Two new species of Lucanus Scopoli, 1763 from Yunnan, Southwest China (Coleoptera, Lucanidae, Lucaninae) Author Wang, C. - B. Author He, T. - L. Author He, L. Author Zhou, C. text Far Eastern Entomologist 2023 2023-02-02 470 8 22 http://dx.doi.org/10.25221/fee.470.2 journal article 10.25221/fee.470.2 2713-2196 7616385 Lucanus zenghuae Wang, He, He et Zhou , sp. n. https://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/ 2ADBCA00-FCE9-4A54-9481-6BF47245A860 Figs 5 , 6 MATERIAL EXAMINED. Holotype – ♂ , China : Yunnan , Honghe Prefecture , Pingbian County , ], 5.VI 2020, Tian-Long He leg. (MAHU). Paratypes : 9.VI 2019, 2♂ (CTLH); 2♂, same data as holotype except: 31.V 2021, 1♂ (CTLH) and 1♂ ( MYNU ), Tian-Long He & Hao Xu leg .; : 31.V 2021, 1♂ ( CCZC ), Tian-Long He & Hao Xu leg . DESCRIPTION. HOLOTYPE MALE . Large size, body 48.6 mm long. Lengths of body parts (mm): head (8.4), mandible (15.9.), pronotum (6.4), elytra (19.7); width (mm): head (15.2), pronotum (11.0), elytra (13.2). Habitus ( Fig. 5a–c ). Color mostly reddish brown to blackish brown; elytra reddish; femora and tibiae with reddish stripes on ventral surfaces. Body mostly clothed with short, sparse, recumbent, yellowish pubescence, similar on metaventrite. Fig. 5. Lucanus zenghuae sp. n. , male habitus of holotype. a – dorsal view; b – ventral view; c – lateral view. Scale bar = 1.0 cm. Fig. 6. Lucanus zenghuae sp. n. , male genitalia of holotype. a – abdominal tergite VIII; b – abdominal sternite VIII; c–e – abdominal segment IX; f–h – aedeagus; (a, d, g – dorsal view; b, c, f – ventral view; e, h – lateral view). Scale bar = 1.0 mm. Head 1.8 times as wide as long, widest at anterolateral angles; surfaces matt, finely punctate, intervals finely and irregularly granulose. Frons transverse, subtrapezoidal, weakly concave, fused with clypeolabrum. Clypeal ridge strong, not medially interrupted, laterally projecting as two teeth. Labrum subtriangular, rounded at apex. Anterolateral angles subacute, protruding laterally, slightly prominent than eyes. Ocular canthus protruding, shorter than half eye’s diameter. Postocular margin gently curved, strongly narrowed posteriorly. Posterior margin widely concave. Anterior ridge weakly elevated, transverve, substraight at apical margin. Lateral ridges moderately elevated, broad, widely subrounded at apical margins. Mandible moderately long and strong, about 1.9 times as long as head; moderately curved in dorsal and lateral views; surfaces finely punctate, intervals matt and finely granulose at inner side, matt and microrugulate at outer side. Inner mandibular margin with unarmed carina at base, preceded by 5–6 small denticles, major inner tooth, and 4–5 distal small denticles. Major inner tooth situated at apical 2/5, rather strong, slenderly subtriangular, weakly protruded near base of posterior side, shorter than mandibular width, tilting backwards and upwards with apex rounded and not higher than mandible. Apical fork with upper tooth bent upwards and inwards; lower tooth distinctly longer, directed downwards and inwards. Antennal