Hesperopenna tibialis ( Kimoto, 1989 ) Bezděk, 2013

Bezděk, Jan, 2013, Revision of the genus Hesperopenna (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae). I. Generic redescription, definition of species groups and taxonomy of H. medvedevi species group, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 53 (2), pp. 715-746 : 726-729

Hesperopenna tibialis ( Kimoto, 1989) comb. nov.

( Figs 13 , 21 , 29 , 36 , 43 , 50 , 60–61 )

Liroetiella tibialis Kimoto, 1989: 110 (original description).

Martinella merkli Medvedev, 2000: 167 (original description); syn. nov.

Calomicrus flavus: KIMOTO (1989) : 102 (faunistics, partim).

Type localities. Liroetiella tibialis : ‘ Laos: Khammouane Prov., Phon Tiou’. Martinella merkli : ‘ Laos, Bolikhamsay Prov., Phou Khao Khouay NBCA, Tad Leuk Waterfall’.

Type material examined. Liroetiella tibialis : PARATYPES: 1♂, ‘ LAOS: / Khammouane Prov. / Phon Tiou / 17.V.1965 [w, p] // Native Collector / Collector [w, p] // PARATOPOTYPE [blue label, p] // Liroetiella / tibialis / n. sp. [w, h] // PHOTO [red label, p]’ ( KMNH) ; 1 ♀, ‘ Laos / Umg. Vientiane / III.-VI.1963 [w, p] // PARATYPE [blue label, p] // Liroetiella / tibialis / n. sp. [w, p] // Zool. Staatsslg. / München [pale blue label, p]’ ( ZSM).

Martinella merkli : PARATYPES: 1♂, ‘ LAOS, Bolikhamsay Prov., / Phou Khao Kouay NBCA, / Tad Leuk Waterfall, 280 m, [w, p] // at light, No. 46, / 11-12. IV. 1998, / leg. O. Merkl & G. Csorba [w, p] // PARATYPUS [p] / Martinella [h] / merkli m. [h] / L. Medvedev det. 19 [p] 99 [red label, h]’ ( LMCM) ; 1 ♀, ‘ LAOS, Bolikhamsay Prov. , / Phou Khao Kouay NBCA, / Tad Leuk Waterfall, 280 m, [w, p] // at light, No. 46, / 11-12. IV. 1998, / leg. O. Merkl & G. Csorba [w, p] // PARATYPUS [p] / Martinella [h] / merkli m. [h] / L. Medvedev det. 19 [p] 99 [red label, h] // MUSEO GENOVA / Ex. coll. Medvedev / Acquisto XI. 2003 [w, p]’ ( MCSN).

Additional material examined (16 spec.). LAOS: VIENTIANE PROV.: Lao Pako env., 55 km NE of Vientiane, 200 m, 1.-4.v.2004, 6 ♂♂ 2♀♀, J. Bezděk leg. ( JBCB) ; Vientiane env., iii.–vi.1963, 1♀, without additional data ( ZSM) ; KHAMMOUAN PROV.: 17°43′N 105°09′E, 500–600 m, 22.v.–8.vi.2001, 1 ♀, E. Jendek & O. Šauša leg. ( JBCB) . VIETNAM: DONG NAI PROV.: Nam Cat Tien N. P., 1.–15.v.1994, 2♀♀, P.Pacholátko & L. Dembický leg.( NMW) . MALAYSIA: Federal Malay States, 1909, 1 ♂, C. J. Brooks leg. ( BMNH). PERAK: 40 km SE of Ipoh, Banjaran Titi Wangsa, Ringlet , 900 m, 25.iii–3.iv.2002, 1 ♂ 2 unsexed specimens, P. Čechovský leg. ( RBCN, UACG).

Description. Body length: ♂♂ 7.9–9.8 mm, ♀♀ 7.5–9.3 mm.

Male ( Fig. 50 , paratype of Martinella merkli Fig. 60 ). Body yellowish orange, apices of mandibles black, antennae completely yellow, epipleura either completely yellowish orange or extreme lateral margin of epipleura in basal third brownish. Femora yellowish, tibiae and tarsi black, last tarsomere and claws dark brown.

Interocular space 1.5 times as wide as transverse diameter of eye. Antennae 0.8 times as long as body, length ratio of antennomeres I to XI equals 17-5-7-16-18-16-17-16-15-14-15. Pronotum 1.52 – 1.65 times as broad as long. Elytra lustrous, glabrous, 1.75 times as long as wide (measured at humeral calli), 0.7 times as long as body. Length ratio of metatarsomeres I–IV equals 12-6-5-10. Last ventrite posteriorly without two incisions ( Fig. 21 ).

Aedeagus: dorsal side apically with short triangular asymmetrical incision; ventral side with very long thin incision placed right along longitudinal axis ( Fig. 13 ).

