Ctenothrips kwanzanensis Takahashi, 1937

Wang, Zhaohong, Li, Yajin, Tong, Xiaoli & Mound, Laurence, 2020, Phylogenetic analysis of the Taeniothrips genus-group, with revision of the species of Ctenothrips and Vulgatothrips (Thysanoptera, Thripinae), Zootaxa 4750 (3), pp. 301-327 : 311-312

Ctenothrips kwanzanensis Takahashi

Ctenothrips kwanzanensis Takahashi, 1937: 339 .

Ctenothrips nonnae Haga & Okajima, 1989: 49 . Syn.n.

Ctenothrips leionotus Tong & Zhang, 1992: 48 . Syn.n.

Ctenothrips cornipennis Han, 1997: 539 . Syn.n.

Ctenothrips taibaishanensis Feng, Zhang & Wang, 2003: 175 . Syn.n.

Ctenothrips guizhouensis Xie, Zhang& Li, 2011: 66 . Syn.n.

Ctenothrips yangi Xie, Yuan, Li & Zhang, 2013: 611 . Syn.n.

( Figs 2 , 36–38 , 43, 47 , 54–59 )

This species was described from two females collected in the mountain areas of Taiwan. The description stated that there were three pairs of pronotal posteromarginal setae, and that antennal segment III was as long as segment IV. However, we have examined the type specimens and found only two pairs of pronotal posteromarginal setae, and antennal segment III longer than IV. These corrected character states were clear in the illustration published by Wang (2002).

- C. nonnae was described from a series of females collected from mountain areas in Japan ( Fig. 59 ). It was distinguished from the description of kwanzanensis by its larger body, and antennal segment III longer than IV. However, as indicated above, the original description of the antennae of kwanzanensis was incorrect, and specimens of kwanzanensis have the body ranging in size from 1850 to 2200 microns, overlapping the size of nonnae that has been studied.

- C. leionotus ( Fig. 56 ) was described from a male holotype and two females, all of which are severely compressed on their slide mounts. The species was distinguished from nonnae by head length, head constriction behind eyes and numbers of fore wing setae, but comparisons of head length and shape based on compressed specimens are not reliable. Moreover, comparisons of the number of fore wing setae between fully winged leionotus and shortwinged nonnae are not valid.

- C. cornipennis ( Fig. 57 ) was described from three poorly mounted females. It was differentiated from leionotus only by tiny differences in antennal segment ratios and setae lengths. The comparative data are based on insufficient specimens, and the measurements were from a female of cornipennis but the male of leionotus .

- C. taibaishanensis ( Figs 54, 55 ) was described from two females and one male taken on grass. It was only briefly compared to distinctus and also to the incorrect original description of kwanzanensis .

- C. guizhouensis ( Fig. 58 ) was described from 21 females and distinguished from kwanzanensis on the basis of the original incorrect description. It was distinguished from taibaishanensis by having polygonally reticulate sculpture on the mesonotum, and abdominal sternite VII posteromarginal setae on the posterior margin. But the type specimens of both guizhouensis and yangi have abdominal sternite VII posteromarginal setae in front of the posterior margin. The specimens of all the names mentioned above have reticulate sculpture on the mesonotum, though these reticulations vary in size and shape between individuals.

- C. yangi was described from 19 females and 10 males, but the distinguishing characters given have been found to be largely unreliable when compared to more extensive collections.

In the key provided by Xie et al. (2011), the colour patterns of antennal segments and fore wings were used frequently, but those differences were derived from descriptions that were based on inadequate specimens. After studying considerably more specimens of this genus we consider that the colours are influenced by the maturity of individuals, together with the techniques used in slide-mounting. In the series of specimens of yangi from Yunnan (also bridwelli from Alberta and distinctus from Norway), variation in antennal and fore wing colour is readily observed ( Figs 36–38 ). It seems that kwanzanensis and the six synonyms indicated represent a single common species that is widely distributed in mountain areas of China and Japan. Although kwanzanensis usually can be distinguished from bridwelli and distinctus by the characters given in the key above, there is still some overlap among these characters, with bridwelli occasionally having paler tibiae. Similarly, although bridwelli always has short ocellar setae III, individuals within a population from Québec were noted to have quite long ocellar setae III, especially the males. Therefore, there remains a possibility that the three names retained in the key above might represent a single widespread and variable species.

Material examined: CHINA, Shaanxi, Mt. Taibai , 1 female, 1 male from grass, 15.vii.2002 (G.L. Zhang) ; Sichuan, Pingwu, Baimaxiang, Wanglang National Nature Reserve (32°26’N, 104°22’E), 3 females from Paeonia , 1.viii.2016 (B.Q. Pan) ( SCAU) ; Laohegou Nature Reserve (32°31’N, 104°41’E), 1 male from grass, 7.v.2013 (C. Zhao) ; Chongqing, Wushan, Liziping , alt. 1800m, 1 female, 19.v.1994 (J. Yao) ; Hubei, Shennongjia National Na- ture Reserve (31º29’ N, 110º18’E), alt. 2200m, 2 females, 1 male from grass, 15.vii.1987 (S.P. Shen); 1 female from Spiraea , 28.vii.2014 (X.L. Tong) ; Hunan, Liuyang, Daweishan, Qixingling scenic region (28°26’N, 114°09’E), alt. 1500m, 1 male from Lophatherum , 16.viii.2016 (Z.H. Wang) ; Guizhou, Zunyi , 2 females from Galium flower ( Rubiaceae ), 29.iv.2009 (H. R. Zhang); Taiwan, 1 female, vi.1936 (Takahashi); 1 female from Nantou, Tianchi, viii.1992 (C.L.Wang) . JAPAN, Nagano Pref., Jiigatake , 1 female, 13.viii.1973 (K. Haga) .

Figures

FIGURES 2–15. Characters on head & pronotum. 2–9 Head: (2) C. kwanzanensis; (3) C. distinctus; (4) C. parisae; (5) C. transeolineae; (6) V. smilax; (7) V. dissimilis; (8) H. aino; (9) Ta. damansarae. 10–15 Head and pronotum: (10) Ay. chaetophora; (11) Ta. eucharii; (12) Te. frici; (13) C. bridwelli; (14) V. shennongjiaensis; (15) C. transeolineae.

FIGURES 32–38. Antennae: (32) H. aino; (33) Sc. cardamomi; (34) C. transeolineae; (35) male of V. smilax; (36) C. kwanzanensis segments III–VI; (37) C. kwanzanensis segments III–V; (38) C. kwanzanensis.

FIGURES 39–52. Characters on abdomen. 39–40 Tergites: (39) Ta. orionis tergites III–IV; (40) Ta. eucharii tergites IV–VI; (41) V. shennongjiaensis tergite VIII; (42) Te. frici tergites VI–X; (43) C. kwanzanensis tergites V–VII; (44) C. distinctus VII–IX. 45–46 Male sternites: (45) C. parisae; (46) V. shennongjiaensis. 47–49 Male tergites IX: (47) C. kwanzanensis; (48) C. parisae; (49) C. transeolineae. 50–52 Sternites: (50) C. bridwelli; (51) Ta. picipes; (52) V. shennongjiaensis.

FIGURES 53–62. Ctenothrips. (53) bridwelli (Holotype of frosti). 54–59 kwanzanensis: (54) paratype female of taibaishanensis; (55) paratype male of taibaishanensis; (56) paratype of leionotus; (57) paratype of cornipennis; (58) paratype of guizhouensis; (59) paratype of nonnae. (60) transeolineae. 61–62 parisae: (61) female; (62) male.