Coeliccia pyriformis Laidlaw, 1932

Kompier, Tom, Dow, Rory A. & Steinhoff, Philip O. M., 2020, Five new species of Coeliccia Kirby, 1890 from Vietnam (Odonata: Platycnemididae), and information on several other species of the genus, Zootaxa 4766 (4), pp. 501-538 : 508-514

3. Coeliccia pyriformis Laidlaw, 1932

Syn Coeliccia montana Fraser, 1933 , syn. novum.

Fraser described Coeliccia montana in 1933 on the basis of a male specimen collected in 1932 by Dr. A. Kerr from Muang Huang in Lao DPR ( Fraser 1933). The description is quite extensive, although not accompanied by drawings. It mentions, amongst other characters, a black prothorax with the sides of middle pronotal lobe pale blue, changing to creamy yellow below. The synthorax is dorsally black with narrow irregular antehumeral stripes, “the inner border of which is quite straight, but the outer very irregular; laterally pale blue with a narrow black stripe on the postero-lateral suture.” The abdomen segments S9–10 are “broadly pale blue on dorsum and sides, or pale creamy yellow in the young state, the lower parts of sides black.” The anal appendages are described as creamy yellow.

The statement about the color of S9–10 is surprising. Fraser described a single specimen. It is difficult to understand how he could infer a color difference between the adult insect and its immature stage.

Asahina (1969) recorded a male of Coeliccia montana from “ 7 kilometer east, Postal, de M. dark, Vietnam, 500 m ” collected by Mr. Yoshimoto and preserved in the Bernice P. Bishop Museum in Honolulu. Asahina provides three drawings and a short description. What stands out is that this is “a slender pale yellow and black species” and that S2–9 are “black on the dorsal side; end of 9 and whole the 10 […] orange yellow.” Figs 2–3 ( Asahina 1969, p.4) confirm this: S9 is almost completely dark, apart from the posterior margin. It is therefore remarkable that Asahina states: “This single male specimen agrees rather well with the original description and the type specimen preserved in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). The differences are: 1) the length of abdomen which is stated as “ 42 mm ” in the original description is shorter […], 2) the coloration of abdomen 9 and 10 is said to be “pale dorsally and dark laterally”.”

This is remarkable, because 1) Fraser was clear about the blue coloration on head, prothorax and thorax. Nothing in his description suggests that C. montana is a ‘pale yellow and black species’ and 2) Fraser was clear about the fact that S9–10 were dorsally completely pale blue (or creamy yellow). He does not state pale dorsally and dark laterally as such, but the pattern of S9 surely was different from that illustrated by Asahina (1969). On the basis of these facts there seems to be no clear reason to identify the specimen collected by Mr. Yoshimoto as C. montana .

Subsequently, Steinhoff & Do (2013) followed the interpretation by Asahina (1969) and provided more details of a Coeliccia species that shares characteristics with both the illustrations provided by Asahina and his description. In their article, Steinhoff & Do (2013) note that: “Here we compare the characters of our specimens with the characters described by Fraser.” They write that: “Thorax markings and coloration almost identical as described by FRASER (1933) and drawn by ASAHINA (1969). Regarding the mesepisternum, FRASER (1933: 116) wrote that “... the outer border of the antehumeral stripes is very irregular”. We found the antehumeral stripes resembling a pair of paddles, with indeed the outer (proximal) border less straight than the distal border, forming the “blade of the paddle” ( Fig. 3b ). This specific marking pattern is also visible in Asahina’s drawing.” In addition Steinhoff & Do (2013) note that the abdomen and anal appendages are as described by Fraser (1933). However, their drawings show S9 with only limited yellow towards the posterior margin, as in Asahina’s drawing.

Although Steinhoff & Do (2013) stated that they compared their specimens with the description by Fraser, clearly they are more in line with Asahina’s specimen. The coloration of the specimens studied by Steinhoff and Do (2013) was whitish-yellow and black, but because information regarding the age of their specimens and the coloration in life was missing, the authors did not take the coloration into account (Philip Steinhoff, pers. comm.). Colors often fade in preserved specimens, and immature individuals of Coeliccia species often display other colors than the adults ( Kosterin 2011, Laidlaw 1932, Steinhoff & Uhl 2015). Thus, in their comparison Steinhoff & Do (2013) did not take into consideration that 1) Fraser had described the sides of the thorax as pale blue, 2) that he indicated that S9 was completely pale blue or yellow dorsally, 3) although they called the proximal border of the antehumeral stripe the outer border, this must be the opposite of what Fraser meant. Clearly he referred to the outer (=distal) border as more irregular. Especially when taking the shape of the superior appendages into consideration, it seems reasonable that the specimens described by Steinhoff & Do (2013) concern the same species as described by Asahina (1969), but it is clearly different from C. montana sensu Fraser, 1933 .

