Pseudocoladenia pinsbukana Shimonoya & Murayama, 1976
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4801.2.4 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:00A1A2A5-25B1-4D0E-9311-A77274F72278 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4332721 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D58377-FFB8-FF82-C6D4-FDD7FAA2A590 |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe (2020-08-19 00:19:49, last updated 2024-11-26 22:19:09) |
|
scientific name |
Pseudocoladenia pinsbukana Shimonoya & Murayama, 1976 |
| status |
|
Pseudocoladenia pinsbukana Shimonoya & Murayama, 1976 View in CoL
Tyô to Ga 27(2): 44.
Labels: “Shinseimura Kyusenkei (= Xinshengcun Jiuxianxi, in Chinese character)/ Formosa/APR.15.1970,” “ Pseudocoladenia pinsbukana ,/SHIMONOYA et/ MURAYAMA 1976,” “ Holotype.” However , the type locality given in the original description was different, reading “Amuh-chi”, a locality not recognized on any map of Taiwan, presumably a local name of Jiuxianxi .
A male specimen was designated as the holotype by Shimonoya & Murayama (1976), and the specimen was retrieved in the Shimonoya collection ( Figs. 13–15 View FIGURES 1–18 ).
Shimonoya & Murayama (1976) considered that pinsbukana was close to Coladenia sheila Evans, 1939 from China. In describing the new species, however, they somehow compared it with Pseudocoladenia dan (Fabricius, 1787) from India. The wing markings, especially the 2 costal hyaline spots over the cell on the forewing recognized in the holotype, are a diagnostic character of Coladenia hoenei Evans, 1939 . The discal dots on the hindwing are reduced in pinsbukana , whereas those of hoenei are more prominent. A slight difference is also seen in the male genitalia, if their drawing is accurate. The dorsal process of valva is narrower than the ventral process in hoenei , whereas those of pinsbukana are nearly of the same width ( Hsu et al. 2019) .
We regard pinsbukana as a valid species name in the genus Coladeni a Moore, 1881 for the present.
Hsu Y. F., Chiba, H., Tsukiyama, H., Liang, J. Y. & Huang, C. W. (2019) Butterfly Fauna of Taiwan. Vol. III. Hesperiidae. Forest Bureau, C. O. A., Taipei, 364 pp.
Shimonoya, T. & Murayama, S. (1976) Remarks on some Formosan Rhopalocera with descriptions of two new species, and the revision of a few scientific names. Tyo to Ga, 27 (2), 43 - 48. [in Japanese]
FIGURES 1–18. 1–3. Ampittia matudai Murayama, 1943, holotype; 4–6. Erynnis montanus neomontanus Murayama & Yoshisaka, 1959, holotype; 7–9. Ochlodes siva yuchingkina Murayama & Shimonoya, 1962, holotype; 10–12. Aeromachus bandaishanus Murayama & Shimonoya, 1968, holotype; 13–15. Pseudocoladenia pinsbukana Shimonoya & Murayama, 1976, holotype; 16–18. Polytremis zina taiwana Murayama, 1981, holotype. Scale bar = 1 cm.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.