New synonymies and records of the stag-beetle genus Aegus MacLeay from Chinese fauna (Coleoptera: Lucanidae) Author Cao, Yuyan Department of Ecology, School of Resources & Engineering, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China Author Webb, Michael D. Department of Life Sciences (Entomology), The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, SW 7 5 BD, London, UK Author Bai, Ming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China Corresponding author, E-mail: wanxia @ ahu. edu. cn Author Wan, Xia Department of Ecology, School of Resources & Engineering, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China text Zoological Systematics 2016 41 3 261 272 http://zoobank.org/3359ade7-d4bc-402e-a689-c7ad4cbec846 journal article 4163 10.11865/zs.201627 a1d8568e-d4c8-4a71-a1cf-0ff9894720e6 2095-6827 4617586 3359ADE7-D4BC-402E-A689-C7AD4CBEC846 Aegus laevicollis laevicollis Saunders, 1854 ( Figs 1–5 , 14–15 , 17 ) Aegus laevicolle Saunders, 1854 . Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. , (2)3: 54., plate IV, fig. 8. Incorrect original spelling. Aegus punctiger Saunders, 1854 . Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond ., (2)3: 55, plate III, fig. 6. Syn. by Parry, 1864 . Trans. R. Ent. Soc. Lond. , 3(2): 92. Aegus formosae Bates, 1866 . Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. , 1866: 347. Syn. by Parry, 1870 . Trans. R. Ent. Soc. Lond ., 1870(1): 63. Aegus laevicollis : Parry, 1870 . Trans. R. Ent. Soc. Lond. , 1870(1): 63. Correct subsequent spelling (ICZN, Chapter 7: Article. 31. 2). Aegus laevicollis laevicollis : Mizunuma & Nagai, 1994 . The Lucanid Beetles of the World : 288, pl. 127. Aegus pichoni Didier, 1931 . Librairie speciale Agricole , Paris Fascicule 9: 210–211. syn. nov. Type material examined. Syntype ♂ of Aegus laevicollis Saunders ( BMNH ) ( Fig. 1 ), labelled: “ SYNTYPE (blue label) /85 28 / laevicollis var. max China [yellow label, handwritten] / BMNH (E) #611193 / H. Bomans det. 1983, Aegus laevicollis Saund. , ♂ , SYNTYPE ?” . Syntype ♂ of Aegus laevicollis Saunders ( BMNH ) ( Fig. 2 ), labelled: “ SYNTYPE [blue label] / Type [red label] / TYPE SP. [brown label] / Aegus laevicollis n. sp. [brown label, handwritten] / Aegus laevicollis , type sp., China [yellow label, handwritten] / BMNH (E) # 611200 / H. Bomans det. 1983, Aegus laevicollis Saund. , ♂ , SYNTYPE ” . Syntype ♂ of Aegus laevicollis Saunders ( BMNH ), labelled: “ SYNTYPE [blue label] / 11331 / Fortune / Fry Coll. 1905-110 / BMNH (E) # 611198 / H. Bomans det. 1983, Aegus laevicollis Saund. , ♂ , SYNTYPE ?” . Syntype ♀ of Aegus punctiger Saunders ( BMNH ) ( Fig. 3 ), labelled: “ SYNTYPE / Cotype / 85/28 /Aegus punctiger Saunders. Ent. [-?] Shanghai [handwritten] / SYNTYPE Aegus punctiger Saund. M. E. Bacchus det. 1983 / H. Bomans det., 1983 Aegus laevicollis Saund. ♀ / BMNH (E) # 611199” . Syntype ♀ of Aegus punctiger Saunders ( BMNH ), labelled: “ SYNTYPE [blue label] / Cotype [yellow label] /85/28 / China , Fochow / laevicolle ♀ , punctiger Saunders / SYNTYPE , Aegus puncticollis Saund., M. E. Bacchus det, 1983 / BMNH (E) # 611536. Syntype ♂ of Aegus pichoni Didier ( MNHN ), labelled: “ TYPE [red label] / Hang-Tchéou, prov. du Tchèkiang, Pichon, Chine / Pichoni Didier [handwritten] / Museum Paris Coll. R . Didier 1937 / Aegus pichoni, Did. , Holotype ♂ , J. P. Lacroix det. 1973” . Syntype ♂ of Aegus pichoni Didier ( MNHN ), labelled: “Hang-Tchéou, prov. du Tchèkiang, Pichon, Chine / Museum Paris / Aegus pichoni, Did., J. P. Lacroix det. 1973” . Additional material examined. China , Anhui , 23.VII.1936 , 1♂ 3♀ , collector unknown ( NZMC ) ; Anhui , Mt. Huangshan , 22.VII.1965 , 2♀ , collector unknown ( NZMC ) ; Zhejiang , Mt. Moganshan , 20. V .1935 , 26♂ 1♀ , collector unknown ( NZMC ) ; Zhejiang , Mt. Tianmushan , 20.VII.1936 , 1♂ 3♀ , collector unknown ( NZMC ) ; Fujian , Fuzhou , 12♂ 4♀ , collector unknown ( NZMC ) ; Fujian , Mt. Wuyishan , 22.VII.2011 , 4♂ 2♀ , leg. Yuyan Cao ( MAHU ) . Distribution. China ( Hunan , Anhui , Shanghai , Zhejiang , Fujian ). Remarks. A. laevicollis was described from an unknown number of males ( syntypes ), of “Length 9/ 10 inch ”, and a figure of a fully-developed male given (see Fig. 1a ). No data was given but for the paper title indicating the species was from China collected by R. Fortune and in the introduction it is noted that Fortune collected in the “Tea Districts”. There is one large male syntype labelled with the specimen number ( Fig. 1 ) which matches Saunders’s figure and a few other specimens labelled as syntypes of A. laevicollis in the BMNH. Saunders also described A. punctiger in the same paper from an unknown number of females ( syntypes ), of “Length 7/ 10 inch ”, also stating “This species appears to be rare as very few specimens have been sent home”. Two syntypes are present in BMNH. Saunders (1854) initially named this species “ A. laevicolle ” , a spelling that did not agree in gender with the generic name and was incorrect according to the ICZN (Chapter 7: Article 30. 