Three new synonyms within the flower chafer genus Goliathopsis Janson, 1881 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae) from China Author Xu, Hao Author Qiu, Jian-Yue text Zootaxa 2020 2020-06-08 4789 1 91 131 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.4789.1.3 1175-5326 3884725 CA5C0D09-B499-4077-873F-BF5B55C504B2 Goliathopsis cervus Janson, 1881 ( Figs. 5 , 13 , 22–23 , 52–57 , 89–90 , 103–108 , 164 ) Goliathopsis cervus Janson, 1881: 610 (type locality: Siam [= Thailand ]), plate XI, fig. 4 ♂ , 5 ♀ ; Bergé 1884: 158 ; Gestro 1888: 119 , fig. ♂ (horn); Fairmaire 1893b: 316 ; Arrow 1910: 206 (synonymized with G. despectus ); Janson 1917: 110 (status revalidated); Schenkling 1921: 364 (in synonymy G. despectus ); Krikken 1977: 314 ( lectotype designated); Antoine 1991: 9 (status resurrected); Krajčík 1999: 39 ; Krajčík 2012: 116 . Type material. As Janson (1881) stated in the original publication, this species was originally described from Thailand based on a pair of specimens. The type specimens now are preserved in RMNH , and the male was designated as lectotype by Krikken (1977) . Due to RMNH is still closed for collection integration (Jan Krikken, personal com- munication, 2019), the female paralectotype is unavailable for the present work, and the male lectotype was simply examined by photographs ( Figs. 103–108 ): Goliathopsis cervus, Jans. , Type , Siam // ♂ TYPE . FIGURES 13–21. Cephalic horns of Goliathopsis Janson, 1881 species (dorsal view). 13, G. cervus Janson, 1881 ; 14, G. despectus ( Westwood, 1873 ) , paralectotype of G. capreolus Gestro, 1888 in MNHN; 15, G. duponti Antoine, 1991 ; 16, G. es- quiroli Pouillaude, 1913 ; 17–18, G. ferreroi Antoine, 1991 ; 19, G. gressitti Ruter, 1978 ; 20, G. lameyi Fairmaire, 1893 ; 21, G. velutinus Pouillaude, 1913 . Other material examined ( 2♂♂ , 1♀♀ ). THAILAND : 2♂♂ ( KSCJ ), Khao Bandai It , Petchaburi Prov. C. Thailand , 2012.V.22 , S.Tsuyuki leg. // Goliathopsis velutinus Pouillaude, 1913 , det. K. Sakai , 2015 [misidentification] ; 1♀ ( KSCJ ), Khao Soi Dao , Chanthaburi , Thailand , 2012.V.17–21 , K.Takahashi leg. // Goliathopsis velutinus Pouillaude, 1913 , det. K. Sakai , 2015 [misidentification] . Diagnosis. Smallest species of the genus, body length 9.5–10.5 mm; width 5.3–5.5 mm. Dorsal surface and pygidium clad with brown tomentum ( Figs. 54, 56 , 103, 106 ). Midline on pronotum and scutellum yellow, distinct. Elytron usually with two light brown maculae (not distinct): a small one on posthumeral area, sometimes absent; the other small one on the mediodiscal area near sutural costa. Disc of elytron with U-shaped (few drop-shaped), setiferous punctures ( Fig. 5 ); setae short. Pygidium with small, rounded, setiferous punctures ( Figs. 22–23 ). Cephalic horns of male small and slender, inner side with tomentum, not constricted at base and not distinctly expanded at apex ( Figs. 13 , 103 ). Male genitalia small ( Figs. 52–53 ), proximal and distal parts of parameres gradually expanded in apical view, medially constricted, apex rounded and inner side slightly curved; parameres slightly curved in lateral view, basal piece broad. FIGURES 22–37. Pygidium of Goliathopsis Janson, 1881 species (male in left, female in right; posterior view). 22–23, G. cer- vus Janson, 1881 ; 24–25, G. despectus ( Westwood, 1873 ) , lectotype and paralectotype of G. capreolus Gestro, 1888 in MSNG; 26–27, G. duponti Antoine, 1991 ; 28–29, G. esquiroli Pouillaude, 1913 ; 30–31, G. ferreroi Antoine, 1991 ; 32–33, G. gressitti Ruter, 1978 ; 34–35, G. lameyi Fairmaire, 1893 ; 36–37, G. velutinus Pouillaude, 1913 . This species is closed to G. velutinus , but body size distinctly smaller ( Figs. 89–90 ); cephalic horns smaller and not constricted at base ( Fig. 13 ; larger and constricted at base in G. velutinus , Fig. 21 ); punctures on elytral disc usually U-shaped ( Fig. 5 ; usually drop-shaped in G. velutinus , Fig. 12 ); parameres smaller and distal parts gradually expanded ( Fig. 52 ; larger and distinctly expanded in G. velutinus , Fig. 42 ). Distribution. Thailand . Remarks. Based on the good illustrations of Goliathopsis cervus in Janson (1881) , Gestro (1888) pointed out several differences between G. cervus and his new species G. capreolus , especially in the shape of the cephalic horns. Nevertheless, Arrow (1910) regarded them as the same species and listed both as synonyms of G. despectus . In response to Arrow’s treatment, Janson (1917) insisted on the validity of G. cervus and provided more differences between females based on a re-examination of the female type of G. despectus in OXUM. Unfortunately, this disputation was not mentioned by subsequent authors. In the most recent work, Antoine (1991) also treated G. cervus as valid species mainly by the difference of the tomentose area on cephalic horns and elytra according to the figures in Janson (1881) . By examining the fresh specimens collected from southern Thailand and the male lectotype , several distinct differences from G. despectus are observed: cephalic horns of male smaller and inner side with tomentum in G. cervus ( Fig. 13 ; larger and glabrous in G. despectus , Fig. 14 ); pygidium subtriangular in posterior view in G. cervus ( Figs. 22–23 ; oval in G. despectus , Figs. 24–25 ); parameres smaller and apex rounded in G. cervus ( Fig. 52 ; larger and apex sharp in G. despectus , Fig. 48 ). Consequently, Goliathopsis cervus is an independent species.