Chaetocnema (Udorpes) bella ( Baly, 1876 )

Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 135-138

55. Chaetocnema (Udorpes) bella ( Baly, 1876)

( Figs. 77 , 78 )

Plectroscelis bella Baly, 1876: 595 . TL: China, Xinjiang. TD: BMNH.

Chaetocnema placida Jacoby, 1896: 441 . TL: Sumatra. TD: BMNH. (Syn. Nov.).

Chaetocnema bella: Chen, 1934: 245 , 247.

Chaetocnema formosensis Chûjô, 1935: 471 . TL: Taiwan. TD: TARI. Synonymized by Kimoto, 2000: 214.

Chaetocnema shanensis Bryant, 1939: 16 . TL: Myanmar. TD: one Syntype in BMNH. (Syn. Nov.)

Chaetocnema nepalensis Scherer, 1969: 158 . TL: Nepal, Kathmandu. TD: NHMB. (Syn. Nov.)

Distribution: China (Xinjiang, Zhejiang, Hubei, Jiangxi, Fujian, Taiwan, Hainan, Guangxi, Sichuan, Yunnan, Tibet), Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Indonesia (Sumatra) (Jacoby, 1896), Philippines; Palearctic Region: Japan (Ryukyu Is.), Pakistan ( Döberl, 2010).

Host plants: Raphanus sativus L. ( Yu et al., 1996); Cyperus sp. ( Cyperaceae ) (label data).

Description: Body length 2.00– 2.30 mm, body width 1.20–1.30 mm. Ratio of elytron length at suture to maximum width: 2.31–2.39. Ratio of pronotum width at base to length at middle: 1.45–1.60. Ratio of length of elytron at suture to length of pronotum at middle: 2.60–2.66. Ratio of width of both elytra at base to width of pronotum at base: 1.15–1.17. Ratio of maximum width of both elytra to maximum width of pronotum: 1.42–1.44. Ratio of length of antenna to length of body: 1.53–1.54.

Dorsum metallic blue (occasionally coppery, bronzy or metallic purple). Antennomeres 1–4 completely yellow, 5–11 brown, apical ones being darkened. Tibiae yellow. Pro- and mesofemur yellow; metafemur light brown to brown, usually with light metallic luster.

Head hypognathous. Frontal ridge wide and flat. Ratio of width of frontal ridge between outer ridge of antennal sockets to width of antennal socket (including surrounding ridge): 2.5–2.7. Frontolateral sulcus absent. Suprafrontal sulcus deep with a pit in middle. Frons evenly covered with large and closely placed punctures and relatively short, white setae. Vertex flat, situated on same level as orbit. Vertex densely and evenly covered with small punctures.

Base of pronotum without short longitudinal impressions. Pronotal base evenly convex. Deep, transverse row of large punctures at base of pronotum absent. Area adjacent to mid-basal margin of pronotum covered with punctures. Anterolateral prothoracic callosity protruding laterally. Lateral margins of pronotum almost straight, or slightly rounded, with maximum width near middle. Posterolateral prothoracic callosity projecting up to lateral margin of pronotum. Diameter of pronotal punctures 2–4 times less than distance between punctures.

Humeral callus well-developed. Elytra with convex lateral sides. Scutellar row of elytral punctures paired and confused. Second to eleventh rows of punctures at base of elytron regular.

First protarsomere slightly larger in male. First male protarsomere length to width ratio: 1.85–1.89. Excavation on metatibia moderately deep. Large lateral denticle on metatibia obtuse. Metatibial serration proximal to large lateral denticle absent.

Aedeagus parallel-sided. Apex of aedeagus in ventral view narrowing abruptly. Ventral longitudinal groove of aedeagus poorly developed, shallow, apically much wider than basally. Ventral longitudinal ridge in middle of aedeagus absent. Apical denticle of aedeagus in ventral view well-differentiated, wide, truncate apically; slightly curved dorsally in lateral view. Minute, transverse wrinkles absent on ventral side of aedeagus. Aedeagus in lateral view evenly curved.

Spermathecal pump much shorter than receptacle, with apex flattened. Spermathecal receptacle sinuated. Maxi- mum width of receptacle situated at middle. Receptacle basally as wide as apically. Posterior sclerotization of tignum spatulate, wider than midsection. Midsection of tignum nearly straight. Anterior sclerotization of tignum wider than midsection. Vaginal palpus slightly narrowing from base till apex, thence approximately parallel-sided. Anterior sclerotization of vaginal palpus slightly widening anteriorly. Posterior sclerotization longer than wide. Posterior sclerotization wider than anterior.

