Fingulus ruficeps Hsiao & Ren, 1983

Wang, Yang, Chen, Ling & Rédei, Dávid, 2021, Taxonomic corrections for Asian Fingulus (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Miridae), Zootaxa 4938 (2), pp. 196-204 : 199-202

Fingulus ruficeps Hsiao & Ren, 1983

( Figs. 6–13 , 15–19 )

Fingulus ruficeps Hsiao & Ren, 1983: 70 , 76. Holotype: ♀, China: Sichuan, Ya’an ; NKUM!

Fingulus umbonatus (non Stonedahl & Cassis, 1991): Liu et al. (2011: 8, 11). Misidentification.

Fingulus henrytomi Yasunaga & Nakatani, 2018: 165 . Holotype: ♀, Japan: Shikoku , Kochi, Monobe , Nishikuma-keikoku; NIAES. New subjective synonym.

Fingulus ruficeps: Stonedahl & Cassis (1991: 3 , 5) (as of unknown identity), Schuh (1995: 627) (catalogue), Zheng (1995: 460) (listed, distribution), Kerzhner & Josifov (1999: 49) (catalogue), Hua (2000: 201) (listed, distribution).

Type material examined. Fingulus ruficeps Hsiao & Ren, 1983 . Holotype: ♀, “<Sichuan Ya’an > [ch, pr] \ 800– 900m [pr] \ 1963.VII. [pr] 4 [hw] \ < Tianjin Museum of Natural History> [ch, pr]” [with pr horizontal line between lines #3 and #4], “<collector: Xiong Jiang>” [pr], “D1a” [hw], “ Fingulus [hw] \ ruficeps Hsiao [hw] \ et Ren [hw] \ <holotype identified 19> [ch, pr] 81 [hw]” [red, with pr black frame]; mounted on triangle, tarsus of left hind leg, tibia and tarsus of right hind leg lacking ( NKUM) ( Figs. 6–11 ).

Additional specimens examined. CHINA. Yunnan: Ruili Rare Plants Botanical Garden, 30.vii.2006, leg. M. Li (1 ³ NKUM, Figs. 12, 13 ), Nanjian, Jianshan, Pingdi Village , 1500 m, 2.vii.2001 (1 ♀ NKUM) ; Hainan: Jianfeng [= Jianfengling National Natural Reserve], Tianchi , 18.iv.1985, from Ficus heteropleura ?, leg. [L.Y.] Zheng (1 ♀ NKUM) , same locality and collector, 19.iv.1985 (1 ♀ NKUM) , Lingshui, Mt. Diaoluo , 900 m, 1.vi.2007, leg. X. Zhang, det. as “ Fingulus umbonatus Stonedahl & Cassis, 1991 ” by Jing-Yang Xu (1 ♀ NKUM) ; Fujian: Nanjing , 21.iv.1965, leg. L.C. Wang, det. as “ Fingulus ? ruficeps Hsiao & Ren ” by G. Stonedahl, 1992 (1 ³ NKUM) ; Zhejiang: Mt. Fengyang , 29.vii.2007, leg. W.B. Zhu (1 ♀ NKUM) , same but 1.viii.2007, leg. W.B. Zhu et al. (1 ³ NKUM) .

Diagnosis. Readily recognized by the combination of a whitish metathoracic scent gland peritreme ( Fig. 11 ) and the corium possessing an extensive pale spot in its proximal third ( Figs. 8, 12 ). A more detailed comparison with its phylogenetically most closely related congeners is provided in the Discussion below and Table 1 . The external male genitalia are illustrated in Figs. 15–19 ; the distal portion of the phallus (“vesica” of authors) is characterized by its lateral wall being sclerotized around a membranous apical portion and the presence of a small, membranous flap around its middle ( Figs. 18, 19 ).

Distribution. CHINA: Sichuan!, Yunnan!, Hainan!, Fujian!, Zhejiang! JAPAN: Shikoku Is., Tsushima Is. ( Nakatani & Yasunaga 2018, as F. henrytomi ).

Discussion. Fingulus ruficeps was described based on a single female (the holotype) from Sichuan, China( Hsiao & Ren 1983). Although the original description states that it is deposited in the Tianjin Museum of Natural History , it is now found in NKUM and it was re-examined in course of the present study ( Figs. 6–11 ). The line illustration of the head and prothorax of F. ruficeps accompanying its original description ( Hsiao & Ren 1983: 71, fig. 3) is inaccurate in respect of proportions of the head and the position of the postocular furrow; a photo of the head of the holotype is herein provided ( Fig. 6 ). Additional specimens of both sexes were examined from Yunnan, Hainan, Fujian and Zhejiang Provinces of China .

