Physodeutera (Microlepidia) marginemaculata (W. Horn, 1934 )

Moravec, Jiří, Brzoska, David & Vybíral, Jan, 2021, New or rare Madagascar tiger beetles- 21. Physodeutera (Microlepidia) propripenis sp. nov., Ph. (M.) marginemaculata (W. Horn) and Ph. (M.) peyrierasi Rivalier (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), Zootaxa 4941 (1), pp. 33-50 : 41-45

Physodeutera (Microlepidia) marginemaculata (W. Horn, 1934)

( Figs 23–39 , 51 )

Prothyma biguttula ? margine-maculata W. Horn, 1934: 25 , 22, fig. 7.

Prothyma (Megalomma) biguttula margine-maculata: Olsoufieff 1934: 55 , fig. 7.

Prothyma margine-maculata: Horn 1938: 71 , pl. 87, fig. 11.

Megalomma (Diarrhiza) marginemaculatum: Jeannel 1946: 192 .

Physodeutera (Microlepidia) marginemaculata: Rivalier 1967: 268 , figs 5c, 6c.

Physodeutera (Microlepidia) marginemaculata: Moravec 2002: 87 , figs 224–236, 709–711.

Type locality. “ Madagascar borealis: régions entre Nossi-be, Diego Suarez et Vohémar ” (sic!)—see the note on the ambiguous statement in “ Distribution and biology” below .

Type material. Holotype ♁ (by monotypy) in SDEI, labelled: “Zwischen Nossibe, a Dagnasuare / Vohmar Jonson” (sic!, erroneous spelling) [handwritten, partly illegible] // “ Holotypus ” [red, printed]; “Type / W. Horn” [printed] // “Coll. W. Horn / DEI Eberswalde” [printed] // “ssp. margine-maculata / m[ihi]” [handwritten]; “ Holotype (by monotypy / Prothyma biguttula / marginemaculata W. Horn, 1934 / design. by J. Moravec, 2000” [red, printed // “ Physodeutera / ( Microlepidia ) / marginemaculata (W. Horn, 1934) / det. Jiří Moravec, 2000”

Other material examined. 1 ♀ in SDEI: “Diego Suarez / N. Madag. ” . 1 ♀ in SDEI: “Tonkin” (sic! / “Clarmont” // “margine-maculata?”. 1 ♁ in MNHN: “ Mt. d’Ambre / Madagascar ” // “Muséum Paris / 1930 / coll. Sicard ” [printed] // “1739 Rivalier” [handwritten, referring to the number of the aedeagus separately mounted by Rivalier]. 1 ♀ in MNHN: “ Mt. d’Ambre / Madagascar ” // “ Muséum Paris 1930 / coll. Sicard ” // “ Prothyma viridicyaneum Brull. / var.? / Dr. W. Horn det.”.

Recent data: 5 ♁♁, 5 ♀♀ in CCJM, 1 ♁ in CEWH, 1 ♁ in MHCW , 1 ♀ in FCCR: “ Madagascar Nord / Marotaolana (Massif du Ankarana) / 7-9.II.2000, leg. J. Moravec ”. 1 ♁, 4 ♀♀ in CJVB with same labels except for “leg. Jan Vybíral ”. 3 ♁♁, 6 ♀♀ in MHCW: Ankarana Special Reserve , / Antsiranana Dist., / Madagascar / Dec. 6, 2012, Michio Hori & E.H. / Razanajaonarivalona leg.” 2 ♁♁ , 2 ♀♀ in MHCW: / “ Marotaolana Forest / Massif / du Ankarana, Antsiranana / Dist., Madagascar / Dec. 14, 2018, Michio Hori & E. H. / Razanajaonarivalona leg.”. 2 ♁♁ , 2 ♀♀ in CCJM, 1 ♁ in CKWP, 1 ♁ in FCCR: “ Madagascar Nord / Amtanamitarana, / Montagne des Français / 10.II.2000 leg. Jiří Moravec ” . 1 ♀ in CJVB: “N. Madagascar, 31.XII.2008 / Antsiranana env. Ramena / S12°17´1 0.8´´; E49°17´38.3´´ / J. Vybíral leg.” .