Types: Chaetocnema bell a ( Baly, 1876): Lectotype, 1 female (BMNH), labels: 1) [reverse side of specimen card: China, Lewis], 2) Type, H.T., 3) Baly Coll., 4) Plectroscelis bella Baly , China, [back–side of label has notes, illegible: 595, Type], 5) C. bella Baly , BM, 6) Chaetocnema bella Baly , HT, BM. No. 77, 7) Konstantinov; 8) Lectotype Chaetocnema bella Baly des. A. S. Konstantinov et al. 2009. Paralectotype (1 female, BMNH): 1) [Reverse side of specimen card] China, Leine[?illegible], 2) Baly Coll., 3) Paralectotype Chaetocnema bella (Baly) des. A.S. Konstantinov 2009.

Chaetocnema formosensis Chûjô, 1935 : Cotype (1 specimen, TARI), labels: 1) Cotype; 2) 20. IV. 1910, Gokinjô, Col. I. NITOBE; 3) Chaetocnema formosensis Chûjô , DET. M. CHÛJÔ.

Chaetocnema nepalensis Scherer, 1969 : Holotype (1♂, NHMB) labels: 1) Nepal, Katmandu , 1326 m, VII.1961, leg. G. Scherer; 2) 1♂; 3) Chaetocnema nepalensis sp. nov. det. Dr. G. Scherer 1965.

Chaetocnema placida Jacoby : Syntype, 1 female (BMNH), labels: 1) Cotype; 2) Sumatra, Pea, Ragia, X.1890, E. Modigliani; 3) Museo, Civ., Genova; 4) Jacoby, Coll., 1909–28 a; 5) Chaetocnema placida Jac ; 6) Chaetocnema bella ( Baly, 1876) det. Yongying Ruan, 2016.

Chaetocnema shanensis Bryant, 1939 : Syntype: 1 female (BMNH), labels: 1) Paratype; 2) S. Shan States, Burma, 1500m, Taunggyi, 1.VIII–22.IX.34, Malaise; 3) N. E. Burma: R. Malaise, B.M. 1939–101; 4) Chaetocnema shanensis Bryant, Det. G. E. Bryant ; 5) Chaetocnema bella ( Baly, 1876) det. Yongying Ruan, 2016.

Two Paratypes of Chaetocnema klapperichi Lopatin, 1961 were also examined: 1♂, ( USNM), 1) O. Afghan. 1953, J. Klapperich, 2) Kunartal, 500 m, Jalalabad, 30.III., 3) Chaetocnema klapperichi m., I. Lopatin det., 1961, 4) blank red label ; 1♀ ( USNM), 1) O. Afghan. 1953, J. Klapperich, 2) Kunartal, 500 m, Jalalabad, 30.III., 3) Chaetocnema klapperichi m., I. Lopatin det., 1961, 4) Paratypus .

