Diplocheila (Diplocheila) laevigata (Bates, 1892)

Allegro, Gianni & Giachino, Pier Mauro, 2021, The genus Diplocheila Brulle, 1834 in Cambodia, with descriptions of two new species (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Licinini), ZooKeys 1044, pp. 427-448 : 427

publication ID	https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1044.60072
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9AA72654-B6CC-4081-B557-CD0BAE3939A3
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/382C4F21-4C4D-5D4F-801E-642E5B814422
treatment provided by	ZooKeys by Pensoft
scientific name	Diplocheila (Diplocheila) laevigata (Bates, 1892)
status

Treatment

Diplocheila (Diplocheila) laevigata (Bates, 1892) Figures 2 View Figure 2 , 6 View Figures 6–11 , 8 View Figures 6–11 , 12 View Figures 12–17 , 14 View Figures 12–17 , 18 View Figures 18–19 , 20 View Figures 20–25 , 26 View Figures 26–32 , 27 View Figures 26–32

Rembus politus MacLeay 1825: 16

Rembus politus MacLeay, 1825: Redtenbacher 1867: 10

Rhembus laevigatus Bates 1892: 326

Eccoptogenius moestus Bates 1889: 267

Eccoptogenius moestus Bates, 1889: Andrewes 1921: 176

Diplochila laevigata (Bates, 1892): Andrewes 1921: 177

Diplochila laevigata (Bates, 1892): Andrewes 1922: 282

Diplocheila laevigata (Bates, 1892): Andrewes 1930: 149

Diplocheila laevigata (Bates, 1892): Habu 1956: 55

Diplocheila laevigata (Bates, 1892): Ball 1959: 35

Diplocheila laevigata (Bates, 1892): Lorenz 2005a: 342

Diplocheila laevigata (Bates, 1892): Lorenz 2005b: 571

Diplocheila laevigata (Bates, 1892): Lafer and Kataev 2008: 682

Diplocheila laevigata (Bates, 1892): Huber and Marggi 2017: 626

Type locality.

Kawkareet in Tenasserim (Myanmar).

Material examined.

Myanmar: HT ♂, Kawkareet in Tenasserim, Gen. Febbr. 1887, Fea legit (MCSNG) (figs 2, 6, 12, 26) . Cambodia: 3 ♂♂ 2 ♀♀ Kampong Chhnang, banks of Tonle Sap Lake , 17.V.2019, W. Rossi and V. Kong leg. (CAl, CGi) ; 1 ♂ Kampong Chhnang, Rolea B’ier District, Toekchenh Village , 18.V.2019, W. Rossi and V. Kong leg. (CAl) ; 1 ♂, Khsam , Kampong Chhnang, 12°16'47"N, 104°39'28.6"E, 29.XI-3.XII.2019, light trap, W. Rossi and V. Kong leg. (CAl) GoogleMaps .

Diagnosis.

Diplocheila laevigata may be distinguished by the combination of the following characters. ABL = 14-16 mm; head with 1 supraorbital setiferous pore on each side; labrum with 6 setae (4 medial + 2 lateral), symmetrical and moderately emarginate (LR = 0.63-0.65) (Figs 12 View Figures 12–17 , 14 View Figures 12–17 ); anterior margin of clypeus hardly concave (Fig. 12 View Figures 12–17 ); pronotum transverse (PW/PL = 1.29-1.31), with sides delicately sinuate backwards (Fig. 6 View Figures 6–11 ); elytral striae distinctly punctate; apical lamella of the median lobe of aedeagus in dorsal view shortly triangular, with blunt apex (Figs 20 View Figures 20–25 , 26 View Figures 26–32 ).

Remarks.

Diplocheila laevigata is recorded from southern China, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia ( Andrewes 1922; Ball 1959; Lafer and Kataev 2008). Unfortunately, the male HT in the Fea Collection at MCSNG is an immature specimen (Fig. 2 View Figure 2 ) with a scarcely chitinized aedeagus (Fig. 26 View Figures 26–32 ); however, its examination, made possible thanks to the courtesy of the Honorary Curator Roberto Poggi, revealed that it was conspecific with the specimens from Cambodia (Figs 8 View Figures 6–11 , 14 View Figures 12–17 , 27 View Figures 26–32 ). An aedeagus of D. laevigata , substantially corresponding to the HT, is also illustrated by Lafer and Kataev (2008).

Two specimens from Thailand deposited in CGi (2 ♂♂, Chiang Mai, 6.V.1988, R. Sciaky det.; Figs 9 View Figures 6–11 , 15 View Figures 12–17 ) show a similar aedeagal morphology but pronotum and labrum are differently shaped compared to the HT and to the specimens from Cambodia; they could belong to a new species, but it is not described here, awaiting more abundant material. A further specimen from Thailand deposited at BMNH (1 ♀, Bangkok, Larnaudie leg., H.E. Andrewes Coll.) probably belongs to a different, new species.

A male specimen from Indonesia deposited at BMNH (1 ♂, Indes Neerl., Boucard leg., H.E. Andrewes Coll.) differs from the D. laevigata HT not only in external morphology, but also in the shape of the aedeagus (although this is damaged, the apical lamella appears to be clearly different); its external morphology does not match D. laevigotoides HT either, in spite of the opinion of Lafer and Kataev (2008) that the records of D. laevigata from Indonesia, together with those from Japan and the Philippines, are probably instead D. laevigotoides . Therefore, this specimen also likely belongs to a new species, awaiting description when more abundant material becomes available.