In order to verify the characteristics of C. montana we obtained photos of the holotype stored in the British Museum of Natural History ( Fig. 23 ) through kind help from Dr. Ben Price. We could ascertain that ( Fig. 23b ): 1) S9–10 are indeed dorsally completely pale, with only the lower sides black; 2) the color is a mix of paler blue and ochre, although ochre is the overriding impression; 3) the superior appendages have an almost square ventral expansion well proximal of the apex of the appendages, ( Fig. 23a ); 4) the sides of the thorax are clearly blue with a thin black line over the metapleural suture, ( Fig. 23a, c ); 5) the mesepisternum has a long antehumeral stripe that in dorsal view appears somewhat curved; 6) the middle pronotal lobe of the prothorax has large yellow areas laterally and the propleuron is largely yellowish, the anterior and posterior pronotal lobes connected by black over the middle of the middle pronotal lobe only.

These points confirm that the C. montana described in Asahina (1969) and Steinhoff & Do (2013) is not the same species as C. montana sensu Fraser, 1933 . Most likely their specimens refer to C. coronata sp. nov. The mix of the apparent color of S9–10 may have led Fraser to infer that they would be blue in the adult and yellow in the immature of C. montana .

The characteristics of the holotype of C. montana in fact exactly match those of C. pyriformis , the type of which was collected in 1924 from Bao Ha in Tonkin (present day Bao Ha Commune, Bao Yen District, Lao Cai Prov., northern Vietnam). However, this is not immediately clear from the description. Laidlaw (1932) states: “ Synthorax: black, the black extending on to the sides and fading gradually to a creamy white below. A pyriform mark of pale blue on either side on the dorsum with its pointed end upwards. (This mark has faded whilst the specimen was undergoing relaxation for setting, and is now not evident in the type, the whole dorsum being uniformly black).” He continues: “ Anal appendages: ochreous, lower pair much longer than upper, angularly forcipate. Upper pair rather club-shaped, no marked projection.” Even if Fraser was familiar with this description, he still might have considered it clear that his specimen with bluish sides to thorax and ventral projection of the superior appendages had to be a different species. However, the reexamination of the holotype of C. pyriformis carried out by Steinhoff & Uhl (2015) showed that Laidlaw’s description of the appendages was incorrect. They are in fact identical to those of C. montana sensu Fraser, 1933 . The coloration of the thorax appears to have blackened in the preservation process not just in respect to the dorsum, but also laterally. Evidently, based on the combination of patterning and identical shape of appendages, C. montana sensu Fraser, 1933 is a junior synonym of C. pyriformis Laidlaw, 1932 . Coeliccia pyriformis is in fact a common species in northern Vietnam as far south as Dong Hoi ( Kompier & Phan 2017). Muang Huang, the location where Fraser’s specimen was collected, is situated in Khetphiset Xaisomboun, in Laos, well north of the southernmost record in Vietnam.

Figures

FIGURE 2. Prothorax of male Coeliccia spp. in lateral view. (a) C. caerulea, holotype; (b) C. coronata, holotype; (c) C. diomedea, holotype; (d) C. curua, holotype.

FIGURE 3. Prothorax of Coeliccia spp. in dorsal view. [a-e] male, [f] female. (a) C. caerulea, holotype; (b) C. coronata, holotype; (c) C. diomedea, holotype; (d) C. curua, holotype; (e) C. pulchella sp. nov., holotype; (f) C. caerulea, paratype used for description.

FIGURE 23. Holotype of Coeliccia montana Fraser, 1932. Photos courtesy of Dr. Ben Price, Natural History Museum, London. (a) thorax and head in lateral view; (b) abdomen tip and caudal appendages in lateral view; (c) thorax in dorsal view; (d) type on card with labels.