Material: 6♂ 12♀ ( IZCAS), China, Fujian, Huangkeng, Jianyang, alt. 950–1170m, 29.VI.1960, leg. Yong Zuo et al.; 6♂ 4♀, China, Fujian, Chong An, Xingcun, VI.1960, alt. 1170m, leg. Yong Zuo et al.; 1♂ ( IZCAS), China: Yunnan, Xishuanbanna, Xiaomenyang, alt. 850m, 26.III.1957, leg. Shuyong Wang; 3♂ 4♀ ( IZCAS), China, Zhejiang, Tianmu mountain, 29.VII.1998, leg. Hong Wu; 2♂ 4♀, China, Zhejiang, Tianmu mountain, 20.IX.1953; 1♀ ( IZCAS), China, Fujian, Nanping, 25.VII.1954; 1♀ ( IZCAS), China, Jiangxi, Chaetocnema cognate Baly ; 1♀ ( IZCAS), China, Jiangsu, Nanjing, 13.V.1926; 1♀ ( IZCAS), China, Fujian. 8.IX.1947; 1♀ ( IZCAS), China, Guangxi, Yaoshan, 1935; 1♀ ( IZCAS), China, Guangxi, Guilin, 30.VIII.1952; 4♂ 10♀ ( IZCAS), China, Sichuan; 1♀, China, Guangdong, Haian, 20.IV.1954, leg. Keren Huang; 1♀ ( IZCAS), China, Hainan, 25.IV.1954, leg. Keren Huang; 1♀ ( IZCAS), China, Yunnan, Kunming, alt. 1900m, 19.III.1955, leg. Buxike; 1♂ 2♀ ( IZCAS), China, Yunnan, Lushui, alt. 1670–1850m, 25.VI.1981, leg. Shuyong Wang, host plant: Cyperus sp.; 1♀ ( IZCAS), China, Yunnan, Jingping, Mengla, alt. 400m, 24.IV.1956, leg. Keren Huang; 1♂ ( IZCAS), China, Tibet, Motuo, Madi, alt. 1100m, 14.IX.1998, leg. Yao Jian, Chaetocnema bella Baly , det. Shuyong Wang; 1 ( USNM), Japan, RYUKYU IS. C. formosensis Chûjô, J.L.Gressitt det. 1963; 2♂ 3♀, Vietnam, Tonkin, Hoa–Binh, VIII.1940, leg. A de cooman; 1♀ ( USNM), Vietnam, Hanoi, Fields, garden, 28.IV.1975, L. Medvedev, Dang Dap; 2♂ ( BMNH), Thailand, Bankok, H. Hillman, B. M. 1928–366; 2 ( BMNH), Thailand, Nan Province, Lainan, 22–23.ix.2012, cabbage farm, 18.579°N, 100.757°E, LN3 Light trap, leg. D. L. J. Quicke, BMNH(E) 2015–75; 2 ( USNM), Myanmar, Mus. Pragense, Tenasserim, Coll. Helfer, bella Baly, I. Lopatin det.; 1♂ 3♀ ( USNM), Myanmar, Tenasserim, MUS. PRAGENSE, Coll. Helfer; 2♂ ( USNM), Myanmar, Tenasserim, MUS. PRAGENSE, Coll. Helfer, Chaetocnema bella det. I. Lopatin, 1961; 1♂ 1♀ ( USNM), Bhutan, Shemgang dist. 30 km S. Tingtinbi, 1513m, 13.IX.2005, leg. K. Mahat, P. Loday, A. Konstantinov & K. D. Prathapan; 1♂ 4♀ ( USNM), Bhutan, env. Punakha, N 27°36'35" E 89°52'43", 19.IX.2005, 1400m, Leg. K. Mahat, K. D. Prathapan; 2 ( BMNH), Nepal: 4500’, Kathmandu, British Embassy, 20.v.–23.vi.1983, At light, Chaetocnema sp. det. K. Nadein 2007, Chaetocnema bella ( Baly, 1876) , Det. Yongying Ruan, 2016; 1♀ ( USNM), India, Orissa Simlipal Hills, Meghasini Hill, II.1975, 3700’, mARY l. Ripley, Loan from USNMNH 2065634; 10♂ 24♀ ( USNM), India, Madhya Prad., Jabalpur, 20– 21.9.1968, K. E. Gibson, Loan from USNMNH 2065634; 1♂ 3♀ ( USNM), India: Hindon River, 4km.w.Ghaziabad 4.X.1985, Chaetocnema nepalensis , det. Döberl, 2001; 1 ( BMNH), India: Atkinson, Coll., 92–3, Calcutta, Chaetocnema bella Baly, 1877 , Det. Yongying Ruan, 2016; 1♂ ( USNM), Philippines: Dapitan, Mindanao, leg. Baker, 1927, C. F. Baker collection, Loan from USNMNH 2065634

Remarks: Study of the original descriptions and syntypes of Chaetocnema placida Jacoby and Chaetocnema shanensis Bryant revealed that they are conspecific with C. bella .

Two Paratypes of Chaetocnema klapperichi Lopatin, 1961 were also examined. Chaetocnema klapperichi is extremely close to C. bella , the only difference being the much weaker (almost obsolete) apical denticle of aedeagus in C. klapperichi (apical denticle of aedeagus is well developed in C. bella ).

Metallic color of dorsum in C. bella is highly variable from coppery, blue, bronzy or purple.

Figures

FIGURE 77. Chaetocnema bella. A Female habitus. B Pronotum. C Head, frontal view. D Aedeagus, ventral view. E Aedeagus, lateral view. F Apex of aedeagus, ventral view. G Vaginal palpi. H Spermatheca. I Pygidium (tergite 7) of female.

FIGURE 78. Chaetocnema bella. The specimens used in this figure are different from that used in Fig. 77; the two figures show variation in body color and shape of aedeagus; Fig 77 B and Fig. 78 B also show different shape of pronotum, but in fact, pronotal structure is rather stable in this species, the difference in the two figures is due to viewing the specimens from different angles. A Female habitus. B Pronotum. C Head, frontal view. D Aedeagus, ventral view. E Aedeagus, lateral view. F Apex of aedeagus, ventral view. G Vaginal palpi. H Spermatheca. I Tergite-8 of female. J Pygidium (Tergite-7) of female.