club 4-segmented; antennomere VII with slenderly subtriangular lamella, sharply pointing inwards, only pubescent on apical surface; antennomeres VIII–X with strong, long, pubescent lamellae. Mentum wide, inverted trapezoidal; anterior margin almost straight and with obliquely truncated corners; surface matt, finely punctate, intervals finely and irregularly granulose, and transversely depressed near anterior margin. Fig. 7. Male habitus of Lucanus pesarinii Zilioli, 1998 from Vietnam. a – dorsal view; b – ventral view; c – lateral view. Scale bar = 1.0 cm. Pronotum 1.7 times as wide as long, widest at middle. Anterior corners subrounded; posterior corners obtuse. Surface matt, finely punctate, intervals finely and irregularly granulose, and with median longitudinal depression rather shallow. Prosternal apophysis strong, distinctly convex ventrally in middle of posterior part, and truncated at posterior margin. Scutellum linguiform, about 1.9 times as wide as long, rounded at apical margin. Surface feebly sheen, finely punctate, intervals microrugulate. Elytra oval, 1.5 times as long as wide, widest around basal 1/3, 3.1 times as long as and 1.2 times as wide as pronotum. Humeri obtuse. Surface weakly sheen, finely and densely punctate, intervals microreticulate. Legs slender. Protibia with 3 (left, basal one tiny) or 4 (right, basal two tiny) teeth along outer margin; apex bifurcate with branches narrowly rounded at tips. Except apical spurs and spines, mesotibia with 3 (basal one tiny) small lateral spines and metatibia without lateral spines (only one unconspicuous protuberance). Surfaces finely punctate, intervals matt and finely granulose on femora and tibiae, feebly sheen and microreticulate on tarsi. Fig. 8. Male genitalia of Lucanus pesarinii Zilioli, 1998 from Vietnam. a – abdominal tergite VIII; b – abdominal sternite VIII; c–e – abdominal segment IX; f–h – aedeagus; (a, d, g – dorsal view; b, c, f – ventral view; e, h – lateral view). Scale bar = 1.0 mm. Table 2. Selected important morphological differences among males of Lucanus zenghuae sp. n. , L. pesarinii Zilioli, 1998 and L. derani fukinukiae Katsura et Giang, 2002

Characters	Lucanus zenghuae sp. n.	Lucanus pesarinii	Lucanus derani fukinukiae
Color of	reddish (Fig. 5a, c)	orange-red (Fig. 7a, c)	reddish brown to
elytra	blackish brown (Fig.
9a, c)
Color of	reddish stripes distinct	orange-red stripes	reddish stripes absent
femora and	on ventral surfaces (Fig.	distinct on ventral	or vestigial on ventral
tibiae	5b, c)	surfaces (Fig. 7b, c)	surfaces (Fig. 9b, c)
Pubescence of	short and sparse as on	short and sparse as on	longer and denser than
metaventrite	other parts (Fig. 5b)	other parts (Fig. 7b)	on other parts (Fig. 9b)
Head: major	tilting backwards and	tilting forwards and	tilting backwards and
inner tooth	upwards with apex not	upwards with apex	upwards with apex
higher than mandible	distinctly higher than	distinctly higher than
(can not be seen in	mandible (can be seen	mandible (can be seen
lateral view) (Fig. 5a, c)	in lateral view) (Fig.	in lateral view) (Fig.
