Revision of the genus Aulacophora from Taiwan (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae)
Author
Lee, Chi-Feng
Author
Beenen, Ron
text
Zootaxa
2015
3949
2
151
190
journal article
10.11646/zootaxa.3949.2.1
ebcb37fe-3f59-4504-ab7e-7192be2c01cc
1175-5326
237252
28B64406-0249-4289-B4C5-66E794D5435D
[
Aulacophora abdominalis
(
Fabricius, 1781
)
]
(
Figs 8–9
,
66, 68
)
Crioceris abdominalis
Fabricius, 1781
: 151
(Pacific islands);
Fabricius, 1787
: 87
(redescription).
Cryptocephalus abdominalis
:
Gmelin, 1790
: 1719
.
Galeruca abdominalis
:
Olivier, 1791
: 590
;
Olivier, 1808
: 623
.
Galleruca abdominalis
:
Fabricius, 1792
: 23
;
Fabricius, 1801
: 483
.
Rhaphidopalpa abdominalis
:
Dejean, 1837
: 402
;
Weise, 1892
: 395
.
Aulacophora abdominalis
:
Baly, 1886
: 14
.
Type
material.
Crioceris abdominalis
:
lectotype
♂ (
KIEL
), here designated, labeled: “abdomina / lis [w, h] //
LECTO
- /
TYPE
[w, h, circle label with blue border] //
Lectotype
/
Crioceris
♂ /
testacea Fab.
[h] // N. A. Aslam det. 19 [p] 71 [h, w]”. No
paralectotypes
designated (see under remarks).
Diagnosis
. The
lectotype
of
Crioceris abdominalis
(
Figs 8–9
) is similar to
Aulacophora
.
kotoensis
but has yellowish brown antenna and legs. Besides, the penis of the
lectotype
of
C. abdominalis
is distinctly asymmetric near the apex and shows a lateral excavation at the middle (
Fig. 66
); abdominal tergite VIII has a semicircular incision and lateral processes and basal margin convex with rounded corners (
Fig. 68
).
A. kotoensis
has antennae (except basal segments) dark brown and middle and hind legs black. In
A. kotoensis
the penis is parallel sided, narrowed towards apex which is symmetrical; abdominal tergite VIII has a broad triangular incision and basal margin concave with sharp corners.
Remarks
. To exclude conspecifity between
Aulacophora kotoensis
and
A. abdominalis
(
Fabricius, 1781
)
it was necessary to study the
type
specimens of
Crioceris abdominalis
in the Fabricius-collection.
Most of Fabrician
types
in Kiel had been transferred to the Zoological Museum of Copenhagen (KIEL) (
Zimsen 1964
).
Zimsen (1964)
described the
Coleoptera
Collection as “There are no locality labels in Fabricius’ own collection. Also peculiar are the very small name labels which Fabricius used: usually only a small scrap of paper on which was written the name of the species; never any mention of the genus”.
In 1787 Fabricius described
Crioceris testacea
from
India
Orient., at present named
Aulacophora indica
(Gmelin)
. Later,
Fabricius (1801)
synonymized
Crioceris testacea
with
Crioceris abdominalis
Fabricius, 1781 a
species he described from the South Pacific. Most probably he placed his specimens of both
C. abdominalis
and
C. testacea
in his collection together. Because of the uncertainty around the taxa
C. abdominalis
and
C. testacea
(see for example
Baly 1879
: 445 and
Maulik (1936: 175, 197, 198)
it was not only to exclude conspecifity between
Aulacophora kotoensis
and
A. abdominalis
(
Fabricius, 1781
)
that made it necessary for us to study the
type
specimens of
Crioceris abdominalis
in the Fabricius-collection. The examination also could clarify the status of
C. testacea
.
In the KIEL collection there are five specimens besides the name label “
abdominalis, 1791
”: one male specimen carrying a label in Fabricius handwriting “
abdominalis
”; the other four specimens without labels. One of them could be identified as
Haplosomoides serena
(Boheman)
and one as
Aulacophora coffeae
Hornstedt.
The two remaining specimens are a male of
Aulacophora indica
(
Gmelin, 1790
)
and an
Aulacophora
female, that could not be identified.
The labeled specimen was designated as
lectotype
of
Crioceris testacea
Fabricius
by Aslam in 1941. However, designation of the
lectotype
is not valid since it was never published.
Anand and Cox (1986)
redescribed
A. abdominalis
and
A. testacea
based on a female specimen collected in the South Pacific during the second voyage of captain Cook (Banks collection) and a male specimen collected in
India
(Assam) respectively. At least the redescriptions of
A. abdominalis
is not reliable since the female has fewer diagnostic characters. A redescription based on the presumed
syntypes
in the Fabricius collection could finally end the uncertainty.
Because the series of
syntypes
is composed of several species we excluded the specimens of
Haplosomoides serena
,
Aulacophora coffaea
and the female specimen from our examination. The two remaining male specimens are clearly different. One male specimen that has no tubercles on the pronotum is identical with
Aulacophora indica
(
Gmelin,1790
)
, the replacement name for
Crioceris testacea
Fabricius, 1787
. This specimen is designated
lectotype
of
Crioceris testacea
Fabricius, 1787
. The other male specimen with a pair of tubercles on the pronotum that unfortunately was labeled by Aslam as the
lectotype
of
Crioceris testacea
,
is designated here as the
lectotype
of
Crioceris abdominalis
. This is the specimen bearing the Fabricius label “
abdominalis
”. Both specimens are labeled according these designations and serve nomenclatural stability.
Barroga & Mohamedsaid (2002)
and
Barroga (2002a)
list a single male specimen as the
type
of
Crioceris testacea
Fabricius
they studied from the Fabricius-collection (KIEL). They mention it is labeled as
Crioceris abdominalis
F., but do not list any further labels. In other
type
specimens they list all label information. Therefore it is not likely they studied the specimen we designated the
lectotype
of
C. abdominalis
, because in that case they would have listed the label attached by Aslam as well. It is very likely that they have studied the specimen we have designated the
lectotype
of
C. testacea
. Because
Barroga & Mohamedsaid (2002)
and
Barroga (2002a)
do not mention the presence of tubercles on the males pronotum, a character they unlikely would have left unnoticed, makes it plausible that they have studied the male specimen herein designated the
lectotype
of
Crioceris testacea
Fabricius, 1787
.