Onthophagus (Indonthophagus) hastifer van Lansberge, 1885

Ziani, Stefano, 2024, Historical and morphological review of the subgenus Indonthophagus Kabakov, 2006 of Onthophagus Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae: Onthophagini), Insecta Mundi 2024 (38), pp. 1-42 : 10-13

Onthophagus (Indonthophagus) hastifer van Lansberge, 1885

( Fig. 5 , 12a,c )

Onthophagus hastifer van Lansberge 1885: 380 ; Ritsema 1888: 214; Boucomont 1914: 221; Boucomont and Gillet 1921: 55; Boucomont and Gillet 1927: 138; Boucomont 1929: 773; Arrow 1931: 330; Balthasar 1935: 341; Balthasar 1942: 120; Paulian 1945: 118; Balthasar 1963: 378; Masumoto 1976b: 28; Kabakov and Napolov 1999: 84; Chen 2002: 223; Hua 2002: 154; Shrestha 2005: 108; Krajcik 2006: 108; Masumoto et al. 2006: 142; Aston and Vor 2008: 63; Krajcik 2012: 179; Krajcik 2013: 112; Mittal and Jain 2015: 398; Cheung et al. 2018: 236 ; Lau 2019: 95;; Cheung et al. 2020: 27.

Onthophagus (incertae sedis) hastifer, Kabakov and Yanushev 1983: 162 ; Hanboonsong et al. 1999: 467.

Onthophagus (Onthophagus) hastifer, Löbl et al. 2006: 165 .

Onthophagus (Indonthophagus) hastifer, Kabakov 2006: 154 (footnote); Ziani and Bezděk 2016: 188; Schoolmeesters 2023.

Onthophagus turmalis Gillet 1924: 66 [type locality: “ Tainan, Formosa ” (Taiwan)]; Boucomont and Gillet 1927: 149; Miwa 1930: 169 (as O. turmaris , misspelling); Arrow 1931: 330 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Matsumura 1938: 55 (as O. turmaris ); Paulian 1945: 118 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Hwang 1952: 139; Balthasar 1963: 368 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Masumoto 1976b: 28 (as O. turmaris , junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Chen 2002: 223 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Hua 2002: 156; Krajcik 2006: 108 /138 (both as doubtful synonym of O. hastifer (p. 108) and valid species (p. 138), as O. turmalis Gillet, 1930 ); Löbl et al. 2006: 165 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Masumoto et al. 2006: 142 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Krajcik 2012: 187 (as Onthophagus turmalis Gillet, 1930 , valid species); Krajcik 2013: 281 (as Onthophagus turmalis Gillet, 1930 , valid species); Ziani and Bezděk 2016: 188 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Lau 2019: 95 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Schoolmeesters 2023 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ).

Onthophagus agilis Matsumura 1938: 56 [type locality: “Chokakurai, Formosa ” (Taiwan)]; Hwang 1952: 138; Balthasar 1963: 266 (doubtful species); Masumoto 1976a: 2; Masumoto 1976b: 27; Chen 2002: 270; Hua 2002: 154; Krajcik 2006: 87 (doubtful as valid species); Löbl et al. 2006: 165 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Masumoto et al. 2006: 142 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Ziani and Bezděk 2016: 188 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Lau 2019: 95 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ).

Onthophagus putealis Matsumura 1938: 61 [type locality: “Chokakurai, Formosa ” (Taiwan)]; Hwang 1952: 139; Balthasar 1963: 579 (as junior synonym of O. viduus von Harold, 1874 ); Nomura 1973: 48; Masumoto 1976a: 3 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Masumoto 1976b: 28 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Hua 2002: 155; Krajcik 2006: 141 (as junior synonym of O. viduus ); Löbl et al. 2006: 164, 165 (both as junior synonym of O. viduus and, as O. puetalis , misspelling, junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Masumoto et al. 2006: 142 (as junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Ziani and Bezděk 2016: 187, 188 (both as junior synonym of O. viduus and, as O. puetalis , misspelling, junior synonym of O. hastifer ); Lau 2019: 95 (as puetalis , misspelling, junior synonym of O. hastifer ).

Type locality. “Minhla, Birmania ” [Minhla, Bago Region, Myanmar].

Type material.

Onthophagus hastifer van Lansberge, 1885 : holotype, a major ♂, fixed by monotypy, studied (MCSN). Onthophagus turmalis Gillet, 1924: 2 syntypes ♀♀, studied (NHMUK).

Onthophagus agilis Matsumura, 1938 : holotype ♂, fixed by monotypy, examined by photos (EIHU). Onthophagus putealis Matsumura, 1938 : holotype ♀, fixed by monotypy, examined by photos (EIHU).

Diagnostic features. Length 6.0 to 8.0 mm. Colour reddish brown or bronzed, with slight metallic lustre, moderately shiny, with distinct isodiametric microreticulation. Elytra sometimes with dark red irregular basal and apical spots. Antennal scape, pedicel and funicle red, antennal club yellow. Dorsal pubescence whitish yellow.