Differential diagnosis. Physodeutera (Microlepidia) marginemaculata is immediately distinguished from Ph. (M.) propripenis sp. nov by its sexually dimorphic labrum; its male labrum is notably shorter than wide (length 0.95– 1.10 mm, width 1.30–1.40 m), possessing a short median lobe which is subtruncate between subacute anterolateral teeth ( Figs 28–30 ), while the female labrum is nearly as long as wide (length 1.40–1.60 (–1.70) mm, width 1.50– 1.60 (–1.85) mm and has distinctly tridentate median lobe ( Fig. 31 ); males are clearly distinguished from the new species by the shape of their aedeagus apex which is truncate or slightly obliquely truncate ( Figs 36–39 ). Body large (but generally smaller than in Ph. (M.) propripenis sp. nov.), length 10.20–11.80 (–14.20) mm, width 2.95–3.50 (–4.15) mm (measures in parentheses belong to one anomalous female in SDEI); the body shape is similar to that in Ph. (M.) propripenis sp. nov., iridescent blue-green to dark violaceous, but the elytra of Ph. (M.) marginemaculata possess variable lateral maculation consisting of 3–4 sublateral maculae in males ( Figs 23 , 34 ) and 2–3 (often only 2) maculae in females ( Fig. 35 ). In contrast, the anteapical macula is missing in all examined specimens of Ph. (M.) propripenis sp. nov. (humeral macula is always missing in females of all these species).

Physodeutera (Microlepidia) peyrierasi Rivalier, 1967 shares both the sexually dimorphic shape of labrum ( Figs 42–44 ) and truncate aedeagus apex ( Fig. 46 ) with Ph. (M.) marginemaculata but may be distinguished by its generally somewhat smaller body (particularly in males), and markedly reduced elytral maculation (see “Differential diagnosis” under Ph. (M.) propripenis sp. nov. and under that species below).

Horn (1934) described this species originally as Prothyma (Megalomma) biguttula marginemaculata, W. Horn, 1934 , thus as a subspecies of Physodeutera (Microlepidia) biguttula (Fairmaire, 1903) in the recent concept of the species. The labrum (in both sexes) of Ph. (M.) biguttula may somewhat resemble the labrum in Ph. (M.) peyrierasi and the aedeagus apex is somewhat similar both to Ph. (M.) peyrierasi and Ph. (M.) marginemaculata . However, apart from its notably smaller size, Ph. (M.) biguttula is immediately distinguished by its elytra possessing large central macula.

For detailed redescription and illustrations of these species including those of their type specimens see the monograph ( Moravec 2002a).

Variability. The coloration is rather changeable depending on the angle and way of illumination. The number of sublateral elytral maculae is rather consistent in examined specimens, but some adults from Montagne des Français lack the anteapical macula, while most adults from Marotaonala possess an additional, often barely visible sublateral-anterior macula. As obvious from Fig. 29 , the anteromedian lobe of the male labrum may be somewhat prolonged anteriad (but never possessing median tooth); thus, in all examined males the shape corresponds with the labrum of the holotype ( Fig. 30 ) and with the original description by Horn (1934) who characterized the male labrum as “ antice labri margine in medio minus producto ”. The aedeagus apex is sometimes slightly more obliquely truncate.

Distribution and biology ( Fig. 51 ). Physodeutera (Microlepidia) marginemaculata is a rare species which was for a long time known only from the holotype and four other historical specimens ( Moravec 2002a). It is missing in many collections. For instance, no specimen was found in BMNH ( Moravec & Gillett 2009). Surprisingly enough, it was rediscovered recently in a humid deciduous forest near Marotaolana, 14 km north of the Special Reserve of Ankarana and about 13 km south of Anivorano North, coordinates (decimal) of the locality: –12.82842,49.23514. The adults were flying on boulders and stones in a rivulet, and the same behaviour of adults was observed in remains of a partly degraded forest near the village of Antanamitarana in the eastern area of Montagne des Français ( Moravec 2002a). The above-mentioned nine specimens (MHCW) from the Ankarana Special Reserve come from the area of “Milaintety Circuit” (S12°55´50.4´´; E49°03´31.7´´) in the western side of the reserve (Michio Hori pers. com.), thus fairly distant from the eastern Benavony Circuit of the type locality of Ph. (M.) propripenis sp. nov.

