Coeliccia erici Laidlaw, 1917, 1932

Dow, Rory A., Choong, Chee Yen & Ng, Yong Foo, 2018, Re-description of Coeliccia erici Laidlaw, and the description of Coeliccia sameerae sp. nov. from Peninsular Malaysia (Odonata: Zygoptera: Platycnemididae), Zootaxa 4413 (2), pp. 351-367 : 353-358

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4413.2.7
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6D66A1B2-4017-44A2-B73A-5C3BF8A0C293
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5951385
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/066C87B0-FF8D-C36D-0FAF-FE5545781358
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Coeliccia erici Laidlaw, 1917
status

Treatment

Coeliccia erici Laidlaw, 1917 View in CoL

( Figs 1, 3 View FIGURES 1–4 , 5, 7 View FIGURES5–8 , 9, 11 View FIGURES 9–12 , 13, 15 View FIGURES 13–16 , 17, 19 View FIGURES 17–20 , 21, 23 View FIGURES 21–24 , 25, 27 View FIGURES 25–28 , 30, 32 View FIGURES 30–33 , 34, 36 View FIGURES34–37 , 38, 40, 42 View FIGURES 38–43 , 44 View FIGURE44 , 45 View FIGURES 45–47 )

Coeliccia erici Laidlaw 1917: 334 View in CoL , fig. 3 (1 ♂, 2 ♀♀, Bukit Besar, Jalor, Malay Peninsula, 2,500ft; orig. descr.);— Laidlaw 1931: 195 (?part, ♂, Jor Camp);— Laidlaw 1932: 20 –21,?Plate I figs. 13, 25,?Plate III fig. 11 (part, 1 ♂, 1 ♀, “Type and allotype, both much damaged”, Bukit Besar, Johor [!], Coll. N. Annandale);— Lieftinck 1954: 47 (part);— Orr 2005: 47 (part);— Hämäläinen & Pinratana 1999: 53 (distribution map);— Dow et al. 2017: 7 (Kedah).

Trichocnemis renifera Selys View in CoL (race?); Laidlaw & Förster 1907: 2 (♂, 3 ♀♀, Bukit Besar 2,500 ft).

Coeliccia kimurai Asahina 1990: 7 View in CoL , figs. 10–17 (original description, ♂, ♀, Than To waterfalls, Yala, Thailand);— Michalski 1993: 70 (specimens from Than To waterfalls Yala, Thailand);— Donnelly 1993: 73 (specimens from Than To waterfalls Yala, Thailand);— Hämäläinen & Pinratana 1999: 54 (distribution map);— Orr 2008: 26 (note on first record from Peninsular Malaysia);—Choong 2010: 215, 216, fig. 2 (Gunung Angsi, Negeri Sembilan);—Choong & Ng 2012: 241, 242, 243 (Pulau Pangkor, Perak);—Choong et al. 2016: 129, 132 (Royal Belum, Perak). Syn. Nov.

Holotype. 1 ♂, labels: “ C. erici ♂ Type//Laidlaw ♀//Bukit Besar. Jalor. N.A” and on reverse “ C. erici ”; “Holo// type”, “J. Cowley Coll.//B.M. 1968-70 ”. S9-10 glued to card on separate pin with additional label “ C. erici ”; “J. Cowley Coll.//B.M. 1968-70 ”, 6.747N, 101.316E (approx. coordinates for Bukit Besar), in BMNH.

Allotype. 1 ♀, labels: “Allo-// type ”, “ Coeliccia // erici (Laid.) // ♀ det. J. Cowley”; “J. Cowley Coll.//B.M. 1968- 70 ”, in BMNH.

Other material. 1 ♂, Frasers Hill, Pahang, Malaysia, 3.714N, 101.735E (approx. coordinates), 25 x 1933, leg. H.M. Pendlebury, in BMNH GoogleMaps ; 3 ♂♂ (PM16_PCD1–3), small hill stream close to border with Negeri Sembilan, Selangor , Malaysia, 3.1167N, 101.9553E, 3 vi 2016, leg. R.A. Dow, in coll. Dow GoogleMaps ; 3 ♂♂, (PM16_PCD4–6) small hill stream accessed from road between Baling and Gulai, Kedah, Malaysia, coordinates withheld, 15 ix 2016, leg. R.A. Dow, in coll. Dow ; 1 ♂ (PM16_PCD7), 1 ♀ (PM16_PCD8), same location, 16 ix 2016, leg. R.A. Dow, in coll. Dow . 4 ♂♂, (CYC15_PRK1-4), Sungai Tiang , Royal Belum, Perak, Malaysia, 5.6966N, 101.4468E (approx. coordinates) 9 ix 2015, leg. C.Y. Choong, in coll. Choong GoogleMaps ; 4 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ (CYC15_PRK5-10), same location, 12 ix 2015, leg. C.Y. Choong, in coll. Choong. GoogleMaps

