)
+on a series of specimens from Giufu-Shan, currently known as Jinfo
+Shan
+in the Chinese municipality of
+Chongqing
+(
+
+Bezděk
+et al
+. 2015
+
+). In his description, the author stated that the species is very close to
+
+Drepanocerus rex
+Boucomont, 1912
+
+and provided an identification table to separate the two species. However, Balthasar had never seen
+
+D. rex
+
+and his diagnosis was based solely on
+Boucomont’s (1912
+,
+1921
+) descriptions.
+
+
+Later,
+Janssens (1953)
+compared the type of
+
+S. rex
+
+and
+two syntypes
+of
+
+S. arrowi
+
+, and concluded that the two names refer to the same species. One of the most striking differences advocated by
+Balthasar (1932)
+to differentiate the two taxa was the length of the first metatarsomere: as long as the second and third metatarsomeres together in
+
+S. rex
+
+(according to
+Boucomont’s (1912)
+description), and as long as tarsomeres
+2–5 in
+
+S. arrowi
+
+. However, both species actually present the latter character state, and—as
+Janssens (1953)
+noticed—the one given by
+Boucomont (1912)
+appears to be only due to a lapsus. Additionally,
+Balthasar (1932)
+misinterpreted sexual dimorphism in his new species. In
+
+S. rex
+
+, major males have the anterior margin of clypeus strongly produced, subtrapezoidal and upturned; in minor males the clypeus is only slightly upturned and notched medially; in females, the clypeus has two strong teeth. As clearly shown by its drawings,
+Balthasar (1932: 66)
+interpreted actual major males as females, and minor males and females as males of his
+
+S. arrowi
+
+. This mistake was later corrected by the Czech author himself (
+Balthasar 1963
+).
+
+
+Nevertheless,
+Balthasar (1963)
+denied Janssens’ (1953) synonymy. He argued that Boucomont’s description of
+
+S. rex
+
+was inconsistent with the type of such species and proposed two interpretations (
+Balthasar 1963: 65
+, lines 25–30): 1) the type of
+
+S. rex
+
+preserved at MNHN and examined by
+Janssens (1953)
+was not the actual specimen studied by Boucomont. Therefore, the “false”
+holotype
+, which Balthasar implicitly recognized as being conspecific with
+
+S. arrowi
+
+(!), should not have been considered a type specimen; 2) Boucomont’s description, if truly referring to the type in MNHN, should be considered a “
+descriptio falsa
+” given its great imprecision, and
+
+S. rex
+
+should be treated as a
+nomen nudum
+. Relying on these two objections,
+Balthasar (1963)
+kept his
+
+S. arrowi
+
+as the only valid taxon name for the species currently recognized as
+
+S. rex
+
+.
+
+
+Later on,
+Simonis (1985)
+came to the same conclusions of
+Janssens (1953)
+after examining a
+syntype
+of
+
+S. arrowi
+
+. However, since he was not able to study the full type series of Balthasar’s species,
+Simonis (1985)
+refrained from formally confirming the synonymy. Moreover, he examined a non-type specimen identified as
+
+S. arrowi
+
+by Balthasar himself, which in fact belonged to another species,
+
+S. besucheti
+Simonis, 1985
+
+. I have found myself a series of specimens of
+
+S. besucheti
+
+preserved in NMPC, most likely seen by Balthasar and put together with specimens of
+
+S. rex
+
+. Due to the confusion of Balthasar between the two species just mentioned, the record of
+
+S. arrowi
+
+from Northern
+Vietnam
+(“
+Tonkin
+”) by
+Balthasar (1963)
+would benefit of a confirmation.
+
+
+Subsequent authors (
+Kabakov & Shokhin 2014
+;
+Bezdĕk & Krell 2006
+;
+Bezdĕk & Hájek 2012
+;
+Bezdĕk 2016
+;
+
+Li
+et al
+. 2018
+
+) mostly considered the two names as synonyms with
+
+S. rex
+
+having priority, except for
+Krikken (2009)
+, who considered the matter still unresolved, and
+
+Roggero
+et al
+. (2015)
+
+, who apparently considered
+
+S. arrowi
+
+a good species.