7a, c)	9a, c)

Table 2. Continue

Head: distal small denticles	continuous with major inner tooth (Fig. 5a)	distinctly spaced out with major inner tooth (Fig. 7a)	distinctly spaced out with major inner tooth (Fig. 9a)
Head: apical fork	upper tooth more bent inwards, shorter than lower tooth (Fig. 5a)	upper tooth less bent inwards, shorter than lower tooth (Fig. 7a)	upper tooth more bent inwards, not shorter than lower tooth (Fig. 9a)
Head: anterior ridge	weakly elevated, transverve, substraight at apical margin	absent	weakly elevated, transverve, gently curved at apical margin
Protibia	apical branches less open (Fig. 5a)	apical branches more open (Fig. 7a)	apical branches more open (Fig. 9a)
Abdominal sternite VIII	membranous area transverse, semielliptical (Fig. 6b)	membranous area transverse, semielliptical (Fig. 8b)	membranous areas bisected into two small parts (Fig. 10b)
Abdominal sternite IX	basal stalk not extended laterally (Fig. 6c, d)	basal stalk extended laterally (Fig. 8c, d)	basal stalk extended laterally (Fig. 10c, d)
Penis	slender, not expanded near apex (Fig. 6f)	wide, expanded near apex (Fig. 8f)	wide, expanded near apex (Fig. 10f)

Male genitalia. Abdominal tergite VIII ( Fig. 6a ) without lateral angles and with longitudinal, thin, membranous stripe in middle of basal 5/8; sternite VIII ( Fig. 6b ) with transverse, semielliptical, membranous area in middle of basal part. Abdominal sternite IX ( Fig. 6c, e ) with apical expansion relatively slender, without membranous area; basal stalk not extended laterally. Aedeagus ( Fig. 6f ) about 3.0 times as long as wide in ventral view. Basal piece ( Fig. 6f, g ) weakly constricted in basal part, about 1.4 times as long as parameres, with a pair of sclerotized dorsal plates ( Fig. 6g ); ventral plate ( Fig. 6f ) bifurcate at apex of distal end, with relatively deep emargination. Paramere with basal process ( Fig. 6g ); apex moderately upturned in lateral view ( Fig. 6h ). Penis ( Fig. 6f ) slender, 0.4 times shorter than parameres. Flagellum relatively short, about 2.2 times as long as parameres, apex distinctly enlarged. Fig. 9. Male habitus of Lucanus derani fukinukiae Katsura et Giang, 2002 from Yunnan, China. a – dorsal view; b – ventral view; c – lateral view. Scale bar = 1.0 cm. MALE PARATYPES . Body 34.5–49.1 mm long. All male paratypes consistent with holotype except for usual allometric differences. Large-sized male like holotype with more pronounced morphological characters, while in small-sized male, mandible shorter, apical fork of mandible less opened, number of inner teeth fewer, major inner tooth ill-developed, clypeolabrum shorter, anterior and lateral ridges of head weaker. FEMALE. Unkown. DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS. This new species should be assigned to the Lucanus fortunei group ( sensu Huang & Chen, 2010 ). It is most similar to L. pesarinii Zilioli, 1998 ( Figs 7 , 8 ) and L. derani fukinukiae Katsura et Giang, 2002 ( Figs 9 , 10 ), but can be distinguished by the combination of characters shown in Table 2 . ETYMOLOGY. The new species is dedicated to Zeng-Hua Tang, the mother of the collector Tian-Long He. The name is a noun in the genitive case. DISTRIBUTION. China ( Yunnan ). Fig. 10. Male genitalia of Lucanus derani fukinukiae Katsura et Giang, 2002 from Yunnan, China. a – abdominal tergite VIII; b – abdominal sternite VIII; c–e – abdominal segment IX; f–h – aedeagus; (a, d, g – dorsal view; b, c, f – ventral view; e, h – lateral view). Scale bar = 1.0 mm. We appreciate Gui-Qiang Huang (Liupanshui Normal University, Liupanshui, China ), who rekindling our enthusiasm for taxonomy. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Chang-Chin Chen ( Tianjin , China ), Hao Huang (Qingdao, China ), Mei-Ying Lin, Yun-Long Ma, Lu Qiu, Jian-Yue Qiu and Hao Xu (MYNU), Liang Lü ( Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang, China ), Xia Wan ( Anhui University, Hefei, China ), Ping Wang and Guang-Lin Xie (Yangtze University, Jingzhou, China ), Yun-Chuan Xu (Yuxi, China ), Jian-Bo Yang (Dali, China ), Qiao-Zhi Yang (University College London, U.K. ), Mao Ye (Xiangyang, China ), Bi-Sheng Zhan (Zhenjiang, China ), Zheng Zhou ( Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China ), and Xiang Zhu ( Beijing , China ) for their considerable help in our study. We are grateful to reviewers who provided constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Huaguoshan (NSFH-2021).