Head short, slightly wider than long, with clypeus broadly round, slightly or not at all sinuate anteriorly, sides not sinuate; clypeofrontal carina distinct, bent backward, placed nearly halfway between base of the horn and anterior clypeal margin in major males; occipital carina with an extremely long and slender thread-like horn, slightly enlarged at base ( Fig. 12a ), arising between the eyes and curving backward, sometimes extending beyond the hind margin of pronotum, in major males, reduced to a short transverse tubercle between the eyes in minor males, and into a straight or slightly sinuate transverse carina ( Fig. 12c ), subequal in length to the clypeofrontal carina, in females; clypeal surface with transversely rugose, setigerous punctures, frontal surface doubly sparsely punctate.

Pronotum convex, declivous anteriorly, with a shallow anteromedian narrow groove in major males, with an anteromedian transverse gibbosity, sometimes hardly appreciable, in females; both sexes with a slightly depressed posterolateral area, duller than pronotal disc, on either side near pronotal posterior angles, anteriorly with a tuft of longer setae; anterior angles distinctly produced, sides not sinuate behind them in dorsal view; dorsal surface setigerously punctate, punctures slightly impressed, sub-regular in distribution, separated by 1 to 2 diameters on disc, subequal in size to the punctures of elytral striae, bearing pale-yellow setae, shorter on disc, barely longer at sides.

Elytral striae shiny, distinctly impressed, with punctures slightly larger than strial width and barely crenulating interstrial sides; interstriae flat to barely convex, all rather regularly densely granulate; granules smaller than strial punctures; posterior margin of each granule with a small, indistinct, setigerous puncture; setae pale-yellow, thin.

Pygidium with rather regularly distributed, setigerous punctures; setae hook-like at the extremity, pale-yellow, thin, clearly longer that those of elytra.

Males with protibial spurs directed outward. Distal margin of male protibiae at right angles to the inner margin, with a tuft of short pale-yellow bristles, and with a small denticle strongly curved downward at the inner angle of protibial apex.

Male genital armature. Parameres short, apices bent ventrally, diverging apically, without basolateral plate denticle, round at apex ( Fig. 5b–c ); endophallus with the presence of accessory endophallites, two evident raspulae of different sizes and a U-shaped lamella copulatrix, bifurcate at one end, clearly divided in two arms at the other ( Fig. 5d ).

Distribution. Myanmar (van Lansberge 1885). South-Eastern China, “Indochina” ( Boucomont 1929). Taiwan ( Arrow 1931). Central China ( Balthasar 1963). Thailand ( Hanboonsong et al. 1999; Kabakov and Napolov 1999). Vietnam ( Kabakov and Napolov 1999). All the western records ( Nepal ( Shrestha 2005); India ( Mittal and Jain 2015); Sri Lanka ( Schoolmeesters 2023)) have to be considered incorrect until proven otherwise.

Material examined. Myanmar: “Minhla / Birmania / D[onavit]. Comotto 18__”, “Typus”, “hastifer / Lansb. / ♂ ”, “ Onthophagus / Hastifer / Lansberge [Lansberge’s handwriting]”, “MUSEO CIVICO / GENOVA”, “ HOLOTYPE / Onthophagus / hastifer / Lansberge”, (holotype ♂ of O. hastifer, MCSN ) ; “ Rangoon [Yangon]”, L. Fea leg., A. Boucomont det.”, 2 ♀♀, examined by photos ( MCSN) ; “ Bhamò [ Bhamo ], vi.1886, L. Fea leg., A. Boucomont det.”, 1 minor ♂ ( MCSN) ; “ Da Yonang-Young / a Mandalay, v.1886, L. Fea leg., A. Boucomont det.” 1 ♂ ( MCSN) . Thailand: Pak Chong , i-iii 1989, S. Steinke leg. 1 ♂ and 1 ♀, J. Schönfeld det. ( MCSN) ; Chonburi prov., Pattaya , 5 km E Elefantcamp, 30.i.1995, A. Weigel leg. 1 ♂ ( JSCS) . Laos: Champassak prov., 25 km SE Pakxe, 200 m, bank of Banglieng river , 14°58’N 105°55’E, 30.iii.1998, O. Merkl and G. Csorba leg. 2 ♂♂ ( JSCS) ; Viang Chan prov., Ban Pa Kho resort, 50 km NE Vientiane, 90 m, 9-14.vi.2007, M. Štrba leg. 2 ♂♂ ( JSCS) . Vietnam: “Hué”, southern Vietnam , 2 ♂♂ ( JSCS) . China: Hong Kong , 2 ♂♂ ( NHMUK) ; Fujian prov., Guangze , 24.ix.1937, J. Klapperich leg. 1 ♂ ( JSCS) . Taiwan: “ Tainan / Formosa / H. Sauter, VII. 11 [date handwritten].” (2 syntypes ♀♀ of O. turmalis, NHMUK ) ; “ Chokakurai / Da Ibu, Formosa , 28-vi-1936, Coll. Y. Yano ”, examined by photos (holotype ♂ of O. agilis, EIHU ) ; “ Chokakurai / Da Ibu, Formosa , 28-vi-1936, Coll. Y. Yano ”, examined by photos (holotype ♀ of O. putealis, EIHU ) ; Pingtung Co., Hengchun / Shuiwaku , 14.ix.2021, B.-H. Ho leg. 1 minor ♂ and 1 ♀ ( SZCM) ; Pingtung, N of Shuiwaku , 80 m, 21°56′29″N 120°50′23″E, 20.vi.2023, D. Král and J. Růžička leg. 1 major ♂ and 4 ♀♀ ( SZCM) .

