Poecilocoris druraei ( Linnaeus, 1771 )

Tsai, Jing-Fu & Rédei, Dávid, 2009, The identity of jewel bugs described by Shonen Matsumura from Taiwan (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae), Zootaxa 2299, pp. 44-52 : 48-50

Poecilocoris druraei ( Linnaeus, 1771)

( Figs 7–9 )

Cimex druraei Linnaeus, 1771: 534 . For unnamed species in Drury 1770: 94. Syntype (s): China; lost.

Cimex sanguineus Goeze, 1778: 231 . Junior objective synonym of Cimex druraei Linnaeus, 1771 . Junior primary homonym of Cimex sanguineus Schrank, 1776 .

Poecilocoris obsoletus Dallas, 1848: 104 . Syntype (s) (3): China: Hong Kong; BMNH. Synonymized by Stål 1873: 12.

Poecilocoris 15-guttatus [ quindecimguttatus ] Matsumura, 1913: 108. Syntype (s) (Ƥ): “Taihok” [= Cyuchih], “Horisha” [= Puli]; EIHU?. Synonymized by Esaki 1926: 144.

Poecilocoris watanabei Matsumura, 1913: 106 , 107. Holotype (3): “ Formosa ” [= Taiwan]: “Hoppo” [= Peipu]; EIHU! New synonymy.

References. Drury 1770: 94 (description, colour habitus); Fabricius 1775: 697 (diagnosis); Sulzer 1776: 95 (redescription, habitus); Fabricius 1781: 339 (diagnosis); Fabricius 1787: 281 (diagnosis); Gmelin 1790: 2129 (diagnosis); Stoll 1792: 109 (redescription, habitus); Fabricius 1794: 83 (diagnosis); Fabricius 1803: 132 (diagnosis); Burmeister 1834: 287 (diagnostic characters); Westwood 1837: 4 (listed); Germar 1839: 135 (diagnosis); Dallas 1848: 103 (redescription, habitus, variability), 104 ( obsoletus ); Dallas 1851: 12 (record); Dohrn 1859: 1 (list); Walker 1867: 8 (records); Stål 1873: 12 (list, distribution); Distant 1879: 44 (listed); Atkinson 1887: 153 (redescription, variability, distribution); Lethierry & Severin 1893: 20 (catalogue, distribution); Distant 1901: 100 (records); * Distant 1902: 45 (redescription, variability, distribution); * Schouteden 1904: 21 (catalogue, distribution); Paiva 1907: 17 (list); Kirkaldy 1909: 305 (catalogue, distribution); * Kirkaldy 1910: 110 (list); * Shiraki 1913: 221 (redescription, biology, agricultural importance); * Maki 1916: 97 (redescription, biology, agricultural importance); * Esaki 1926: 144 ( druraei , watanabei , synonymy, records); * Matsumura 1930: 102 ( watanabei , redescription, habitus), 103 (15-guttatus, redescription, habitus); * Hoffmann 1931: 139 (record, host plant); * Matsumura 1931: 1187 ( watanabei , redescription, habitus); Hoffmann 1932a: 10 (list); * Hoffmann 1932b: 569 (habitus, distribution, host plant, development, preimaginal stages); * Hoffmann 1933: 435 (distribution); Wu 1933: 230 (catalogue, distribution); * Yang 1934: 261 (diagnosis, figure, variability, distribution); * Hoffmann 1935: 32, 164 (catalogue, distribution), 33 ( druraei var. obsoletus , catalogue, distribution), 35 ( watanabei , catalogue, distribution); * Tang 1935: 278 (catalogue, distribution); * Miwa 1943: 66 (listed, host plant); * Yang 1962: 36 (redescription, habitus, host plant, distribution); * Hsiao & Zheng 1977: 59 (diagnosis, photo, figures, host plants, distribution); Ahmad & Kamaluddin 1982: 261 (in key), 269 (redescription, habitus, genitalia, figures); Ahmad et al. 1994: 120 (morphology, phenetic analysis); Chen 1995: 20 (redescription, habitus, host plant, biology, distribution); * Hua 2000: 168 (list, distribution, host plants); * Bu et al. 2002: 245 (redescription, distribution); * Ho 2003: 200 (druriae [lapsus], redescription, host plants, colour photos); * Göllner-Scheiding 2006: 199 (catalogue, distribution).

