A review of Indian species of Phrynocaria Timberlake (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae) with notes on synonymy and a new species from South India, hitherto misidentified as Coelophora circumusta (Mulsant) Author Poorani, J. ICAR-National Research Centre for Banana, Thogamalai Road, Thayanur Post, Trichy 620102, Tamil Nadu, India. Author Sankararaman, H. 0000-0002-5244-9833 Department of Entomology, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu, India. https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0002 - 5244 - 9833 Author Anusree, S. S. 0000-0001-9968-6791 Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Kerala Agricultural University, Vellayani, Trivandrum, Kerala. https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0001 - 9968 - 6791 text Zootaxa 2021 2020-02-04 4926 1 117 133 journal article 8307 10.11646/zootaxa.4926.1.8 dee39772-3bec-41db-9ad4-4278a2be4fec 1175-5326 4500738 8358B5B1-CE6B-4531-98D5-3E3075869B94 Phrynocaria perfida Poorani , sp. n. ( Figs. 2 , 3 ) Coelophora circumusta sensu Gorham 1903: 344 (not Artemis circumusta Mulsant, 1850 ; misidentification). Coelophora circumusta var. rufula : Gorham 1903: 344 (not Artemis rufula Mulsant, 1850 ; misidentification). Diagnosis : The male genitalia of the new species will distinguish it from all other known examples of the genus Phrynocaria , especially the shape of the penis guide which is basally broad and abruptly narrowed around middle to form an elongate lanceolate process with a small rhomboidal expansion in the apical 1/8 bearing minute lateral denticles. This highly variable species ( Figs. 2 a–g) has some colour morphs similar to those found in P. circumusta and, given their overlapping distributions, it may not be possible to differentiate the two species based on the elytral colour pattern alone. However, variants of P. perfida with a 2-2-1/2 elytral pattern ( Figs. 2c, g ) are distinct and easily distinguished from P. circumusta . There are also some minute morphological differences between the two species. If an identifier is fortunate enough to have comparative material of both species at hand it can be seen that P. perfida has a slightly broader body outline and comparatively more widely explanate lateral elytral borders than C. circumusta . Also, the latter appears to be slightly more strongly convex than P. perfida , which is apparent in the lateral view. In both P. circumusta and P. perfida , the explanate borders of elytra are distinctly more coarsely punctate compared to the discal area, but this is more pronounced in the case of P. circumusta . Description : Male : TL: 3.63 mm ; TW: 3.26 mm ; TL/TW: 1.11; EL/EW: 0.89; PL/PW: 0.48. Form broadly rounded to almost circular in outline, dorsum strongly convex and hemispherical, glabrous except clypeal margin of head with yellowish hairs. Dorsal surface yellowish-orange to reddish in live specimens, yellowish in preserved specimens; scutellar shield black; pronotum with or without a small oval black spot on posterior margin above scutellar shield; elytral pattern with the following variations: (i) immaculate reddish to orange or yellow ( Fig. 2a ); (ii) with a narrow black lateral margin, anteriorly joining an elongate spot on humeral callus and posteriorly joining a larger apical black patch across elytra ( Figs. 2e, f ); (iii) each elytron with five black spots arranged in a 2-2-1/2 pattern ( Figs. 2c, g ), occasionally all spots coalescing to form larger fasciae ( Fig. 2d ) or reduced in size ( Fig. 2b ). Ventral side uniform yellowish brown except outer one-third of epipleura black. Head with anterior clypeal margin straight between lateral projections; eye canthus short but deep and broad; eyes prominent, interocular distance at its narrowest about as wide as an eye; head with even and fairly dense punctures, interspaces between punctures weakly reticulate to shiny. Pronotum with lateral sides strongly rounded, almost semicircular, slightly reflexed laterally, forming a gutter, anterolateral corners produced ( Fig. 2h ); punctures on disc of pronotum dense and slightly larger than those on elytra, shallowly impressed, separated by 1–3 diameters, closer and denser on lateral and posterior margins, interspaces between punctures smooth and