Description of male (based on PM16_PCD7). Head ( Figs 1, 3 View FIGURES 1–4 ). Labium pale yellowish except hooks of labial palps, which are black. Labrum shining black. Mandible bases largely bluish white, black below clypeus and adjacent to genae. Postclypeus shining black, anteclypeus with broad central blue mark, expanded transversely below postclypeus to form wide stemmed T, tips of arms of T extended down toward labrum. Pale blue band across most of genae, intruding onto frons above clypeus for some distance. Antenna black with top part of scape, base of pedicel white. Frons and vertex mostly black, with very small, faint white mark based on outer edge of lateral ocellus, directed towards rear of antenna base. Ocelli white. Whitish, small but elongate oval, transverse postocular spots. Underside of head mostly black with pair of small pale markings below point of attachment of prothorax, behind mandibles, another pair on either side of point of attachment, just below occipital ridge, pair faint, narrow marks at eye margin.

Thorax. Prothorax with propleuron pale yellow except brown irregular wedge shaped band running over notopleural suture, not reaching anterior pronotal lobe; black on upper part epipemeral strip. Anterior pronotal lobe black, except laterally on anterior lobe, where pale. Anterior carina of anterior pronotal lobe just higher than main part, which is rounded at top ( Fig. 11 View FIGURES 9–12 ). Middle lobe mostly pale laterally, widely black dorsally ( Fig. 9 View FIGURES 9–12 ). Posterior pronotal lobe simple, raised along free margin; black. Synthorax ( Figs 23 View FIGURES 21–24 , 25 View FIGURES 25–28 ) with mesepisternum black with pair of broad blue markings occupying lower ca two fifths of its length ( Fig. 23 View FIGURES 21–24 ). Mesepimeron black, metepisternum largely blue, this extending narrowly onto mesepimeron, narrowly black beside antealar carina, this extended as wedge running above metepleural suture, not quite reaching level of spiracle. Metepimeron pale bluish. Mesokatepisternum black except above coxa, metakatepisternum entirely pale. Venter of synthorax pale, metapoststernum with dense field of bristle like setae. Legs (left middle leg missing below upper part trochanter) with coxae entirely pale, trochanters pale with brown marks immediately above femurs. Femur mostly pale with black stripes on flexor and outer extensor surfaces of anterior leg, similar on middle leg but stripe on flexor surface only in distal ca one-third, on posterior leg even shorter; tibia mostly pale, dark along flexor surface, tarsi including claws brown and black. Wings with arc situated at Ax 2. Fw with 15 Px, Hw with 15 (left) or 14 (right) Px. Three post quadrilateral cells in all wings. R4 proximal to Sn, IR3 distal to it, at Sn in right Hw. Pt dark brown with irregular narrow white margin, almost a rhombus, covering one underlying cell entirely and ca one quarter to one half of another.

Abdomen. S1 whitish except dark brown in narrow apical annulus including posterior carina and area behind, narrowly on dorsum. S2 mostly pale lower laterally, dark brown above with narrow pale mid-dorsal line in basal ca three quarters. S3 pale lower laterally, brown above, narrow basal pale annulus broadly interrupted dorsally, narrow darker brown apical annulus behind posterior carina; S4–S6 similar but lacking pale basal annulus, S7–S8 similar but darker. S9 mostly pale blue, except small black basal dorsal triangle, lower lateral black mark extended narrowly upwards apically, black behind posterior carina ( Figs 30, 32 View FIGURES 30–33 ). S10 pale blue, black lower laterally, very narrowly centrally dorsally and apically. Cerci black with pale basal dorsal marks. In lateral view ( Fig. 40 View FIGURES 38–43 ) narrowing from base but abruptly expanded ventrally at just after half-length, with small downward and slightly forward pointed tooth at rear of expanded area, lower margin rounded after tooth, apex rounded. In dorsal view ( Fig. 38 View FIGURES 38–43 ) cerci gradually tapering from base, apical ca one-quarter convergent, apices with square, truncated appearance; sub-basal tooth visible, originating on lower inner margin, directed downwards and forwards, but not visible in lateral view. Paraprocts ( Figs 40, 42 View FIGURES 38–43 ) black, falling well short of tips of cerci. In lateral view tapering from broad base then running almost straight until rounded tip. In ventral view running almost straight from base along outer margin, then curving in just before rounded apices; along inner margin concave in apical half ( Fig. 42 View FIGURES 38–43 ). Genital ligula missing (lost during extraction).