As discussed previously ( Moravec 2002a), the type locality of Ph. (M.) margineguttata was transcribed by Horn (1934) ambiguously as “régions entre Nossi-be, Diego Suarez et Vohemar”. The label attached to the holotype “Zwischen Nossibe, a Dagnasuare, Vohmar, Jonson” is partly illegible and full of mistakes as warned previously by Döbler (1973), yet the garbled “Dagnasure” certainly means Diego Suarez. The island of Nosy Be, situated near the western shore opposite to Ambanja, belongs phytogeographically to Sambirano, though administratively to the prefecture of Antsiranana (= Diego Suarez) in North Madagascar. Notwithstanding, the “Zwischen Nossibe” and “régions entre Nossi-be” means regions between the island, therefore area facing the island of Nosy Be in a triangle forming the northernmost part of Madagascar (see Fig. 51 ). It may be true also regarding the seemingly puzzling “Vohemar”, as although the town of Vohémar is situated on the north-eastern coast of Madagascar, the Vohémar region is very large, almost meeting the northern localities of this species. One female (CJVB) was caught in the area of the town of Ramena near Antsiranana, which represents the northernmost record of this species.

Remarks. For detailed redescription see the monograph ( Moravec 2002a).

The aedeagus of the holotype (SDEI) was schematically drawn (in its reverse position) by Horn (1934, fig. 7) and the slightly obliquely truncate shape of the aedeagus apex was illustrated by him also later ( Horn 1938, tab. 47, fig. 11). The aedeagus of the holotype was examined and illustrated (in line drawings) by the first author ( Moravec 2002a, fig. 235) with a copy of the drawing here ( Fig. 39 ); its apex shows the same truncate (or slightly obliquely truncate) shape as in all other specimens with both cleared and untreated aedeagi ( Figs 36–39 ). It is noteworthy that the aedeagus apex of the male deposited in MNHN and labelled “Mt. d’Ambre” was illustrated schematically by Rivalier (1967, fig. 5c) as more obliquely truncate and acute (defined by him as “court and acuminé”). However, the illustrated aedeagus was separated and mounted by Rivalier between two glasses (stored in MNHN as “Lame No 1739”). Such treatment used by Rivalier usually changed the aedeagus shape, or partly deformed or entirely and irrecoverably destroyed the internal sac or the entire shape of the aedeagi ( Moravec 2002a, 2010, 2018, 2020).

Horn (1934) considered two females deposited in SDEI to be a “ race nouvelle ”. Nevertheless, the characters of these females (examined by the first author), one of them mislabelled as “ Tonkin ”, the second unusually large (14.2 mm long) and labelled “Diego Suarez, N. Madag.”, fall within the variability of this species, although the large size is exceptional (see also Moravec 2002a). Notwithstanding, as mentioned above, females of this species-complex cannot be sometimes identified with certainty.

Figures

FIGURES 23–32. Physodeutera (Microlepidia) marginemaculata (W. Horn). 23—habitus, ♁ 11 mm, Marotaolana (CCJM); 24—head, ♁, ibid.; 25—mandibles, ♁, ibid.; 26–27—maxillary palpus: 26—♁, ibid.; 27—♀, ibid.; 28–31—labrum: 28—♁, ibid.; 29—♁, Amtanamitarana (CCJM); 30—♁, type locality, HT (SDEI), adopted from Moravec (2002a); 31—♀, Marotaolana (CCJM); 32–33—pronotum, Marotaolana (CCJM): 32—♁; 33—♀. Bars = 1 mm.

FIGURES 34–39. Physodeutera (Microlepidia) marginemaculata (W. Horn). 34–35—elytron: 34—♁, Marotaolana (CCJM); 35—♀, ibid.; 36–39—male aedeagusor its apical portion:36— Marotaolana (CCJM);37—showinginternal sac,Amtanamitarana (CCJM); 38–39—drawings adopted from Moravec (2002a): 38—Marotaolana; 39—type locality, HT (SDEI). Bars = 1 mm.

FIGURES 50–52. Distribution of three Physodeutera species in North Madagascar. 50— Physodeutera (Microlepidia) propripenis sp. nov.; 51— Physodeutera (Microlepidia) marginemaculata (W. Horn); 52— Physodeutera (Microlepidia) peyrierasi Rivalier.

FIGURES 40–49. Physodeutera (Microlepidia) peyrierasi Rivalier. 40—habitus, ♁, 10.3 mm, Mahamasina (CCJM); 41— part of head, type locality Ankarana (CCJM ex APCA); 42–44—labrum: 42—♁, type locality (CCJM ex APCA); 43—♁, Mahamasina (CCJM); 44—♀, ibid.; 45—pronotum, ♁, ibid.; 46—aedeagus showing internal sac, type locality (CCJM ex APCA); 47–49—elytron: 47—♁, type locality (CCJM ex APCA); 48—♁, Mahamasina (CCJM); 49—♁, ibid. (CCJM). Bars = 1 mm.