Thopeutica (s.str.) angulihumerosa (W. Horn, 1929 ), 1997

Anichtchenko, Alexander & Medina, Milton Norman, 2020, Contribution to the knowledge of three species of the genus Thopeutica Schaum, 1861 from the Philippines (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Cicindelinae), Zootaxa 4748 (2), pp. 389-395 : 390-391

Thopeutica (s.str.) angulihumerosa (W. Horn, 1929)

( Figs. 1–2 )

= Cicindela angulihumerosa W. Horn, 1929

= Thopeutica (s.str.) juergenwiesneri Schüle, 2017 syn. nov.

Type material. Paralectotype, male—“Ins. Philipp. [hand-written] coll. Ehlers V. de Poll [typed]” [white label], “ Type W. Horn ” [typed, white label], “ Syntypus ” [red label], “ DEI sub angulihum.” [typed, white label], “PARA- LECTOTYPUS Thopeutica (s. str.) angulihumerosa (W. Horn, 1929) Des. F. Cassola, 1997 ” [typed, red label], “ DEI Müncheberg Col—12139” [green label] ( SDEI) . Paralectotypes: female—same labels, but “ DEI Müncheberg Col—12140” [green label] ( SDEI); female—“Island Samar Baker”[typed, white label], “ Type W. Horn ” [typed, white label], “Mus. Washington” [handwritten], “ Coll. W. Horn DEI Eberswalde” [typed, white label], “ Syntypus ” [red label], “ anguli-humerosa W.H.” [hand-written], “ PARALECTOTYPUS Thopeutica (s. str.) angulihumerosa (W. Horn, 1929) Des. F. Cassola, 1997 ” [red label], “ DEI Müncheberg Col—12138” [green label] ( SDEI) .

Additional material: “ Samar, Eastern Visayas, Lope de Vega , III.2017 ” (1 female in cRS) ; idem, but V.2016 (2 males, 2 females in cRS) ; idem, but VI.2016 (1 male, 1 female in cRS) ; idem, but II.2018 (1 male in cRS) ; idem, but XI.2018 (1 male in cRS) .

Species was described by W. Horn (1929) based on the specimens collected by Baker in Samar Island. The story with the allocation of types was carefully studied and described in detail by Cassola and Ward (2004). Recently a closely related species, T. juergenwiesneri , was described by Peter Schüle (2017), from Samar island on a single specimen (Holotype, male: „ PHILIPPINES, Samar \ Central Visayas, Lope de Vega\ July 2016 \ local collector”). In differencial diagnosis was indicated that new species is similar to T. angulihumerosa in body size and elytral pattern, with humeral macula ochre and ivory-white dorsal maculae, but easily distinguished by the much longer antennae in male which is surpassing the basal half in T. angulihumerosa (Cassola & Ward 2004) but reaching the apical fourth in T. juergenwiesneri n. sp., and differently shaped aedeagus which is broader in lateral view, and with apex straighter in T. juergenwiesneri n. sp. ”. We examined paralectotypes of T. angulihumerosa (one male and two females) stored in the SDEI Museum. After careful examination, we came to the conclusion that the mentioned distinguishing feature of the length of the antennae is erroneous ( Figs. 3–4 ). Length of antennae is identical in both species. We noticed slight differences in the shape of apex of the aedeagus between the single known specimen of T. juergenwiesneri , and a paralectotype of T. angulihumerosa . However, these differences are weaker than indicated in the description (Figs. 7–9). Both species were described from Samar, and the coloration of body and legs are identical. Hence, the new synonymy T. (s.str.) juergenwiesneri Schüle, 2017 syn. nov. = T. (s.str.) angulihumerosa (W. Horn, 1929) is hereby proposed.

Comments. We would like to draw attention on the structure of the labrum. This trait is traditionally used in the taxonomy of Cicindelinae , and often used as one of the main traits in distinguishing between species. However, many species exhibit strong variability in its structure. The number of setae, the shape of the anterior margin, and even the number of teeth can vary. This was found by us, for example, in species of genera Thopeutica and Therates Latreille, 1816 . The value of this feature is clearly overestimated and it should be used with caution. Following the tradition, we provided description of the structure of the labrum ( Figs. 10–12 ), however, we emphasized that its shape varies in the males and females in both species ( T. angulihumerosa and T. wiesneri sp. nov.).

Thopeutica angulihumerosa was cited by Cassola and Ward (2004) from Samar, Mindanao and Leyte. This data was later included in the checklist of Tiger beetles of the Philippines ( Cabras et al. 2016). The following material used by Cassola and Ward (2004) requires re-verification of determination: “Philippine Is., Mindanao, Davao Pr., Todaya, June 3,1974, Fr. E. Schoenig” (1 fem., CMNH). “Boston, Mt. Agtuuganon, Camp 55, 29.V–7.VI. 1996, 1020 m, light trap, R.A. Müller, A. Buenafe & L. Gorostica” (2 fem., RMNH), and Leyte: “ 8 km N Baybay, ViSCA, Pacubasan River, Bato, 150 m,77–19.Y.1.994, P. Schütz” (1 male, AOC). The presence of this species in Mindanao and Leyte remains questionable. Most likely, that quotation from Mindanao correspond to the newly described species.

Figures

FIGURES 1–2. Habitus of paralectotypes of Thopeutica (s.str.) angulihumerosa: 1—male; 2—female.

FIGURES 3–4. Comparative length of antennae of males of Thopeutica spp.: 3—holotype of T. (s.str.) juergenwiesneri syn.

FIGURES 10–12. Labrum of Thopeutica spp. (a—males, b—females): 10—paralectotype of T. (s.str.) angulihumerosa; 11— holotype of T. (s.str.) juergenwiesneri syn. nov.; 12—holotype and paratype of T. (s.str.) wiesneri sp. nov.