Measurements (mm). Abdomen without anal appendages 41, cerci 0.85, Hw ca 23.5.

Genital ligula. The genital ligula was examined in one of the other males and found to be essentially identical to that of C. sameerae sp. nov. (see Fig. 29 View FIGURE 29 ).

Description of female (based on PM16_PCD8). As male except as noted. Head ( Figs 5, 7 View FIGURES5–8 ). Bluish white markings between median and lateral ocelli, running from each lateral ocellus toward but not reaching rear antennae bases, separated from another running from rear of antennae base to eye margin ( Fig. 5 View FIGURES5–8 ). Extra pair very small pair pale marks at eye margin on underside of head.

Thorax. Prothorax coloured like male except much more extensive pale colouration dorsally on middle pronotal lobe ( Fig. 13 View FIGURES 13–16 ). Cervical spurs not developed. Large notopleural projection ( Figs 13, 15 View FIGURES 13–16 ) in form of rounded spur directed upwards and rearwards, lateral extremities of anterior carina of anterior pronotal lobe swollen to rear. Posterior pronotal lobe short, free margin raised up, with narrow central horn but not divided into almost separate central part and lateral lapels ( Figs 17, 19 View FIGURES 17–20 ); horn directed slightly forwards, shorter than middle lobe measured centrally ( Fig. 15 View FIGURES 13–16 ), free margin particularly raised adjacent to the horn, giving the impression of a very small horn behind the main one in lateral view ( Figs 15 View FIGURES 13–16 , 18 View FIGURES 17–20 ). Synthorax ( Figs 25, 27 View FIGURES 25–28 ) with pair broad blue antehumeral stripes, somewhat irregular, not quite reaching level of apex of antealar triangle. Wings with arculus slightly distal to Ax 2, 16 Px in Fw, 15 Px in Hw.

Abdomen. S2 with small transverse, basal lateral pale stripe, mid-dorsal marking in basal half, faint, triangular at base narrowing rapidly to a line. S8, S9 with transverse apical dorsal bluish markings ( Figs 34, 36 View FIGURES34–37 ). S10 black and dark brown. Cerci black, subtriangular in lateral view, shorter than S10. Ovipositor mottled black and brown, styles missing.

Measurements (mm). Abdomen without anal appendages or ovipositor 38, Hw ca 26.

Variation in recently collected material. There are no small marks along the eye margins on the underside of the head in two of the males from Kedah or those from Selangor. There are other small variations in the exact shapes of markings, length of the mid-dorsal stripe on S2 etc. The arculus is sometimes slightly distal to Ax2, R4 occasionally arises at Sn, one male has only two post quadrilateral cells in the left Hw. The bluish white marks behind the median ocellus and antenna base are connected in one female from Royal Belum. The free margin of the posterior pronotal lobe is not so raised in either female, so not giving the impression of a small second horn behind the main one in lateral view; there is some variation in the length and exact angle of the true horn.

Measurements (mm). Male—abdomen without anal appendages 40–44, Hw ca 23–25.5, 15–17 Px in Fw, 14– 16 Px in Hw. Female—abdomen without ovipositor 38-39, Hw 24-26, 16 Px in Fw, 15 Px in Hw.

Remarks. The holotype and surviving female specimen from the type series are in poor condition, the head and prothorax of the holotype are missing, segments S9 and S10 and the anal appendages are detached and glued to a separate card, only the right Fw is still attached to the thorax, there is another wing on the pin, but it differs in the degree of discolouration from that still attached and is likely to belong to a different specimen. Only the head and thorax of the female remain, with the prothorax almost completely obscured by glue. It is evident from the labels that these specimens were in the Cowley collection before going to BMNH; presumably the reason that they were omitted from Kimmins (1970) is that this collection had not been fully integrated into the BMNH collections at the time Kimmins wrote.