Type specimen of P. watanabei examined. HOLOTYPE (3): “P. \ Watanabei \ n. sp. [Matsumura’s handwriting] \\ <6> [in Japanese script, handwritten in red]” [a single label with writing on both sides] ( EIHU) ( Figs. 7–9 ).

Other specimens examined. TAIWAN: Taipei County: “Taihoku” [= Taipei], 16. VIII. 1925, leg. J. Sonan (1 3, TARI); same locality and collector, 20. IV. 1937 (1 3, TARI); same locality and collector, 21. IV. 1937 (6 33, TARI); same locality and collector, 21. VI. 1937 (1 3, TARI). Taoyuan County: “Heichin” [= Pingjhen], 20. V. 1930, leg. J. Sonan (1 3, TARI). Nantou County: Chitou, 13. VI. 1982, leg. J.Z. Ho (1 Ƥ, NMNS); Nanshanchi, 17. VI. 1965, leg. B.S. Chang (1 3, NMNS); “Horisha” [= Puli], V–VIII. [19]18, leg. H. Kawamura (1 Ƥ, TARI); “Musha” [= Wushe], 18. V–15. VI. 1919, leg. T. Okuni & J. Sonan, K. Miy[atake] & M. Yosh[ino] (5 Ƥ$, TARI). Kaohsiung County: “Mt. Hoozan” [= Fengshan], V. 1910, leg. H. Sauter (1 Ƥ, HNHM). — INDIA: Sikkim: Sikkim (2 33, 1 Ƥ, HNHM). — CHINA: Unspecified locality, leg. A. Nonfried, coll. K. Brancsik (1 3, HNHM); Yunnan: “Yun-nan-sen” [= Yunnansen] (1 3, HNHM).

Diagnosis. Recognized within Poecilocoris Dallas, 1848 by the combination of the following characters: body yellow to red, with yellow to black spots sometimes with metallic lustre; head uniformly black; pronotum with usually with 1+1 black spots of various size on disk, sometimes fully missing, invariably without black anterior and anterolateral margin; scutellum with 5 spots along basal margin, 1+1 spots in the middle of the anterior half, 2+2 spots arranged transversally slightly behind middle, and 1+1 spots behind middle of apical half, the spots are variously developed and strongly confluent in dark specimens.

Distribution. India!: Sikkim!; Bhutan; Myanmar; Thailand; China!: Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hongkong, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Yunnan!, Zhejiang; Taiwan!

Discussion. A specimen bearing only a handwritten label with the name P. watanabei was received from EIHU. In contrary of the original description of that species, it is a male, however, we consider it as the holotype of P. watanabei because of the following circumstances. (1) It perfectly fits the original description and figure of P. watanabei ( Matsumura 1913: 106, 107; pl. XII, fig. 6). (2) It bears an identification label in Matsumura’s handwriting having a red number “6” in Chinese character on the opposite side. As it was already noted by Tomokuni (1994), in Matsumura’s collection, such numbers in red apparently refer to the number of the illustration of the respective species in Thousand Insects of Japan, Additamenta I (cf. the labels of the types of Chrysophara formosana and Lamprocoris giranensis !). Consequently, it is justified to consider the specimen examined by us as the holotype, which was used for the preparation of the illustration accompanied the original description of P. watanabei . Because the specimen clearly represents P. druraei , we consider P. watanabei as a junior synonym of the latter species.

The redescription and photograph of Ho (2003: 198) under the name P. watanabei is based on misidentification and represents another species of Poecilocoris .

Figures

FIGURES 1 – 9. Types (dorsal and ventral views) and labels of jewel bugs described by S. Matsumura. 1 – 3, Chrysophara formosana, lectotype (male); 4 – 6, Lamprocoris giranensis, holotype (female); 7 – 9, Poecilocoris watanabei, holotype (male). Scales in mm; photos of labels not to scale.