+
+
+I studied all
+syntypes
+of
+
+S. arrowi
+
+preserved in Balthasar’s collection (now in NMPC), as well as a
+syntype
+preserved at BMNH. My conclusions are in agreement with those of
+Janssens (1953)
+and
+Simonis (1985)
+in that, without doubt,
+
+S. arrowi
+
+is a junior subjective synonym of
+
+S. rex
+
+. The nomenclatural objections advocated by
+Balthasar (1963)
+to justify the priority of the name
+
+S. arrowi
+
+against that of
+
+S. rex
+
+must be considered invalid. Indeed, there is no evidence that the specimen currently considered the
+holotype
+of
+
+S. rex
+
+is not the one meant by
+Boucomont (1912)
+. Also, the mistakes in Boucomont’s description are not sufficient to claim the invalidation of the taxon name (A. Ballerio, personal communication). So,
+
+Sinodrepanus rex
+
+is the current valid name to be applied to our species.
+
+
+To stabilize nomenclature, I designate a medium sized male preserved at NMPC as
+lectotype
+of
+
+S. arrowi
+
+. Apparently, the
+syntypes
+are all conspecific. The only atypical thing I noticed is that one of them, a small male, has only three teeth on the outer protibial margin—the apical fourth teeth, usually found in the species, is missing. This could just be due to variation or wear, since all other characters (including the highly diagnostic genitalia) correspond to those of
+
+S. rex
+
+.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFFAFFF530CBFD53F136F855.xml b/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFFAFFF530CBFD53F136F855.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..9a5eb6ad1bf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFFAFFF530CBFD53F136F855.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,585 @@
+
+
+
+New or poorly known species of Sinodrepanus Simonis, 1985 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Oniticellini), with the first identification key for the genus
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Montanaro, Giulio
+
+text
+
+
+Zootaxa
+
+
+2024
+
+2024-11-12
+
+
+5537
+
+
+4
+
+
+577
+595
+
+
+
+
+http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5537.4.10
+
+journal article
+10.11646/zootaxa.5537.4.10
+1175-5326
+14240160
+4BDF6685-879A-474B-BD8D-FC23323A0947
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sinodrepanus schoenfeldi
+Montanaro
+
+,
+new species
+
+
+
+
+
+
+http://zoobank.org/
+
+urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:
+360CCBA6-69BE-4A35-9BBB-01D46ECC8EEC
+
+
+
+(
+Figs. 1c–d
+,
+2e–h, 2j
+,
+3d, 3b, 3f
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Drepanocerus falsus
+
+:
+
+Janssens, 1953: 36
+
+, 37;
+
+Biswas & Chatterjee, 1985: 151
+
+(?);
+
+Sewak, 2003: 253
+
+, 283 (?)
+
+
+
+
+
+Drepanocerus exsul
+
+:
+
+Arrow, 1931: 381
+
+, 385;
+
+Sewak, 2003: 253
+
+(?)
+
+
+
+
+
+Drepenocerus exsul
+
+[
+sic
+!]:
+
+Sewak, 2003: 283
+
+(?)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Type
+locality
+
+: Patkai Mountains, Assam state,
+India
+.
+
+
+Type material examined
+.
+
+
+Holotype
+
+,
+♂
+(
+BMNH
+):
+Assam
+/
+Patkai Mts.
+[wc, hb] // 61033 [wc, hb] // Doherty [wc, hb] //
+Fry
+Coll. / 1905-100. [wc, pb] // Determinated from / description G.J.A. /
+Oniticellus
+/
+exsul, Sharp
+[wc, pb except last two lines hb] //
+BMNH(E)
+/ 1237595 [wc, pb] //
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+/
+
+schoenfeldi
+
+n. sp.
+/ HOLOTYPE ♂ /
+G. Montanaro
+det. 2024 [rc, hb]
+
+.
+
+
+Allotype
+
+: NE
+India
+,
+Arunachal Pradesh
+,
+Hunli vicinity
+,
+28°19’32”N
+95°57’31”E
+, 1300±
+100m
+,
+FIT (flight interception trap)
+,
+
+26.v–1.vi.2012
+
+,
+L. Dembický
+legit
+[
+NMPC
+]
+
+.
+
+
+Paratypes
+
+(
+4♂♂
+,
+5♀♀
+).
