Glenopopillia rufipennis nigropicta Zorn & Lu, 2018

Lu, Yuan Yuan, Zorn, Carsten, Král, David, Bai, Ming & Yang, Xing Ke, 2018, Taxonomic revision of the genus Glenopopillia (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae (Acta. Ent. Mus. Natl. Pragae) 58 (2), pp. 297-320 : 316-317

Glenopopillia rufipennis nigropicta Zorn & Lu , subsp. nov.

( Figs 3E,K ; 4E,K,Q ; 5E,K,Q )

Type locality. Laos,Attapeau Province, Dong Ampham National Biodiversity Conservation Area, Nong Fa (crater lake) enviroment, 15°05.9ʹN 107°25.6ʹE, 1160 m a.s.l.

Type material (2 spec.). HOLOTYPE: ♂ ( IRSB),‘Coll.I.R.Sc.N.B.| LAOS, Attapeau Prov.| Annam Highlands Mts.Dong | Amphan NBCA , ca 1160m NONG | FA (crater lake) env. | 15°05.9’N, 107°25.6’E | 30-IV-6-V-2010 | Lgt. St Jakl / I.G.31.970 [p]’. PARATYPE: 1 ♀ ( IRSB), ‘Coll. I.R.Sc.N.B. | LAOS, Attapeau Prov. | Annam Highlands Mts. Dong | Amphan NBCA, ca 1160m NONG | FA (crater lake) env.| 15°05.9’N, 107°25.6’E | 30-IV-6-V-2010 | Lgt. St Jakl / I.G.31.970 [p]’.

Description of holotype (♂). Body shape. Elongate ovoid, weakly convex.

Color. Ground color blackish-brown with strong green to red metallic luster; legs dark orange except for mesoand metatarsus, meso- and metafemur, and apical part of metatibia being dark brown with green metallic luster; clypeus and antenna light brown; elytra light brown with weak metallic sheen in anterior half to two thirds; a humeral spot, anterior margin, inner half of sutural interval, lateral margin and posterior third of elytra black; black color enclosing a transverse yellow/light brown spot near lateral margin as well as a subapical subquadrate yellow/ light brown spot spanning costal interval 1 to 2; another yellow elongate spot in subsutural interstice posteriorly of scutellum.

Head. Clypeus subrectangular, disc very densely, transversely, confluently punctate; anterior corners rounded; anterior margin weakly reflexed; frons very shallowly impressed, punctate like clypeus, with punctures less confluent at middle; vertex very sparsely and finely punctate; ratio of interocular width/width of head approximately 0.65; antennal club longer than antennomeres 2–6 combined.

Pronotum approximately 1.4 times wider than long, with two deep, oblique impressions on each side (posterior impression larger than anterior) and deep median longitudinal furrow; with steep decline along lateral margin; disc extremely finely and sparsely punctate, punctures becoming gradually larger laterally; sparse erect setae present near anterior angles and along lateral margin; anterior angles acute and strongly produced; posterior angles obtuse; sides of pronotum weakly converging anteriad in posterior two thirds, then strongly curved, strongly converging, and slightly sinuate in anterior third; basal marginal line interrupted before scutellum between third costal interval on each side; all other marginal lines complete.

Scutellum nearly semicircular, broader than long, finely and sparsely punctate.

Elytra regularly striate; three inner costal intervals (1, 2 and 3) slightly more convex than interstices; subsutural interstice with secondary stria being irregularly doubled anteriorly and almost reaching posterior elytral margin; distinct but discontinuous secondary striae also present on interstices 2 and 3; elytral surface with sparse micropunctation; humeral umbone and apical protuberance very prominent; opaque area at apical curvature broad, including interstice 4 laterally; lateral margin with wide flat paramarginal extension between humerus and middle of elytra; epipleuron broad near humerus, ending slightly posteriorly of elytral midlength; epipleuron with numerous soft short white setae near humerus and stout spiniform black setae beginning posteriorly of humerus and extending along lateral margin to apical curvature (becoming gradually larger apicad); one or two large spiniform setae present near apico-sutural angle; posterior margin evenly, separately rounded.

Propygidium with dense fringe of white setae along posterior margin covering approximately 1/3 of propygidial length. Pygidium strongly convex; apex broadly rounded; punctation transverse and rather sparse on disc (except across vague midline near apex), transforming into concentrically arranged dense striolation at sides and base; with scattered white setae near base and in an indistinct depression at lateral margin; apex with several long, erect brownish setae.

Ventral thoracic surface densely covered with soft, long, white setae.

Meso-metaventral process short, compressed between mesocoxae, projecting slightly downward in lateral view, anteriorly vertical and straight; apex subrectangular, somewhat rounded; bulbiform in ventral view.

Abdominal ventrites with a transverse band of dense, long, white setae on posterior half (broadly interrupted in middle) and irregular white setae on each side of anterior half of ventrites 2–4; ventrites 1–2 and anterior half of ventrite 3 carinate laterally.

