Physodeutera (Toxoma) dubia ( Mařan, 1942 )

Moravec, Jiří & Trýzna, Miloš, 2021, New or rare Madagascar tiger beetles- 23. Physodeutera (Toxoma) lokobensis sp nov., a new species close to Ph. (T.) conturbata Moravec, Ph. (T.) sulcoprothoracica (W. Horn) and Ph. (T.) dubia (Mařan), with revised type designation of the latter (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), Zootaxa 5060 (2), pp. 151-182 : 160-164

Physodeutera (Toxoma) dubia ( Mařan, 1942)

( Figs 24–45 , 106 )

Prothyma (Megalomma) dubia Mařan, 1942: 70 .

Physodeutera (Toxoma) sikorai dubia: Moravec 1998: 169 .

Physodeutera (Toxoma) dubia: Moravec 2002a: 115 , figs 303–308, 723.

Type locality. “Ampanefena” (about 70 km south of Vohémar , Northeastern Madagascar) .

Type material. Holotype ♂ in NMPC, labelled: “ Madagascar, Ampanefena, Mus. Praha” [printed]; “Typus” [red, printed]; “ Prothyma dubia m. Dr. Mařan det.” [handwritten]; “ Holotype, Prothyma (Megalomma) dubia Mařan, 1942 , J. Moravec 1998 design.” [red, printed]. Paratype 1 ♂ in NMPC “Vohemar, III, 1938” [printed]; “CoTypus” [red, printed, the “Co” handwritten]; “ Paratype, Prothyma (Megalomma) dubia Mařan, 1942 , J. Moravec 1998 design.” [red, printed]. The two type specimens provided with labels “ Physodeutera (Toxoma) sikorai dubia ( Mařan, 1942) , J. Moravec 1998 det.” and “ Physodeutera (Toxoma) dubia ( Mařan, 1942) det. J. Moravec, 2001” [printed].

Note to the typification. Mařan (1942) based the original description of this species on two males, each from a different locality, both deposited in NMPC. He stated it as: “ Habitat: Madagascar, Ampanefena ♂ typus; Vohémar, III 1934, Lamberton leg. 1 ♂ — ♀ ignota ”. It means that the male from Ampanefena was designated by Mařan as type and in accordance labelled by him with the red label “Typus” (see Fig. 44 here), while the male from Vohémar bears the same red printed label but rewritten by hand as “CoType” (see Fig. 45 here). This statement was previously misinterpreted by the first author ( Moravec 1998) who examined the male from Vohémar and erroneously designated and illustrated it as holotype. This error was later rectified in the monograph of the genus ( Moravec 2002a: 115) where the male from Ampanefena was correctly designated as the holotype according to the original type designation by Mařan (1942). Nonetheless, the illustrations remained in error the same, thus the picture of the paratype from Vohémar was presented as holotype ( Moravec 2002a, figs 304–308, 723). The true holotype from Ampanefena is illustrated here in Figs 24, 26, 28, 31 , 33, 35, 37, 40–41 .

Differential diagnosis. Physodeutera (Toxoma) dubia shares similar, rather uniformly bright green-blue elytra with only lateral areas violaceous ( Figs 24–25 , 40–43 ) with Ph. (T.) lokobensis sp. nov. Diagnostic for both species are also the ivory to ochre-testaceous two basal thirds of the antennomere 4 in male ( Figs 26–27 ), but Ph. (T.) dubia differs from the new species in having shorter antennae, more arcuate-curved labial palpus in male ( Fig. 30 ), coarser, sharpened rugae on whole surface of the pronotal disc ( Figs 31–32 ), larger elytral punctures also on posterior elytral half ( Figs 40–43 ), shorter antennae, slightly longer aedeagus apex, which is more rounded, particularly ventrally and on its top ( Figs 37–39 ), and somewhat different sclerites within the internal sac ( Figs 38–39 ).

Moreover, the elytral apex in male is rounded in Ph. (T.) dubia ( Figs 40–42 ), while subacute in Ph. (T.) lokobensis sp. nov.