+
+India
+
+: NE India,
+Arunachal Pradesh
+,
+Roing
+vicinity,
+28°08’32”N
+95°51’E
+,
+
+500m
+
+, sifting+Winkler app. extraction,
+
+2–5.vi.2012
+
+,
+L. Dembický
+legit
+[
+1♀
+,
+JSCS
+]
+
+.
+
+
+Laos
+
+:
+Oudomxai province
+,
+
+17km
+NEE Oudomxai
+
+,
+20°45’N
+102°09’E
+, ~
+
+1100m
+
+,
+
+1–9.v.2002
+
+,
+Vit Kubáň
+legit
+[
+2♂♂
+,
+2♀♀
+,
+NMPC
+;
+1♂
+,
+GMOC
+]
+
+;
+
+Phongsaly province
+,
+
+4km
+E
+
+Ban Bun Neua
+,
+21°38’N
+101°57’E
+, ~
+
+1100m
+
+,
+Vit Kubáň
+legit
+[
+1♂
+,
+NMPC
+]
+
+;
+
+Bokeo province
+,
+
+5km
+W
+
+Ban Toup
+,
+Bokeo Nature Reserve
+, 20°27–28’N 100°45’E,
+
+500–700m
+
+,
+
+4–18.v.2011
+
+[
+1♀
+,
+NMBS
+]
+
+;
+
+Bokeo province
+,
+
+5km
+W
+
+Ban Toup
+,
+Bokeo Nature Reserve
+, 20°27–28’N 100°45’E,
+
+500–700m
+
+,
+
+4–18.v.2011
+
+,
+M. Brancucci
+legit
+[
+1♀
+,
+NMBS
+]
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+Diagnosis
+.
+
+Sinodrepanus schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+can be easily separated from most
+
+Sinodrepanus
+species
+
+by the combination of the following characters: i) the longest setae on interstria 5 irregularly distributed, not arranged into tufts; ii) three teeth on the outer protibial margin; iii) male clypeus with two teeth plus an additional small stout median tooth (
+Fig. 3b
+); iv) females with a sharp small denticle between clypeal teeth (
+Fig. 3d
+); v) parameres with very short basolateral plate (
+Figs. 2e–g
+). Except for the third and last characters, all other features are also present in
+
+S. exsul
+
+, from which however it can be easily separated also by the punctured (not smooth) lateral surface of sternites 3–6 and the circular (not elongated) punctures of pronotal disc (
+Fig. 3f
+).
+
+
+
+
+
+Description of the
+holotype
+, male.
+
+Flat, elongated, integument microreticulated, dark brown and partially with metallic lustre; antennae reddish-brown; body surface almost wholly covered by simple or ocellate punctures which carry light brown scale-like setae.
+Length
+:
+8.6 mm
+.
+Head
+. Subpentagonal, clypeus covered by dense ocellate setigerous punctures; vertex with two weak, short longitudinal carinae bearing long testaceous bristles; carinae dividing the interocular space into three almost equal segments; frons bulging medially; lateral edge of genae obtusely angular; head margin obtusely angular in correspondence of clypeogenal junctions; anterior clypeal margin with two upturned teeth and a third, very small medial clypeal tooth, margin broadly obtusely angled medially.
+Pronotum
+. Subquadrangular, widening anteriorly, lateral margin approximately straight posteriorly; anterolateral angles evenly curved; posterior angles broadly rounded; posterior margin broadly rounded, obtuse medially; covered with ocellate setigerous punctures of uneven size, punctures circular on disc. Pronotal disc with 8 ill-defined longitudinal carinae bearing testaceous bristles (in order, from medial to lateral): 2 carinae on either side of the midline, reaching the anterior pronotal border but expiring before posterior edge, slightly converging at about the anterior 2/5 of their length, where disc is transversely swollen; laterally to these, 2 short carinae connected to the posterior pronotal border and 2 short oblique carinae anteriorly, connecting to the anterior part of the medial carinae; other 2 bulge-like oblique carinae on the posterior and anterior thirds of pronotum, close to the lateral margins.
