Pediobius inexpectatus Kerrich, 1973
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.375759 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9A463357-EEE2-4A70-BCB2-573052DB48CC |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5694644 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DA87F7-3B53-FFAE-FF05-FBDCFEA2F83B |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Pediobius inexpectatus Kerrich, 1973 |
status |
|
31. Pediobius inexpectatus Kerrich, 1973 View in CoL
( Fig. 28 View FIGURE 28 )
Pediobius inexpectatus Kerrich, 1973: 157 View in CoL –158; ♀♂. Holotype ♀, ANIC, not examined.
Pediobius planiceps Sheng & Kamijo, 1992: 454 View in CoL –456; ♀♂. Lectotype ♀, IZCAS, examined; designated here. Syn. n.
Diagnosis. Three funicular segments freely separated from each other with narrow petioles ( Figs 28 View FIGURE 28 d–e). Vertex, mesoscutum and scutellum deeply and strongly reticulate. Occiput strongly excavated, and sharply margined between eyes ( Figs 28 View FIGURE 28 a–b). Notauli and notaular depressions distinct, especially in male. Scutellum with a shining posterior margin projecting backward over a large part of dorsellum such that dorsellum very short ( Fig. 28 View FIGURE 28 a). Female gaster strongly broad-ovate with Gt1 almost reaching mid-length of gaster ( Fig. 28 View FIGURE 28 a). Male has body brassy with reddish reflections ( Fig. 28 View FIGURE 28 b).
Material examined. China, Guangdong: 12♀, Guangzhou, Conghua , 26.VI.1978, coll. Jun-Hua He, ex. Lethe confusa Aurivillius ; Guangxi: 1♀, Daxin , 29.III.1998, coll. Chao-Dong Zhu ; Guizhou: 2♀, Qiannan, Luaodian , XI.1981, coll. Xue-Wei Song ; 3♀, Qiannan, Qiannan Institute of Agriculture , 27.VIII.1979, coll. Zhen- Sheng Zhou, ex. Mycalesis gotama Moore ; Hong Kong: 3♀ , Hong Kong, 10.IX.1979, coll. Tai-po-Kau ; Jiangxi: 4♀ 6♂, Nanchang, Meiling , 25.VIII.1984, coll. Jin-Kun Sheng ; Jilin: 1♀, Changbai Mountains , 24.VII.1990 ; Sichuan: 1♀, Ya-An, 24.VIII.1975, coll. Ding-Xi Liao , ex. the pupa of Casinaria colacae Sonan, 1939 ; Taiwan: 2♀, Jilong, 29.X.1999, coll. Xu Y .- F., ex. the pupa of Discophora sondaica Boisduval ; Yunnan: 2♀ 1♂, Ruili , 19.X.1980 ; 3♀, Yuxi, Xinping, Manbang , IX.1977 . Type specimens of P. planiceps : Holotype ♀, CHINA, Jiangxi, Chongyi , 28.IX.1982, coll. Shi-Wang Liu ( IZCAS), ex. Melanitis leda (Linnaeus) ; paratypes 10♀ 6♂, same data as the holotype. Determined specimens compared ( ANIC): 3♀ 1♂, Hong Kong, 10.IV.1979, coll. Tai- Po Kau, det. Bouček.
Biology. In China, one female of P. inexpectatus from Sichuan was recorded from the pupa of Casinaria colacae Sonan ( Lepidoptera : Hesperiidae ). Besides, two females from Taiwan were reared from the pupa of Discophora sondaica ( Lepidoptera : Amathusiidae ). However, one host record listed in the Universal Chalcidoidea Database ( Noyes 2016), Pamara guttata (Bremer & Grey) ( Lepidoptera : Hesperiidae ) seems not reliable by checking the original record in Sheng & Li (1992). Actually, it was recorded as an undetermined species of the family Hesperiidae rather than Pamara guttata . In addition, the type specimens of P. planiceps were reared from Melanitis leda (Linnaeus) ( Lepidoptera : Satyridae ) by Sheng & Kamijo (1992).
Distribution in China. Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hong Kong, Jiangxi, Jilin, Sichuan, Taiwan.
Remarks. Pediobius inexpectatus is characterized by the scutellum having a shining hind margin projecting backward over a large part of dorsellum. By comparing the type specimens of P. planiceps with the original description and also the specimens of P. inexpectatus determined by Bouček, we listed P. planiceps as a synonym of P. inexpectatus . Actually, the characters used in the key of Sheng (1994) (couplets 6 and 7) are not reliable to separate P. planiceps from P. inexpectatus , as most of these characters are fitted to both of them. Besides, the description that "occiput without carina" to P. inexpectatus is incorrect in the key of Sheng (1994). Sheng & Kamijo (1992) stated that P. planiceps was similar to P. brachycerus and P. pyrgo , but the comparisons among these three species seem to be inaccurate. Actually, they have many differences (see couplets 16 & 25 of the key). Pediobius inexpectatus resembles species of the epigonus- group by reticulate mesosoma, which is also noted by Kerrich (1973), while it also distinctly differs from species of this group in many characters (given in the key).
Sheng & Kamijo (1992) designated a female as the holotype of P. planiceps . However, we found two females were mounted on the same card labeled with " Holotype ". Here, we designated the one distal to the spine as the lectotype.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Pediobius inexpectatus Kerrich, 1973
Cao, Huan-Xi, Salle, John La & Zhu, Chao-Dong 2017 |
Pediobius planiceps
Sheng 1992: 454 |
Pediobius inexpectatus
Kerrich 1973: 157 |