Historical review. Onthophagus hastifer was described by van Lansberge (1885) most probably on a major male only, from Minhla, Myanmar. According to R. Poggi ( MCSN, personal communication), there is a sole specimen, a major male, in the collection of the Genoa Museum, with a label written by van Lansberge. This specimen is to be considered the holotype. The female was subsequently described by Boucomont (1914) on a specimen also from Myanmar and deposited in MCSN. Boucomont and Gillet (1921) ran into a misprint, and with a misplaced asterisk, excluded O. hastifer from the fauna of French Indochina, in favour of O. turbatus , described from Sri Lanka and most probably not distributed east of Bhutan (see below). Such mistake was later partially amended ( Boucomont and Gillet 1927) with the citation of O. turbatus Boucomont, 1921 , not Walker, junior synonym of O. hastifer .

Onthophagus turmalis Gillet, 1924 was described from Taiwan on at least a male and a female, and was synonymized with O. hastifer by Arrow (1931) after 7 years from its description. A misspelling involved this taxon, wrongly cited as “ O. turmaris ” by Miwa (1930), Matsumura (1938) and Masumoto (1976b). Krajcik (2006) listed twice Onthophagus turmalis both as valid species (as Onthophagus turmalis Gillet, 1930 , wrong year) and, doubtfully, a junior synonym of O. hastifer . Later, the same author ( Krajcik 2012, 2013) confirmed the validity of the species (always dated 1930).

Matsumura (1938) described 13 new species of Onthophagini from “Formosa” [ Taiwan]. Of which only five are presently considered bonae species. Among those that were synonymized, there are two species treated in this paper: Onthophagus agilis and Onthophagus putealis , described from the same locality (Chokakurai), collected on the same day (28.vi.1936) and by the same entomologist (Y. Yano). O. agilis , described on a single male, was treated as a doubtful species by Balthasar (1963) and Masumoto (1976a; 1976b). This last author ( Masumoto 1976b) affirmed “I still don’t know what it is” (verbatim, from the Japanese). But it was from Masumoto et al. (2006) that O. agilis was treated as a junior synonym of O. hastifer .

Onthophagus putealis , instead, has a little different nomenclatural history. Balthasar (1963), quoting Nakane (1956), considered O. putealis Matsumura, 1938 , described on a sole female, as a junior synonym of Onthophagus viduus von Harold, 1874 . Actually, Nakane (1956) excluded O. putealis from the twenty species consider as junior synonym of O. viduus . The synonymy by Balthasar (1963) is to be considered incorrect. So, as stated for the first time by Masumoto (1976a), the correct synonymy is Onthophagus putealis Matsumura, 1938 = Onthophagus hastifer van Lansberge, 1885 . It should be noted that O. putealis has been listed twice in Löbl et al. (2006) and in Ziani and Bezděk (2016), both as a junior synonym of O. viduus and, as O. puetalis , misprint, as junior synonym of O. hastifer . As mentioned above, the first reference is wrong and should be deleted.

There is another species described by Matsumura (1938), Onthophagus komabellus , supposed to be a junior synonym of O. hastifer by Balthasar (1942). Later though, Nakane (1956) proposed O. komabellus as junior synonym of O. viduus , and all the subsequent authors, from Balthasar (1963), followed this synonymy.

Remarks. Present literature ( Ziani and Bezděk 2016 and Schoolmeesters 2023) considers O. turmalis , O. agilis and O. putealis as junior synonyms of O. hastifer . After studying directly two syntypes of the first species and examining high resolution images of holotypes of the other two species, I can confirm such synonymies.

Figures

Figure 5. Onthophagus (Indonthophagus) hastifer von Lansberge, 1914 [holotype, major ♂: Myanmar, Minhla]. 5a) Dorsal habitus.5b) Parameres, lateral view. 5c) Parameres, dorsal view. 5d) Endophallus. AcS: accessory endophallites. LC: lamella copulatrix. Rs: raspulae. Photos by A. Degiovanni, edited by G. Fiumi.

Figure 12. Head from above:12a) Onthophagus (Indonthophagus) hastifer von Lansberge, 1914 [major ♂: Taiwan, Pingtung]. 12b) Onthophagus (Indonthophagus) turbatus Walker, 1858 [major ♂: India, Arunachal Pradesh st.]. 12c) Onthophagus (Indonthophagus) hastifer von Lansberge, 1914 [♀: Taiwan, Pingtung]. 12d) Onthophagus (Indonthophagus) turbatus Walker, 1858 [♀: Pakistan, Islamabad Capital Territory]. Photos by A. Degiovanni, edited by G. Fiumi.