+Elytra
+. Flat on the whole, interstria 1 raised, interstria 6 depressed longitudinally; interstriae 5–7 obliquely elevated next to humeral callus, interstria 6 depressed a little behind callus; striae broad, their borders clearly ridged, punctures marked, each one carrying a scale-like seta; interstriae uniformly covered with setigerous punctures; interstriae 1–3, 5 and 7 with a tuft of long setae apically; interstriae 1, 5 and 7 carrying longer setae, setae on interstria 5 irregularly distributed; interstria 8 covered with longer and more scattered setae.Scutellar shield approximately parallel-sided, smooth.
+Legs
+. Anterior surface of femur covered by dense small setigerous punctures and by scattered ocellate punctures carrying thicker setae. Protibia with distal margin obliquely truncated; ventral protibial margin strongly curved, slightly produced distally; apical protibial spur with distal half slightly bent; dorsal protibial margin with three small teeth.
+Tergite 8
+. Densely setigerous; strongly swollen medially, with two broad bulges; strongly depressed along anterior margin; with a longitudinal medial carina connected to the anterior margin.
+Ventral body surface
+. Abdominal sternites with a tuft of long setae laterally next to the epipleuron, evenly covered with setigerous punctures, setae longer medially. Metaventral disc covered by small ocellate punctures intermixed with few bigger punctures, with a pair of symmetrical shallow depressions next to posteromedian margin; lateral metaventral surface microreticulated, with big ocellate puctures intermixed with many smaller setigerous punctures.
+Genitalia
+(
+Figs. 2e–h
+). Basolateral plates of parameres relatively short, not reaching parameral apices in lateral view; parameral apices well developed, strongly bent downwards; parameral apices rounded in frontal view. Lamella copulatrix (LC) four-lobed: superior left lobe with a flattened digitiform expansion bent posteriorly; superior right lobe simple, flattened; inferior left lobe relatively thick, arched; inferior right lobe separated from the rest of the LC, associated with an inconspicuous additional sclerite.
+
+
+Female
+(
+allotype
+). Similar to the male except for the following characters.
+Head
+. Symmetrical clypeal teeth more developed, space between them broader, median denticle more developed and sharp; clypeal margin slightly notched at clypeogenal margin.
+Legs
+. Outer protibial teeth larger than in the male; inner protibial margin not strongly curved.
+Tergite 8
+. Shorter than in the male.
+Ventral body surface
+. S8 longer than in the male.
+Genitalia
+(
+Fig. 2j
+). Vagina relatively poorly sclerotised, with many folds; infundibulum broadly curved distally.
+
+
+Variation
+. Body size ranges from 8.0 to 9.0 mm. The clypeal margin can be more or less markedly angular at clypeogenal junctions. Punctures on the basal half of disc can sometimes be slightly oval, but never clearly elongated as in
+
+S. exsul
+
+. In
+one male
+the median clypeal denticle was completely effaced, probably due to wear. No significant external or genital differences were observed between specimens from
+India
+and those from
+Laos
+.
+
+
+Verified distribution
+:
+India
+(
+Assam
+,
+Arunachal Pradesh
+),
+Laos
+(
+Fig. 4
+). See the remarks in the “
+Indian
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+: an overlooked diversity?” section for more details.
+
+
+
+
+Ecology
+. In
+India
+, this species inhabits evergreen rainforests on the eastern foothills of Himalaya.
+
+
+
+
+Etymology
+. I am pleased to dedicate the new species to Joachim Schönfeld (Sinzig,
+Germany
+), specialist of Old World
+Scarabaeinae
+, to whom I am grateful for his friendly support and help in gathering important dung beetle specimens.
+
+
+
+
+Remarks
+. This species was overlooked by several authors due to the similarity with
+
+S. falsus
+
+and
+
+S. exsul
+
+. This error was first made by Arrow, who identified the
+holotype
+of
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+as
+
+S. exsul
+
+and depicted it (
+Arrow 1931: 385
+, fig. 55).