Nevertheless, one of the characters considered diagnostic for Ph. (T.) dubia previously ( Moravec 2002a), the anteriad-prolonged, triangular median tooth in the anteromedian lobe of the labrum ( Fig. 36 ), proved to be present only in the paratype (which was misinterpreted previously as the holotype). In contrast, the true holotype of Ph. (T.) dubia has the anterior margin of its labrum almost subtruncate ( Fig. 35 ), thus somewhat similar to that in Ph. (T.) lokobensis sp. nov. Despite the significant biodiversity in Madagascar, we consider here these differences in the shape of the male labrum to be exceptional variability, also due to the fact that the two only known males come very probably from the same locality (see “Distribution” below). Notwithstanding, as also the body of the paratype is notably wider, particularly across the elytra ( Fig. 25 ), a possibility that the paratype may in fact represent another undescribed species cannot be excluded. Unfortunately, female of Ph. (T.) dubia remains unknown.

Redescription (male). Body ( Figs 24–25 ) medium-sized, length 8.80–9.00 (HT 8.80) mm, width 2.70–2.90 (HT 2.70) mm.

Head ( Figs 33–34 ) with large eyes, only slightly narrower than body, width 2.60–2.70 mm.

Frons deep metallic blue, convex in middle, nearly smooth on anteromedian area, laterally parallel-wrinkled; supraantennal plates uneven, flat; frons-vertex fold rounded merging fluently with vertex, finely vermicular-wrinkled.

Vertex bright blue in middle, with bronze and cupreous lustre in lateral and posterior areas, with deep transverse anterior impression crossing juxtaorbital areas, which are striate-rugose, but rugae interrupted by two shallower impressions; median area longitudinally vermicular to wavy-rugose, posterior area vermicular-rugose; divergent sublateral rugae coarser, wavy, passing onto temples; posterior and occipital areas bronze-green, vermicular-rugulose.

Genae metallic green-blue, finely striate-wrinkled.

Labrum (male) 0.90–1.05 mm long, 1.10 mm wide, basically shaped and coloured as in preceding species except for the shape of the anteromedian lobe, which differs in the two known males: while the holotype has the anteromedian lobe notably shorter, subtruncate and with rounded lateral margins ( Fig. 35 ), the anteromedian lobe of the paratype possesses two right-angled, indistinctly pointed teeth in either side of notably protruding, right-angled median tooth ( Fig. 36 ).

Clypeus metallic-blue with greenish lustre, smooth.

Mandibles ( Figs 33–34 ) subsymmetrical, normally shaped with four teeth and basal molar, brown with mahogany tinge and blackened margins, inner teeth gradually smaller towards basal molar, fourth tooth markedly distant from third tooth.

Palpi (male) ivory testaceous, maxillary palpi with terminal palpomeres brownish-testaceous with darkened subapical area ( Figs 28–29 ); labial palpi with dark brown terminal palpomeres, outer margin of penultimate (longest) palpomeres arcuate, inner margin straight or slightly emarginated, ochre-testaceous ( Fig. 30 ).

Antennae ( Figs 26–27 ) rather long, passing elytral half; scape ivory or testaceous with only apical seta; antennomeres 2–3 metallic black, antennomere 4 black-brown with two basal thirds ivory-testaceous to yellowish, antennomeres 5–9 light brownish testaceous, 10–11 moderately darkened.

Thorax. Pronotum ( Figs 31–32 ) elongate, length 1.85–1.90 mm, width 1.50–1.55 mm; metallic blue-green with indistinct bronze-cupreous and violet lustre on discal median area and intense violaceous lustre within well-pronounced anterior and posterior sulci; anterior lobe markedly narrower than posterior lobe and disc; lateral margins of disc almost parallel in middle, slightly constricted anteriad; notopleural sutures barely visible from above; discal surface distinctly transversely wavy-rugose, rugae coarser on median area; median line thin but running throughout; posterior lobe with distinct basal rim, dorsolateral bulges pulvinate-elevated, almost smooth, with strongly violaceous lustre, gradually passing to smooth or finely wrinkled median area with faint greenish lustre; prosternum and proepisterna metallic blue-green, finely wrinkled; mesepisterna black-blue with purple lustre; metasternum and metepisterna metallic green with bronze tinge.