shiny. Scutellar shield broadly triangular with few punctures. Elytral borders laterally explanate with a weak gutter; elytral disc densely punctate, punctures separated by 2–5 diameters, interspaces between punctures smooth and shiny; punctation on explanate lateral borders distinctly coarser and closer than that on elytral disc, particularly around base and humeral angles. Prothoracic hypomeron deeply foveolate near anterolateral corners. Prosternal intercoxal process ( Fig. 3a ) carinate, carinae reaching up to 2/3 length of prosternum; mesoventrite deeply foveate on anterior face, medially with a v-shaped notch and a short longitudinal carina in anterior half. Metaventrite with discrimen. Abdomen with six ventrites, abdominal postcoxal line incomplete ( Fig. 3b ), apically not recurved, parallel to posterior margin of ventrite 1; posterior margin of ventrite 5 medially very shallowly and that of ventrite 6 slightly more deeply emarginate ( Fig. 3d ). Legs lacking meso- and metatibial spurs; tarsal claws appendiculate. Epipleura very shallowly and deeply foveolate on level with mid- and hind femoro-tibial apices, respectively. Male genitalia ( Figs. 3 h–k) with penis guide of tegmen in ventral view ( Fig. 3h ) broadest in basal two-fourths and abruptly narrowed around middle, apical half lanceolate, gradually narrowed towards apex, with a small rhomboidal expansion in apical 1/8 bearing finely dentate margins ( Fig. 3i ); parameres nearly as long as penis guide; penis ( Fig. 3j ) strongly curved, with a robust capsule, penis apex modified as illustrated ( Fig. 3k ). Female : TL: 3.93–4.10 mm ; TW: 3.41–3.59 mm ; TL/TW: 1.11; EL/EW: 0.93; PL/PW: 0.48. Externally similar to male except lateral margins of pronotum less strongly rounded with anterolateral corners produced to a lesser degree ( Fig. 2i ); posterior margin of ventrite 5 medially very shallowly produced, that of ventrite 6 arcuate ( Fig. 3c ). Female spermatheca ( Figs. 3e, f ) with a short sperm duct, infundibulum cup-shaped; coxites of blade and handle type . FIGURE 2 . Phrynocaria perfida Poorani , sp. n. : a–g) polymorphic forms; h) pronotum, male; i) pronotum, female. Material examined : Holotype : male, “ INDIA : Kerala : Kakkadampoyil , 06.xi.2018 ; H. Sankararaman ” ( BMNH ) . Paratypes : One female with same data ( BMNH ) ; “ Kerala : Kayamkulam , 7.iii.2019 , on sweeping, Anusree” (one female, NBAIR ) ; “ Kerala : Vellayani , 24.ii.2018 , on mulberry, Anusree ” ( 2 females , NBAIR ) ; Other material: Kanara, S . India / Andrewes Bequest (3, BMNH ); Kanara, S . India/ N. Kanara , T . R . Bell (1, BMNH ) . Distribution : India : Tamil Nadu (Nilgiri hills); Karnataka ; Kerala . Etymology : The specific epithet is a Latin adjective in nominative case ( perfida L.= ‘false’), alluding to its external similarity to C. circumusta . FIGURE 3 . Phrynocaria perfida Poorani , sp. n. : a) prosternum; b) abdominal postcoxal line; c) ventrites 5 and 6, female; d). ventrites 5 and 6, male; e, f: female genitalia, f) spermatheca, infundibulum in lateral view, e) dorsal view; g–k: male genitalia, g) tegmen, lateral view; h) tegmen, ventral view; i) apex of penis guide, enlarged; j) penis; k) penis apex. Notes : Gorham’s (1903) specimens of ‘ C. circumusta ’ from Kanara (in Karnataka , South India ) were described by him as ‘with the basal half of the elytra black, running up the suture to the scutellum […] very near to a specimen in my collection labelled mandarinea [sic].’ This description applies to the variants of P. perfida sp. n. ( Fig. 2e, f ) illustrated here. His description of ‘ Coelophora circumusta var. rufula ’ from Nilgiri Hills (South India ) corresponds to the immaculate form of P. perfida sp. n. ( Fig. 2a ). However, the spotted form of P. perfida is distinctive and P. circumusta does not have this kind of variation. One specimen from Sri Lanka examined at BMNH (“Nedunkeni, 4.04 / Ceylon 1924.37”) was similar to this species, but it could not be dissected for confirmation. Material examined at BMNH, London, indicates that P. circumusta also is distributed in South India and it is not always easy to separate it from P. perfida sp. n. by the punctation alone if the latter is lacking elytral spots. Hence, these two species are best separated by their genitalia.