+
+
+A remarkable feature of the new species is the presence of a third, tiny medial clypeal tooth in both males and females. This character is rare in
+Oniticellini
+, being found—to my knowledge—only in females of
+
+S. exsul
+
+and
+
+Scaptocnemis segregis
+Péringuey, 1901
+
+(
+Péringuey 1901
+), and in the
+
+Helictopleurus
+d’Orbigny, 1915 species
+
+of the
+fungicola
+-group (
+
+Rossini
+et al
+. 2021
+
+). Curiously, evidence from multiple studies showed that the subtribe
+Drepanocerina
+, to which
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+is currently assigned, and the genera
+
+Tiniocellus
+Péringuey, 1901
+
+and
+
+Scaptocnemis
+Péringuey, 1901
+
+, may be strictly related (
+
+Ayivi
+et al
+. 2021
+
+;
+
+Breeschoten
+et al
+. 2016
+
+;
+Philips 2016
+). If this is the case, one may wonder whether the three-toothed clypeus shared by
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+and
+
+Scaptocnemis
+
+is due to convergence or, instead, is a homologous character.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFFDFFF030CBFB44F60AFB29.xml b/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFFDFFF030CBFB44F60AFB29.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..3b6b60cb127
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFFDFFF030CBFB44F60AFB29.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,453 @@
+
+
+
+New or poorly known species of Sinodrepanus Simonis, 1985 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Oniticellini), with the first identification key for the genus
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Montanaro, Giulio
+
+text
+
+
+Zootaxa
+
+
+2024
+
+2024-11-12
+
+
+5537
+
+
+4
+
+
+577
+595
+
+
+
+
+http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5537.4.10
+
+journal article
+10.11646/zootaxa.5537.4.10
+1175-5326
+14240160
+4BDF6685-879A-474B-BD8D-FC23323A0947
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Indian
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+: an overlooked diversity?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Due to their morphological similarity,
+
+Sinodrepanus exsul
+(
+Sharp, 1875
+)
+
+,
+
+S. falsus
+(
+Sharp, 1875
+)
+
+and
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+have been largely mixed up by previous authors, leading to an intricate and not yet resolved distributional and taxonomic history. This section deals mainly with distribution of the three species, with a special focus on
+Indian
+records.
+
+
+
+Sinodrepanus falsus
+
+and
+
+S. exsul
+
+were described by
+Sharp (1875)
+in the genus
+
+Oniticellus
+
+, from
+Laos
+and
+Thailand
+, respectively. Subsequently,
+Arrow (1931)
+moved
+
+Oniticellus exsul
+
+to
+
+Drepanocerus
+
+and recorded as such the specimen from
+India
+(
+Assam
+) which is now the
+holotype
+of
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+. Later,
+Janssens (1953: 37)
+erroneously synonymized
+
+Drepanocerus exsul
+
+with
+
+Drepanocerus falsus
+
+, and added a new record from
+Laos
+(Paklay) which was later attributed to the true
+
+S. falsus
+
+by
+Montanaro (2021)
+.
+Balthasar (1963)
+reported the same distributional data as
+Janssens (1953)
+.
+Biswas & Chatterjee (1985)
+recorded
+
+D
+.
+falsus
+
+from the
+Indian
+state of
+Arunachal Pradesh
+(Namdapha, Hornbill, human faeces,
+15.iv.1981
+, S. Biswas
+legit
+3 specimens
+).
+Kabakov & Napolov (1999)
+recorded
+
+S. falsus
+
+from
+Vietnam
+, listing
+
+S. excul
+
+[
+sic
+!] as a synonym. Notably, the Russian authors also mentioned a putatively new Vietnamese species and another unidentified one, whose identity—as far as I know—was never assessed.
+Sewak (2003)
+reported
+
+D. falsus
+
+from
+Assam
+and
+Arunachal Pradesh
+, probably following previous works. Judging from his bibliography,
+Sewak (2003)
+was not aware of the synonymy established by
+Janssens (1953)
+and continued to consider the two species as separate. It is not clear, though, why he listed
+
+D. exsul
+
+under the synonyms of
+
+D. falsus
+
+—perhaps following acritically
+Biswas & Chatterjee (1985)
+. Also,
+Sewak (2003)
+overlooked the paper in which
+Simonis (1985)
+described the genus
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+for
+
+Drepanocerus falsus
+
+and allies. For this reason, he kept using the old genus name,
+
+Drepanocerus
+
+, also in subsequent works (
+Sewak 2004
+,
+2006
+,
+2009a
+,
+2009b
+,
+2009c
+). In any case,
+Sewak (2003)
+cited also
+
+D. exsul
+
+from
+Assam
+and added two new
+Indian
+records:
+Meghalaya
+and—on the opposite side of the country—
+Gujarat
+states. Subsequently,
+Sewak (2004)
+provided more precise
+Gujarat
+localities: Jamnagar (Kalavad,
+8.iii.1986
+), Surendranagar (Chotila,
+13.iii.1986
+) and Junagarh (Gir forest,
+13.viii.1988
+; R.N. Bhargava, Trapas,
+11.ix.1990
+).