Elytra ( Figs 40–43 ), elongate, 5.30–5.35 mm long; juxtahumeral impressions deep, short and wide, basodiscal convexity and discal impression distinct, apical impressions moderate; lateral margins subparallel, anteapical angles arcuate, apices rounded, more distinctly so in female, with only faint emargination towards indistinct, blunt sutural spine; limited baso-humeral area smooth and shiny, other elytral surface rather coarsely punctate, punctures notably larger on anterior elytral third, largest within humeral impressions, occasionally arranged in chains but not entirely anastomosing, their mostly narrow intervals optically forming irregular reticulum; elytral coloration bright metallic blue-green, more cyaneous green-blue within humeral and discal impression, with faint bronze-greenish lustre on posterior declivity and deep violaceous on outer lateral areas and apices; whitish to ivory maculation consisting of only one, large humeral macula.

Abdomen. Abdominal ventrites dark metallic-blue with violaceous reflections, their surface smooth and glabrous (except for sensory seta on either side of posterior ventrite margins).

Legs of HT similarly coloured as in Ph. (T.) conturbata , but notably paler in PT.

Aedeagus short ( Figs 37–39 ), length 2.20–2.25 mm, width 0.45 mm, ventral outline straight or slightly bent ventrad apically, dorsally conically attenuated towards narrow, rounded apex; sclerites within internal sac consisting of distinct arciform piece with dilates apex, thin satellite piece which appears more distinct in right lateral view, membranous plate and large, longitudinal membranous upper-ventral piece with obtuse apex.

Distribution ( Fig. 106 ). Physodeutera (Toxoma) dubia is known only from the two males caught in Northeastern Madagascar. Ampanefena lies about 70 km south of the city of Vohemar (also spelled Vohémar). However, the name on the label probably means the whole district, which is very large, and therefore we may suppose that the two males come from the same locality ( Moravec 2002a). Although no collector name is indicated on the labels, according to Mařan (1942), the two type specimens were caught by Lamberton.

Remarks. This taxon, originally described as Prothyma (Megalomma) dubia by Mařan (1942), was later ( Moravec 1998) treated as a subspecies of Ph. (T.) sikorai . However, as further examinations have confirmed the above-mentioned characters, this taxon was treated ( Moravec 2002a) as a natural member of the subgenus Toxoma . Only male specimens of Ph. (T.) dubia are known.

For the previous confusion of the type designation see “Note to the typification” above and the discussion in “Introduction” of this paper.

Figures

FIGURE 106. Distribution of four Physodeutera (Toxoma) species in northern part of Madagascar. Adopted from the map of preserved areas in Madagascar according to Moat & Smith (2007), adapted and published previously (Moravec 2010) under permission of the trustee of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, GB.

FIGURES 24–32. Physodeutera (Toxoma) dubia Mařan, all in SDEI. 24–25—habitus: 24—♂, Ampanefena, HT; 25—♂, Vo- hémar, PT; 26—Antennomeres 1–5, ♂, HT; 27—Antennomeres 1–6, ♂, PT; 28–29—maxillary palpus: 28—♂, HT; 29—♂, PT; 30—labial palpus, ♂, PT (adopted from Moravec 2002a); 31–32—pronotum: 31—♂, HT; 32—♂, PT. Bars = 1 mm.

FIGURES 33–43. Physodeutera (Toxoma) dubia Mařan, all in SDEI. 33–34—head: 33—♂, Ampanefena, HT; 34—♂, Vohé- mar, PT; 35–36—labrum: 35—♂, HT; 36—♂, PT; 37–39—male aedeagus: 37—HT; 38–39—showing internal sac in left and right lateral view, PT; 40–43—elytron: 40—♂, HT; 41—ditto, detail of elytral disc; 42—♂, PT; 43— ditto, detail of posterior area of elytral disc. Bars = 1 mm.

FIGURES 44–45. Physodeutera (Toxoma) dubia Mařan, all in SDEI, labels. 44—HT; 45—PT.