The terminal two abdominal segments and anal appendages of the holotype are in reasonable condition, and agree well with material recently collected in Peninsular Malaysia. In lateral view the anal appendages of the holotype and recent material do not agree exactly with Laidlaw’s first (1917) illustration, but that illustration was made from a slightly dorsal view, and in a dorsal lateral or ventral lateral view the recently collected specimens agree with the holotype.

The whereabouts of the male specimens from Kuala Teku and Camp Jor listed in Laidlaw (1931) are not known. The illustration of the anal appendages of the male from Kuala Teku places it firmly under C. sameerae sp. nov. However without examining the male from Camp Jor, stated to be juvenile, it is not possible to verify that this is actually C. erici . Camp Jor lies more within the known distribution of C. erici than that of C. sameerae , and we suppose that it is more likely to be C. erici ; however this location is not included in Fig. 44 View FIGURE44 under either species because of the uncertainty. The illustrations of C. erici in Laidlaw (1932) are problematic; those of the male anal appendages (plate II, figs 1, 2) are certainly of C. sameerae , presumably made from the Kuala Teku specimen (see the Introduction), but the others could equally well be of either species, although it seems more likely that all were made from the same specimen.

The posterior pronotal lobe of the female as described here is unusual in Coeliccia sensu stricto in that it is not divided into a central part almost separated from the lateral lapels. This condition is not found in any other Coeliccia species known to occur in Peninsular Malaysia or southern Thailand.

For the allotype, Laidlaw (1917: 334) states “Posterior margin [of prothorax] gently concave, with minute projection backwards in the middle line” and “Thorax with broad yellow antehumeral bands”; neither of these statements agree well with the female described here. However it is possible that the “minute projection” corresponds to the profile of the raised part of the free margin of the posterior pronotal lobe in the female described here and that the main horn was broken off in the allotype. Given the current condition of the allotype, it is not possible to be sure that it really belongs to C. erici , but Laidlaw’s description does not agree especially well with the female of any other species of Coeliccia known from Peninsular Malaysia or southern Thailand either, although it could possibly be C. albicauda .

Coeliccia kimurai . The holotype of C. kimurai is in the National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo, Japan, and a photograph of the holotype can be viewed via http://www. type.kahaku.go.jp/TypeDB/. Both Asahina’s original description of the male and the photograph of the holotype agree in all visible details with C. erici except minor details of colouration (well within what could be expected from variation in a single species) and possibly in the genital ligula. In Asahina (1990: Fig. 14 View FIGURES 13–16 ) the genital ligula is shown from an oblique angle, and appears to be not quite so deeply divided as in C. erici and C. sameerae , also the arms of the terminal segment are less curled, however we strongly suspect that the former is merely a deficiency of the illustration, the latter is just variation in the degree of curling in these flexible structures. The female described by Asahina agrees with the female of C. erici described here, in particular in the unusual structure of the posterior pronotal lobe. The record of C. kimurai from southern Thailand is within the known distribution of C. erici (see Fig. 44 View FIGURE44 , where the more southern of the two points under C. erici in Thailand is the type locality of C. kimurai ). The possible small difference in the genital ligula notwithstanding, there is insufficient reason to keep C. kimurai separate from C. erici , and we treat it as a junior synonym of C. erici here.

Coeliccia erici has been found at low densities at small streams in forested hilly country. It is relatively easily disturbed and flies upwards when alarmed, not returning for long periods; this behaviour may partially account for the relatively small number of records of this species. Its known distribution extends from Negeri Sembilan in Peninsular Malaysia to the south of peninsular Thailand, with all confirmed Malaysian records from the western side of the peninsular ( Fig. 45 View FIGURES 45–47 ). There is a large gap in the known distribution in mainland Perak and in southern Kedah; this is almost certainly an artefact of sampling effort. Matti Hämäläinen (personal communication) has seen and made sketches of an immature male from northern Terengganu, not seen by us, in the papered collection of the BMNH that may be C. erici ; to confirm that this is C. erici will require examination of the anal appendages from different angles than that in the sketches.