+Sewak (2006)
+cited
+
+D. falsus
+
+again from
+Assam
+and provided a more precise locality from
+Arunachal Pradesh
+(Tawang, Namet village,
+23.ix.1997
+, R. Sewak
+legit
+2 exs.
+). In the same paper, the author listed
+
+D. exsul
+
+as a synonym of
+
+S. falsus
+
+. Later,
+Sewak (2009a
+,
+2009b
+,
+2009c
+) added other records of
+
+D. exsul
+
+from western
+India
+: again
+Gujarat
+(Junagarh, Patan, Porbander, Rajkot, Surendranagar), and
+Rajasthan
+. Afterwards,
+Kabakov & Shokhin (2014)
+recorded for the first time
+
+S. falsus
+
+from
+China
+(
+Sichuan
+). In their checklist of
+Indian
+dung beetles,
+Mittal & Jain (2015)
+cited
+
+Sinodrepanus falsus
+
+from Alwar and Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan)—perhaps taking the data from other published sources, which in such case I was unable to find.
+Mittal & Jain (2015)
+probably (yet not explicitly) considered
+
+S. exsul
+
+a mere synonym of
+
+S. falsus
+
+, given they quoted under the latter species Gujarat localities ascribed in literature to
+
+S. exsul
+
+. Lastly,
+Montanaro (2021)
+confirmed that
+
+S. falsus
+
+and
+
+S. exsul
+
+are definitely distinct species and verified some records from
+China
+,
+Laos
+and
+Thailand
+.
+
+
+Disentangling in detail this mixture of distributional information and taxonomic misunderstandings is hard. While some of these records have been checked, one intriguing question remains: how many species of
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+are there in
+India
+? What seems clear is that Sewak, judging from his work (
+Sewak 2003
+,
+2006
+,
+2004
+,
+2009a
+,
+2009b
+,
+2009c
+), recognized two separate species. Indeed, he personally collected “
+
+S. falsus
+
+” at least in
+Arunachal Pradesh
+and “
+
+S. exsul
+
+” in
+Gujarat
+. Now, it is likely that the records from
+Arunachal Pradesh
+and
+Assam
+(including that by
+Biswas & Chatterjee (1985))
+, have to be referred to
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+, whose
+type
+series includes specimens collected exactly in that region of northeastern
+India
+, on the foothills of Himalaya (see
+Fig. 4
+). On the other hand, the records from western
+India
+(
+Gujarat
+and
+Rajasthan
+) seem quite far away from the known range of
+
+S. falsus
+
+,
+
+S. exsul
+
+and
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+(
+Fig. 4
+). Most importantly,
+Gujarat
+and
+Rajasthan
+are extensively covered by arid or semi-arid ecosystems that differ significantly from the much more humid ecosystems of northeastern
+India
+and Southeast Asia in which the three abovementioned species are found (
+Singh & Chaturvedi 2017
+). Therefore, it would not be surprising to discover that the specimens from western
+India
+represent, in fact, an undescribed taxon. I was unable to find any specimen from that area, therefore the enigma is postponed to when somebody will be able to examine some relevant material. Lastly, the record from
+Meghalaya
+(
+Sewak 2003
+) is rather obscure. Sewak identified it as “
+
+S. exsul
+
+”, like the specimens he found in
+Gujarat
+, albeit the two
+Indian
+states are very far away, with
+Meghalaya
+being much closer to the
+type
+locality of
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+
+new species
+
+.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFFEFFF130CBFABFF78FFA91.xml b/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFFEFFF130CBFABFF78FFA91.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..a52d80e88d3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/F8/45/87/F84587F0FFFEFFF130CBFABFF78FFA91.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,361 @@
+
+
+
+New or poorly known species of Sinodrepanus Simonis, 1985 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Oniticellini), with the first identification key for the genus
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Montanaro, Giulio
+
+text
+
+
+Zootaxa
+
+
+2024
+
+2024-11-12
+
+
+5537
+
+
+4
+
+
+577
+595
+
+
+
+
+http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5537.4.10
+
+journal article
+10.11646/zootaxa.5537.4.10
+1175-5326
+14240160
+4BDF6685-879A-474B-BD8D-FC23323A0947
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Identification key to
+
+Sinodrepanus
+
+species
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Note: while the correct identification of males is almost guaranteed by the examination of genitalia, females of
+
+S. besucheti
+
+,
+
+S. tsaii
+
+,
+
+S. rex
+
+and
+
+S. thailandicus
+
+are very similar and association with males is required to get a reliable identification.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+1 Setae on elytral interstria 5 arranged in well delimited tufts. Male protibia with 3 external teeth and a fourth tooth on the distal margin; female protibia with four teeth as in males, except for
+
+S. rosannae
+
+which has only 3 teeth (distalmost one absent)..
