Cassida cincta Fabricius, 1781

Sekerka, Lukáš & Barclay, Maxwell V. L., 2014, Fabrician types of Cassidinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) deposited in the Natural History Museum, London, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 54 (2), pp. 657-684 : 660-661

Cassida cincta Fabricius, 1781

( Figs 4–6 )

Cassida cincta Fabricius, 1781: 109 (junior primary homonym of Cassida cincta DeGeer, 1774 ).

Type locality. ‘Africa aequinoctiali’ [= equatorial Africa].

Type material examined. LECTOTYPE (here designated): ♀, pinned, ‘ Cassida cincta | Fabr. Spec. 109. n. 9. [w, hw, s, bf]’ ( BMNH). The specimen is provided with an additional label: ‘LECTOTYPUS | Cassida | cincta | Fabricius, 1781 | L. Sekerka & | M.V.L. Barclay des. 2014 [r, p, cb]’.

Status in ZIMSEN (1964). P. 89; No. 1295. ‘London, 1 specimen (Kiel 1 specimen)’.

Original description. ‘C. thorace elytrisque obscuris, margine flavescente, elytris ante marginem macula albo hyalina. Habitat in Africa aequinoctiali. Mus. Dom. Banks.

Statura omnino C. interruptae. Thorax rotundatus, integer obscurus margine flavescente. Elytra obscura margine flavo et ante marginem macula magna albo hyalina.

Variat rarius macula magna marginis ad basin et ante apicem.’ ( FABRICIUS 1781).

Current status. New senior synonym of Aspidimorpha isparetta Boheman, 1854 .

Remarks. BOHEMAN (1854) transferred this species to Aspidimorpha Hope, 1840 and placed C. quadriremis Gyllenhal, 1808 as its synonym. BOROWIEC (1999) used A. quadriremis as the valid name on the grounds that Cassida cincta Fabricius, 1781 was a junior homonym of C. cincta De Geer, 1775 , and thus C. quadriremis was the next available synonym. However, this synonymy was based on a specimen of A. quadriremis housed in the NHRS which is not actually a type specimen. SEKERKA (2008) found that the true type of A. quadriremis is located in the Uppsala Museum where Gyllenhal’s collection is housed and that the specimen was conspeci¿c with A. tecta Boheman, 1854 . However because of the homonymy, SEKERKA (2008) proposed a new substitute name A. fabricii Sekerka, 2008 for C. cincta Fabricius not De Geer, 1775 and synonymized A. tecta with A. quadriremis .

FABRICIUS (1781) apparently based this species on more than one specimen, as he mentioned that the typical form was uniformly yellow with just the explanate margin of elytra with a hyaline spot, and mentioned a rare variety with large basal and postero-lateral spots on the explanate margin of elytra.

ZIMSEN (1964) mentioned one specimen in BMNH and one in JFUK (the latter placed in parentheses, suggesting it was possibly not mentioned in the original description). Both specimens have basal and postero-lateral spots on the explanate margin of elytra but each belongs to a different species. The JFUK specimen is in accordance with the widely applied concept of A. cincta (= A. fabricii ), but does not agree with the original description of A. cincta as it does not have a large hyaline spot in the middle of the explanate margin of each elytron (this character is completely absent in this taxon). The BMNH specimen agrees with the original description as it has the hyaline spot. However, it is conspeci¿c with A. isparetta Boheman, 1854 . The latter is a widespread and very abundant species in Africa, displaying great variability in dorsal pattern (see BOROWIEC 1997), however, nearly all specimens have more or less distinct hyaline spot on the explanate margin of elytra. The identi¿cation of some populations is complicated, but fortunately the BMNH specimen is a female possessing densely pubescent apex of the elytral epipleura, another typical character for A. isparetta which is present only in females.

We concur with ZIMSEN (1964) that Fabricius did not use the JFUK specimen in the description of C. cincta as it is very different from the BMNH one (pattern, convexity of elytra, body size, and general shape) and does not agree with the original description. Most likely Fabricius obtained the specimen later and included it under this species, however, it is also questionable whether this particular specimen was included in original Fabrician collection under C. cincta , because the collection was largely disorganized ( ZIMSEN 1964). We were unable to trace any other specimen(s) which might belong to the original type series of C. cincta , so the BMNH specimen is the only one known to survive. The genus Aspidimorpha is rather complicated regarding its taxonomy and species identi¿cation, therefore we designate the BMNH specimen as the lectotype to avoid any further misapplications.

As we stated above, true C. cincta is conspeci¿c with A. isparetta , so the two species need to be synonymized. However, because C. cincta Fabricius is a junior homonym of C. cincta De Geer, 1775 , the name A. isparetta is the oldest available name for this species (see ICZN 1999: Article 60.2), and the recently proposed replacement name for C. cincta Fabricius , A. fabricii Sekerka , becomes its junior synonym. Due to the new synonymy, the species presently referred to as A. fabricii / A. cincta is without a name, and thus is here described as new species, Aspidimorpha innominata Sekerka sp. nov. (see p. 678).

Figures

Figs 1–6. 1–3 – Cassida bidens Fabricius, 1781, syntype; 4–6 – C. cincta Fabricius, 1781, lectotype. (1, 4 – habitus dorsal; 2, 5 – habitus lateral; 3, 6 – labels).