Meges Pascoe, 1866

Bi, Wen-Xuan, Chen, Chang-Chin & Lin, Mei-Ying, 2022, Taxonomic studies on the genera Meges Pascoe, 1866 and Pseudomeges Breuning 1944 from China (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae, Lamiini), Zootaxa 5120 (2), pp. 242-250 : 243-244

Meges Pascoe, 1866 stat. res.

Meges Pascoe, 1866: 272 . Type species: Monochamus gravidus Pascoe, 1858 , by monotypy.

Magninia Clermont, 1932: 215 . Type species: Magninia tonkinea Clermont, 1932 , by monotypy. Syn. nov.

Redescription. Body elongate and stout, medium to large (ca. 37–57 mm long). Head width subequal to pronotal width at base. Eyes coarsely faceted, emarginate; lower lobes vertical. Frons wider than long. Antennal tubercles moderately prominent and separated. Antennae ca. 1.7–2.0 times (in male) or 1.3–1.4 times (in female) as long as body length; scape with apical cicatrix developed; antennomere III longest, about twice as long as scape, distinctly longer than antennomere IV, antennomeres IV to X successively shorter and narrower, last antennomere slightly longer than penultimate; basal 6–7 antennomeres very sparsely fringed beneath. Both maxillary and labial terminal palpomeres fusiform. Pronotum transverse, cylindrical; each side with a long sharp lateral spine, thickened at base and curved backwards; disk weakly convex, with three indistinct calli arranged as inverted triangle; procoxal cavities closed posteriorly. Scutellum broadly rounded posteriorly. Elytra elongate, subparallel-sided in basal half, gradually convergent toward conjointly rounded apices with long sutural spine; disk provided with two more or less distinct longitudinal carinae. Mesocoxal cavities open to mesepimera. Legs moderately long, stout; protibia with a subapical tooth beneath (weak in females); mesotibia with a subapical oblique groove externally; tarsus four segmented; tarsal claws free, divaricate. Male endophallus with cs highly reduced or nearly absent; MPH long and slender, without significant swelling or protuberance; PB provided with sf and si; APH provided apically with a pair of rod-like sclerites associated with the paired ejaculatory ducts.

Distribution. China, Vietnam.

Remarks. The genus Meges was proposed by Pascoe (1866) for Monochamus gravidus Pascoe, 1858 . The genus Magninia Clermont, 1932 was established based on M. tonkinea Clermont, 1932 . Clermont (1932) differentiated this genus from Meges by “les deux sillons oculaires” (“the two eye furrows”, meaning uncertain) less oblique, the scutellum more widely rounded and frons with a pair of deep comma-shaped dimple anteriorly (=pretentorial pit). Breuning (1944) synonymized Meges Pascoe, 1866 with Monochamus Dejean, 1821 without providing any reason, but retained Magninia as valid. In his key, Breuning (1944) separated Magninia from Monochamus mainly by its elytra provided with humeral spines. However, based on the comparison of high-quality photographs of the type specimens of Monochamus gravidus and Magninia tonkinea , and the investigation of fresh material of both species, no significant difference can be found to support their generic separation, especially regarding the considerable similarities of their endophallic structures ( Figs. 5 , 6 ). Therefore, Magninia Clermont, 1932 is herein synonymized with Meges Pascoe, 1866 .

In addition, the genus Meges is proposed herein to be resurrected from synonymy with Monochamus Dejean, 1821 by combination of the following characters: body stout, antennae relatively short, pronotal lateral spines long and sharp, curved backwards, elytra carinated, elytral apices spined, protibia with a subapical tooth beneath, male endophallus with cs highly reduced or nearly absent, MPH without significant swelling or protuberance, PB provided with sf and si, and APH provided apically with a pair of rod-like sclerites associated with the ejaculatory ducts. While in M. sutor sutor (Linnaeus, 1758) , the type species of Monochamus , body relatively slender and antennae relatively long, pronotal lateral spines less acute apically and not curved, elytra without carinae, elytral apices rounded, protibia untoothed, male endophallus with cs well developed, MPH swollen near middle and apex, PB lacking sf and si, and APH provided with a single V-shaped sclerite.

Pascoe (1858) mentioned the similarities between his Monochamus gravidus and Hammaticherus marmoratus Westwood, 1848 (the type species of Pseudomeges Breuning, 1944 ). Based on the comparison of both type species in this study, the genus Meges can be distinguished from Pseudomeges by the antennal scape with the cicatrix more prominent and delimited by a distinct carina (“scape provided with a complete cicatrix” in Breuning 1943), elytral apices provided with long sutural spine, protibia with a subapical tooth beneath, male endophallus with the MPH relatively longer and slenderer.

Figures

FIGURES 1–5. Male habitus of Meges spp. and Pseudomeges spp. 1, Meges gravidus (Pascoe, 1858) from Hangzhou City, Zhejiang, China; 2, M. tonkineus (Clermont, 1932) from Ledong County, Hainan, China; 3, Pseudomeges marmoratus (Westwood, 1848) from Motuo County, Xizang, China; 4, P. aureus Bi, Chen & Lin sp. nov. from Pingbian County, Yunnan, China; 5 Pseudomeges varioti Le Moult, 1946 from Chiang Mai, Thailand.

FIGURES 6–7. Habitus and labels of the holotype of species. 6, Monohammus gravidus Pascoe, 1858; 7, Magninia tonkinea Clermont, 1932.