+2
+
+
+
+
+- Setae on elytral interstria 5 irregularly spread, not arranged in delimited tufts. Male and female protibiae with 3 teeth or less, except sometimes in females of
+
+S. uenoi
+
+which may have a fourth small tooth on the distal margin.....................
+6
+
+
+
+
+
+
+2 Female
+protibia with only 3 external teeth (small tooth on the distal margin absent). Male clypeus, at least in larger males, strongly protruding medially, narrowly subtrapezoidal and raised. Parameres particularly short, apex strongly bent towards parameral base, basolateral plate slightly overlapping with parameral apex in lateral view; female infundibulum with a toothlike process; male and female genitalia as in
+Simonis (1985)
+and
+
+Masumoto
+et al.
+(2004)
+
+. Body length:
+9–12 mm
+. Distribution:
+China
+..........................................................................
+
+S. rosannae
+Simonis, 1985
+
+
+
+
+
+- Female protibia with 4 external teeth. Male clypeus subtrapezoidal or not. Male and female genitalia differently shaped, parameral apex directed ventrally perpendicularly to paramere, basolateral lobe not overlapping with parameral apex in lateral view...............................................................................................
+3
+
+
+
+
+
+
+3 Clypeus of major males strongly protruding, narrowly subtrapezoidal to triangular and upcurved medially...............
+5
+
+
+
+
+-
+Clypeus of major males never narrowly subtrapezoidal to triangular, broadly truncated and raised medially..............
+4
+
+
+
+
+
+
+4 In major males, clypeal margin truncated and sinuated medially, clypeal teeth blunt. Pronotal lateral margins feebly expanded posterolaterally. Male and female genitalia as in
+Simonis (1985)
+. Body length:
+8–10.5 mm
+. Distribution:
+China
+,
+Vietnam
+..................................................................................
+
+S. besucheti
+Simonis, 1985
+
+
+
+
+
+- In major males, clypeal teeth well developed and sharp. Pronotal margin expanded posterolaterally. Male genitalia very similar to those of the previous species, see
+
+Masumoto
+et al
+. (2004)
+
+. Body length: 11.8–12.0 mm. Distribution:
+Taiwan
+................................................................................
+
+S. tsaii
+Masumoto, Yang & Ochi, 2004
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+5 In major males, anterior clypeal margin curved laterally to the projection, the latter relatively broad and sharply truncated. Basolateral plate of paramere very developed, almost reaching posterior edge of parameral apex in lateral view; superior right branch of lamella copulatrix with a long, hooked protrusion; male and female genitalia as in
+Simonis (1985)
+. Body length:
+9–12 mm
+. Distribution:
+China
+............................................................
+
+S. rex
+(
+Boucomont, 1912
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+- In major males, anterior clypeal margin triangular, the medial projection narrower than in
+S. rex
+, the truncated edge slightly rounded laterally. Basolateral plate of paramere not reaching posterior edge of parameral apex in lateral view; superior right branch of lamella copulatrix with a short, curved protrusion; male genitalia as in
+
+Ochi
+et al
+. (2004)
+
+. Body length:
+10.5–12.7 mm
+. Distribution:
+Thailand
+,
+Myanmar
+.................................