Fingulus henrytomi was described based on a female holotype from Kochi, Shikoku Is., and a female paratype from Tsushima Is., Japan ( Nakatani & Yasunaga 2018). Its authors did not compare it with F. ruficeps in their original description and diagnosis, apparently due to being unaware of the latter species. A comparison of the original description and illustrations of F. henrytomi with the holotype of F. ruficeps ( Figs. 6–11 ) left no doubt that the two species are conspecific, and accordingly their subjective synonymy is proposed here.

This species is morphologically similar to F. collaris Miyamoto, 1965 , F. inflatus Stonedahl & Cassis, 1991 , and F. umbonatus Stonedahl & Cassis, 1991 (all distributed in East and Southeast Asia) and potentially belongs to the monophyletic clade formed by the above three species (cf. Stonedahl & Cassis 1991: 52, fig. 33). Among the Asian representatives of the genus only these four species possess a pale metathoracic scent gland peritreme conspicuously contrasting with the surrounding dark areas of the thoracic pleuron and possess a weakly developed tongue-like process at the apex of the ostiolar canal ( Fig. 11 ) (a peritreme with a well-developed example is shown in Stonedahl & Cassis 1991: 7, fig. 2); they also share a similar, relatively broad habitus, a head that is paler than the general body colour, and an impunctate ( F. collaris , F. inflatus , F. umbonatus ) or very insignificantly punctate ( F. ruficeps ) anterior collar of the pronotum. Based on the examination of the holotype and non-types of F. ruficeps , non-types of F. collaris and F. inflatus , and photographs of the holotype of F. umbonatus (deposited in BPBM) ( Figs. 20–23 ), the skeletal diagnostic characters of these four species are summarized in Table 1 ; illustrations of their external male genitalia are found in the work of Stonedahl & Cassis (1991) and the present paper ( Figs. 15–19 ).

The voucher specimens for the records of F. umbonatus and F. collaris from China ( Liu et al. 2011: 8) ( F. umbonatus : a female from Hainan, Lingshui, Mt. Diaoluo, 900 m, 1.vi.2007, leg. X. Zhang; F. collaris : a male from Zhejiang, Mt. Fengyang, 28.vii.2008, leg. Z.H. Fan, and a female from Yunnan, Menghai, Mt. Nannuo, 1200 m, 27.iv.1957, leg. L.C. Zang, coll. IZAS), are all now deposited in NKUM, have been re-examined in course of the present study, and revealed that the record of F. umbonatus pertains to F. ruficeps , whilst that of F. collaris pertains to F. inflatus . No specimens of F. umbonatus and F. collaris from China have been seen, and therefore although they likely occur in subtropical and tropical areas of southern China, for the time being these two species are deleted from the Chinese fauna.

Figures

FIGURES 1–7. Holotypes of Fingulus spp. and their labels. 1, F. brevirostris Ren, 1983, dorsal view; 2, same, lateral view; 3, same, ventral view; 4, same, head, dorsal view; 5, same, labels; 6, F. ruficeps Hsiao & Ren, 1983, head, dorsal view; 7, same, labels. Scales in mm. © NKUM.

FIGURES 8–14. Fingulus spp. 8, F. ruficeps Hsiao & Ren, 1983, holotype, dorsal view; 9, same, lateral view; 10, same, ventral view; 11, same, metathorax, most exposed (ventrolateral) view; 12, F. ruficeps, a non-type male from Ruili, Yunnan, China, dorsal view; 13, same, lateral view (arrow shows tubercle of prosternal xiphus); 14, F. brevirostris Ren, 1983, holotype, metathorax, most exposed (ventrolateral) view. Scales in mm. © NKUM.

FIGURES 15–19. External male genitalia of Fingulus ruficeps Hsiao & Ren, 1983. 15, posterior portion of genital capsule, dorsal view; 16–17, left paramere in two different aspects; 18, phallus, left lateral view (ejaculatory duct detached immediately proximad of secondary gonopore and remained inside of phallotheca in repose); 19, distal portion of phallus, ventral view. Scales in mm.

FIGURES 20–23. Holotype of Fingulus umbonatus Stonedahl & Cassis, 1991. 20, dorsal view; 21, lateral view (arrow shows strongly prominent tubercle of prosternal xiphus); 22, frontal view; 23, labels. Scale in mm; labels not to scale. © BPBM, courtesy of D.A. Polhemus.