Catoplatus immarginatus Golub, 1974

Golub, Victor B., Luo, Zhaohui & Vinokurov, Nikolai N., 2012, Studies of True Bugs of Xinjiang, Western China. II. Cimicomorpha: Lace Bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Tingidae: Tinginae), Zootaxa 3580, pp. 69-82 : 70-71

Catoplatus immarginatus Golub, 1974

Distributed in Central Asia: known from Southern Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan ( Péricart & Golub, 1996). First record for China.

Material examined. 1 3, 4 Ƥ, Changji, Dongwugong, 31.V.1989 (Wang M.). Note. Record Catoplatus citrinus Horváth, 1897 from Xinjiang ( Qi & Zhou, 1994) should be referred to C. immarginatus as shown by the study of listed material.

Notes to diagnosis of Catoplatus Spinola, 1837 distributed in Central Asia and Southern Kazakhstan. Five species of the genus Catoplathus Spinola distributed in Central Asia and southern Kazakhstan (but not in northern Kazakhstan) represent a group which as a whole is enough precisely identified. Species of this group are characterized by a very narrow costal area (flattened lateral hemelytral margin) with a number of very small or extremely small and not always distinct areolae. In some species the costal area for most of the hemelytral length, except the base and apex, is non-existent, and the margin of hemelytron is limited by only a convex vein. Paranota (flattened areolate lateral margins) are curved upward and pressed to the pronotal disc along of their entire length. The antennae are blond, except segment IV is brownish; the base of segment III slightly thinner than the eye width at least. Legs light, except the yellow, reddish or slightly brownish apices of tarsi.

All species of this group are very similar morphologically to each other, and are difficult to identify. A key for determination of Central Asian species based on the collections of ZISP is provided below. More detailed differences of Central Asian species C. josifovi Golub, 2007 and C. guentheri Golub, 2008 from closely related species were given in the original descriptions of these species ( Golub, 2007, 2008). We have not included C. disparis Drake et Maa, 1954 in the list of species and the key, because it has not been investigated by us and is known by the holotype only.