+
+S. thailandicus
+Ochi, Kon & Masumoto, 2004
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+6 Pronotal carinae strongly protruding, the transverse medial one clearly separating the middle of pronotal disc into two distinct depressions. Frons with a transverse bulging connecting the two longitudinal carinae of vertex. Lateral pronotal margins almost parallel. Male protibia with only two faint and often effaced teeth on the lateral margin; male metaventrite with a deep pentagonal hollow posteriorly. Female clypeal teeth separated by an obtuse angle, clypeal margin between teeth almost straight. Basolateral plate of paramere overlapping with parameral apex in lateral view; genitalia as in
+Montanaro (2021)
+and
+Simonis (1985)
+. Body length:
+7.2–9.8 mm
+. Distribution:
+China
+,
+Laos
+,
+Thailand
+..........................
+
+S. falsus
+(
+Sharp, 1875
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+- Pronotal carinae, especially the transverse medial one, less protruding, delimiting less distinct depressions. Frons without distinct transverse carina connecting the two longitudinal carinae of vertex. Male protibia with three teeth on the lateral margin, except in
+
+S. uenoi
+
+in which they are almost completely effaced; male metasternum without pentagonal hollow...........
+7
+
+
+
+
+
+
+7 Lateral margins of pronotum subparallel. In males, clypeal margin between clypeal teeth acutely triangular, devoid of medial teeth. Male protibial teeth normally developed. In females, angle between clypeal teeth acute, rounded medially and devoid of small medial teeth. Superior left lobe of lamella copulatrix with a long falciform process; male genitalia as in
+Simonis (1985)
+, female genitalia as in
+
+Roggero
+et al.
+(2015)
+
+. More robust and larger species, body length 9.8–12.0 mm. Distribution:
+China
+,
+Thailand
+,
+Vietnam
+..................................................................
+
+S. similis
+Simonis, 1985
+
+
+
+
+
+- Lateral margins of pronotum parallel to oblique. In females, clypeal margin between clypeal teeth obtusely angled, broadly rounded to almost straight medially, with or without a small medial tooth. Male and female genitalia differently shaped. More slender species.......................................................................................
+8
+
+
+
+
+
+
+8 Lateral pronotal margins subparallel. Long setae on the dorsal side of metatibiae approximately 2–3 times shorter than metatibial height in the middle of metatibia. Male protibiae slightly arched, medial margin with distal apex not produced; protibial teeth almost completely effaced. Female clypeus at most with an imperceptible medial tooth between clypeal teeth. Basolateral plate of paramere almost reaching posterior edge of parameral apex in lateral view; male genitalia as in
+
+Ochi
+et al
+. (2004)
+
+. Larger and less slender species, body length
+10.6–11.7 mm
+. Distribution:
+China
+,
+Laos
+.....
+
+S. uenoi
+Ochi, Kon & Masumoto, 2004
+
+
+
+
+
+- Lateral pronotal margins oblique, convergent towards the posterior margin. Long setae on the dorsal side of metatibiae approximately 4 or more times shorter than metatibial height in the middle of metatibia. Male protibia very slender, strongly arched, medial margin with distal apex clearly produced; protibial teeth small but usually visible. Female clypeus with a small, sharp medial tooth between clypeal teeth. Basolateral plate of paramere atrophied or far from posterior edge of parameral apex in lateral view........................................................................................
+9
+
+
+
+
+
+
+9 Posterior third of pronotum covered with longitudinally elongated punctures. Sternites 4–6 punctate medially and anterolaterally, smooth in between. Male clypeal margin between clypeal teeth acute-angled, triangular. Basolateral plate of paramere atrophied; male and female genitalia as in
+Fig. 2a–d, 2i
+. Body length:
+7.8–10.2 mm
+. Distribution:
+Laos
+,
+Thailand
+.
+
+S. exsul
+(
+Sharp, 1875
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+- Posterior third of pronotum covered with circular punctures. Sternites 4–6 evenly punctate. Male clypeal margin between clypeal teeth broadly obtuse, with a hint of a small medial tooth. Basolateral plate of paramere well developed; male and female genitalia as in
+Fig. 2e–h, 2j
+. Body length: 8.0–9.0 mm. Distribution:
+India
+,
+Laos
+..............
+
+
+S. schoenfeldi
+
+new species
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file