Female. Last ventrite with wide concavity at apex, lateral sides regularly rounded ( Fig. 29 ), pygidium with sharp pointed tip ( Fig. 36 ). Spermatheca: nodulus subglobular, cornu relatively thin, regularly rounded, slightly wider than nodulus ( Fig. 43 ).

Differential diagnosis. Having bicolorous legs and glabrous elytra, Hesperopenna tibialis is similar to H. zofka sp. nov. from Java. Both species also share similar structure of aedeagus with a very long basal orifice longer than the proximal part of aedeagus, which might indicate a close relationship. Hesperopenna tibialis can be distinguished by completely yellow antennae (black with first two antennomeres yellow in H. zofka sp. nov.) and epipleura completely yellowish orange or at most with brownish extreme lateral margin (always with black extreme lateral margin in basal half in H. zofka sp. nov.). Males of both species can be distinguished by long thin incision on the ventral side of aedeagus. While it is located on the right side in H. tibialis , it is placed medially in H. zofka sp. nov. ( Figs 13 , 18 ). Females of both species can be separated by the shape of pygidium: apex is distinctly pointed in H. tibialis while simply triangular in H. zofka sp. nov. ( Figs 36, 40 ).

Distribution. Laos ( KIMOTO 1989, MEDVEDEV 2000, present paper), Thailand ( KIMOTO 1989). Newly recorded from Vietnam and Peninsular Malaysia.

Comments. One specimen of Calomicrus flavus from Laos published by KIMOTO (1989) proved to be a female of H. tibialis . Record of Liroetiella tibialis from Thailand published by MOHAMEDSAID & CONSTANT (2007) refers to Hesperopenna vietnamica (relevant specimens examined in IRSN).

Figures

Figs 11–14.Aedeagus (a – dorsal view; b – lateral view; c – ventral view). 11 – Hesperopenna medvedevi nom.nov.; 12 – H. persimilis (Kimoto, 1989); 13 – H. tibialis (Kimoto, 1989); 14 – H. arnoldi sp. nov. Scale bar 1 mm.

Figs 19–26. Last abdominal ventrite of males.19 – Hesperopenna medvedevi nom. nov.; 20 – H. persimilis (Kimoto, 1989); 21 – H. tibialis (Kimoto, 1989); 22 – H. arnoldi sp. nov.; 23 – H. bonifaci sp. nov.; 24 – H. helferi sp. nov.; 25 – H. sipekorum sp. nov.; 26 – H. zofka sp. nov. Scale bar 1 mm.

Figs 27–33.Last abdominal ventrite of females. 27 – Hesperopenna medvedevi nom.nov.; 28 – H.persimilis (Kimoto, 1989); 29 – H. tibialis (Kimoto, 1989); 30 – H. arnoldi sp. nov.; 31 – H. helferi sp. nov.; 32 – H. sipekorum sp. nov.; 33 – H. zofka sp. nov. Scale bar 1 mm.

Figs 34–40. Female pygidium. 34 – Hesperopenna medvedevi nom. nov.; 35 – H. persimilis (Kimoto, 1989); 36 – H. tibialis (Kimoto, 1989); 37 – H. arnoldi sp. nov.; 38 – H. helferi sp. nov.; 39 – H. sipekorum sp. nov.; 40 – H. zofka sp. nov. Scale bar 1 mm.

Figs 41–47. Spermatheca. 41 – Hesperopenna medvedevi nom. nov.; 42 – H. persimilis (Kimoto, 1989); 43 – H. tibialis (Kimoto, 1989); 44 – H. arnoldi sp. nov.; 45 – H. helferi sp. nov.; 46 – H. sipekorum sp. nov.; 47 – H. zofka sp. nov. Scale bar 0.25 mm.

Figs 48–51.Habitus. 48 – Hesperopenna medvedevi nom. nov.(male, Vietnam, 8.2 mm); 49 – H. persimilis (Kimoto, 1989) (male, Thailand, 6.2 mm); 50 – H. tibialis (Kimoto, 1989) (male, Laos, 9.5 mm); 51 – H. arnoldi sp. nov. (male, holotype, 8.4 mm).

Figs 56–65.Type specimens.56–57 – Hesperopenna flava Medvedev & Dang, 1981 (male, holotype, 7.6 mm); 58–59 – Calomicrus persimilis Kimoto, 1989 (male, paratype, 7.1 mm); 60–61 – Martinella merkli Medvedev, 2000 (male, paratype, 8.5 mm); 62–63 – Liroetiella englerae Medvedev, 1995 (female, paratype, 5.8 mm); 64–65 – Liroetiella warisan Mohamedsaid, 1998 (female, paratype, 4.1 mm). 56, 58, 60, 62, 64 – habitus; 57, 59, 61, 63, 65 – labels.

Figs 15–18. Aedeagus (a – dorsal view; b – lateral view; c – ventral view). 15 – H. bonifaci sp. nov.; 16 – H. helferi sp. nov.; 17 – H. sipekorum sp. nov.; 18 – H. zofka sp. nov. Scale bar 1 mm.