Scirtes japonicus, Kiesenwetter, 1874

Watts, Chris H. S., Cooper, Steven J. B. & Saint, Kathleen M., 2017, Review of Australian Scirtes Illiger, Ora Clark and Exochomoscirtes Pic (Coleoptera: Scirtidae) including descriptions of new species, new groups and a multi-gene molecular phylogeny of Australian and non-Australian species, Zootaxa 4347 (3), pp. 511-532 : 518-519

Scirtes japonicus species group ( Nyholm 2002)

Nyholm (2002) based this group primarily on the form of the penis: “symmetric with parameroids longitudinally deeply cleft and tegmen with a lateral lobe (paramere) on each side”. We would add: first segment of labial palpus shorter than second, mandible incisivus moderately long, caudal margin of metacoxal plate concave and caudal margin of sternite 7 moderately concave; larvae with tip of mandible bifid and maxillary palpus threesegmented ( Watts 2004; Yoshitomi 2005). The prehensors and bursal sclerites of all three Australian species ( Figs 3–5 ) are closely similar to those of S. japonicus ( Yoshitomi 2005) .

The penis of no Australian species has this morphology. The aedeagus of S. emmaae is simple and appears plesiomorphic as it conforms closely to the scirtid ground plan ( Zwick 2016). Scirtes kaytae and S. tindaleensis have asymmetric aedeagi resembling those of species in the S. helmsi group.

The aedeagus of S. emmaae , particularly the apical triangular lobes of the parameres, is similar to those of S. micronesianus Yoshitomi , which was placed in a separate group by Yoshitomi (2009) and named the S. micronesianus group. However, other than their aedeagi, S. emmaae and S. kaytae are morphologically and genetically close and S. tindaleensis is also close on both larval and adult morphology yet only S. emmaae could be classified in the S. micronesianus group. We think that on this evidence these three species belong in the same species group and have placed all three Australian species in the S. japonicus group based on sequence data and adult and larval morphology but recognise that future study is needed to confirm this placement, particularly in light of the conflicting morphology of the male genitalia.

Scirtes nehouensis Ruta & Yoshitomi, 2010 from New Caledonia appears to us on both general morphology and male and female genitalia ( Ruta & Yoshitomi 2010b) to be conspecific with S. emmaae . We herein place the species in synonymy under Scirtes emmaae Watts, 2004 .

Figures

FIGURES 2 – 5. Portion of female reproductive tract: a) bursa, b) prehensor, c) accessory gland, d) bursal sclerite. 2) Scirtes auratus; 3) S. kaytae; 4) S. tindaleensis; 5) S. emmaae.