Legs. Meso- and metafemur with two bands of long white setae, one along anterior margin, the second emerging from a transverse row of punctures parallel to posterior margin. Protibia bidentate, broadened, approximately 3.75 times longer than wide; proximal tooth short, situated close to the rather short, curved apical tooth; inner spur short, at level of proximal tooth. Metatibia fusiform; protarsus slender; protarsomere 5 (without claws) slightly longer than tarsomeres 1–4 combined; inner protarsal claw approximately 3/4 as long as protarsomere 5, deeply incised apically, upper branch spiniform, lower branch broad, obliquely truncated; outer mesotarsal claw approximately as long as combined length of mesotarsomeres 1–4, curved, deeply incised at apex, upper branch spiniform; metatarsal claws very unequal, outer claw approximately twice as thick and 1/3 longer than inner.

Aedeagus as in Figs 5E,K,Q .

Female. Protibia slender, apical tooth of protibia long and spatulate; protarsus articulated slightly basally of level of proximal tooth; inner spur long, articulated between 1/2 and 2/3 of tibial length; protarsus very slender, protarsomere 5 (without claws) shorter than tarsomeres 1–4 combined; modified claws of pro- and mesotarsi shorter, two apical branches more equal than in males; antennal club as long as antennomeres 2–6 combined.

Measurements. Total body length 10.3–10.8 mm (HT 10.3 mm), total body width 6.0– 6.2 mm (HT 6.0 mm).

Morphological variation. The extent of the black and yellow elytral markings does not differ significantly between the two known specimens.

Differential diagnosis. Glenopopillia rufipennis nigropicta subsp. nov. differs from the nominotypical subspecies in the following characters: large areas of elytra black laterally and posteriorly (light brown in G. r. rufipennis ), body size smaller than majority of specimens of the nominotypical form, setae at lateral margin of elytra less stout and less numerous, starting near the middle of elytra (starting near humerus in G. r. rufipennis ), opaque area on apical curvature of elytra weakly expressed, indistinct at apicosutural angle and laterally extending only to interstice 5 (broad in G. r. rufipennis , including interstice 4 laterally, including apico-sutural angle).

Etymology. The specific epithet (adjective in the nominative singular) translates as ‘black-colored’ and alludes to the black coloration of the elytra.

Distribution. Laos (Attapeu).

Remarks. We decided to give this taxon subspecies status because there are substantial external morphological differences between the two available specimens from southern Laos and all examined specimens of the nominotypical subspecies (n = 52) from China and northern Laos, but there are virtually no differences in the shape and structure of the male genitalia ( Figs 5E,K,Q ). We found that all other species in this genus have a very low degree of variation in the external morphological characters, especially in color pattern (except for G. albopilosa sp. nov.). Therefore, we consider the observed external morphological differences between these two subspecies to be stable and realiable, even if only two specimens of the subspecies G. f. nigropicta subsp. nov. were available to us. Thus, these are allopatric, phenetically distinct populations that show no differences in the morphology of the male genitalia. These findings comply best with a relationship at subspecies level ( DE QUEIROZ 2007). To what extent there is reproductive isolation between the two populations, which are separated by approximately 500 km distance, remains uncertain. Further material is needed to verify the taxonomical status.

Figures

Fig 5.Aedeagus of Glenopopillia. A–F – dorsal view, G–L – ventral view, M–R – right lateral view.A, G, M – G. forceps sp. nov. (HT); B, H, N – G. maculata Lin, 1980 (Vietnam, Bắc Giang Prov.); C, I, O – G. mengi sp. nov. (HT); D, J, P – G. rufipennis rufipennis Lin, 1980 (Laos, Houaphanh Prov.). E, K, Q – G. r. nigropicta subsp. nov. (HT); F, L, R – G. skalei sp. nov. (HT). Sc 1: Scale for A–R, except D, J, P = 1 mm; Sc 2: Scale for D, J, P = 1 mm.

Fig. 3. Habitus of Glenopopillia. A–F – dorsal view, G–L – lateral view.A, G – G. forceps sp. nov. (HT); B, H – G. maculata Lin, 1980 (Vietnam, Bắc Giang Prov.), C, I – G. mengi sp. nov. (HT); D, J – G. rufipennis rufipennis Lin, 1980 (Laos, Houaphanh Prov.); E, K – G. r. nigropicta subsp. nov. (HT); F, L – G. skalei sp. nov. (HT). Scale = 5 mm.

Fig. 4. Details of Glenopopillia. A–F – habitus, ventral view; G–L – head; M–R – propygidium and pygidium.A, G, M – G. forceps sp. nov. (HT); B, H, N – G. maculata Lin, 1980 (Vietnam, Bắc Giang Prov.); C, I, O – G. mengi sp. nov. (HT); D, J, P – G. rufipennis rufipennis Lin, 1980 (Laos, Houaphanh Prov.); E, K, Q – G. r. nigropicta subsp. nov. (HT); F, L, R – G. skalei sp. nov. (HT). Not to scale.