2); Parry (1870) corrected the name to its current spelling of “ A . laevicollis ”. The species of A. pichoni Didier was described with the following data: “Types ♂ et ♀ , collectés à Hang-Tchéou, province du Tché kiang [=Hangzhou, Zhejiang ], China , par notre ami M. Albert Pichon , à qui nous sommes heureux de dédier cette espèce nouvelle.” A small male and female ( syntypes , Figs 4–5 ) are in the Paris Museum matching this data. Their characters, including the male and female genitalia, indicate they are a small male and female of A. laevicollis . Intraspecific variation is very conspicuous in this species, especially the head and mandibles of differently sized males. In large males: head mainly granulated with dense large punctures behind eyes; mandibles fully-developed, about twice length of head, with large ventral basal teeth and dorsal middle teeth, dorsal ones much larger and longer than ventral ones; large triangular frontal tubercles on head, strongly erect; pronotum mainly smooth except for densely punctured straight margins. In medium-sized males ( Fig. 2 ): head more deeply punctured; mandibles fully-developed, about as long as or slight longer than length of head, dorsal teeth slightly larger or as same size as basal teeth and more backward pointing; frontal tubercles smaller and feebly erect; pronotum mainly densely and deeply punctured, the margins slightly serrated, depression with denser and deeper punctures. In small males: head evenly covered with dense and deep large punctures; mandibles with very small ventral basal teeth, dorsal teeth vestigial or absent; frontal tubercles absent; pronotum covered with very dense punctures, margins strongly serrated. Female is very similar to small male except for smaller head and feebler mandibles with a broad large tooth ventrally at mid-length. Despite the above variation the basal tooth, labrum and pronotum of A. laevicollis exhibit a high degree of similarity. The basal tooth is small and bluntly triangular, the labrum is short, about half width of head, almost semicircular, and deeply concave in middle, and the pronotum is almost square-shaped, parallel-sided, with a distinct longitudinal depression at mid-length posteriorly, its front angle produced and entire without any apical concavity. In addition, the elytra possess six deep discal striae and two feeble lateral ones. The aedeagus is almost uniform in shape and size: PA laminate about 1/2 length of BP, apex bluntly rounded in lateral view; BP slightly rounded in basal 2/3 and much thinner and narrower in distal 1/3, with two very short finger-shaped stripes on membranous surface; ML almost symmetrical, with almost straight lateral margins and very small, sharp and recurved apex. PES long and thin, about 3 times as long as length of tegmen ( Fig. 17 ). Taxonomy of A. laevicollis is also quite problematic because of the large number of subspecies. Two allied species, A. formosae Bates from Taiwan Island and A. subnitidus Waterhouse from Japan , were thought to be synonyms of A. laevicollis . In our opinion, the two taxa could be subspecies of A. laevicollis due to their geographical isolation and some stable morphological differences (see the checklist). Japanese entomologists added a lot of allied taxa to this species ( Nomura, 1960 ; Ichikawa & Imanishi, 1976; Fujita & Ichikawa, 1985; Mizunuma & Nagai, 1994; Asai, 2001 ; Fujita, 2002 ; Murayama & Shimizu, 2004). Until now, the species group of A. laevicollis has contained 15 taxa. Thirteen of them including A. subnitidus were treated as subspecies from various Japanese Islands except for the two full species, A. laevicollis and A. formosae . Therefore, taxonomy of these taxa should be very interesting but challenging work with regard to so many “subspecies”.