Acanthosoma forficula Jakovlev, 1880

Tsai, Jing-Fu & Rédei, Dávid, 2015, The genus Acanthosoma in Taiwan (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Acanthosomatidae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 55 (2), pp. 625-664 : 657-658

Acanthosoma forficula Jakovlev, 1880

Acanthosoma forficula Jakovlev, 1880: 387 , 392. Holotype: J, [ Russia:] Wladiwostok [= Vladivostok]; ZMAS.

Acanthosoma virens Reuter, 1881: 74 . Lectotype ( JOSIFOV & KERZHNER 1978: 164): ♀, Amuria [= Russia: Amur region]; NHRS. Synonymized by JOSIFOV & KERZHNER (1978: 164).

Acanthosoma kyotoanum Esaki, 1916: 126 . Syntypes: J, ♀, Japan: Honshiu [= Honshu]: Kyoto, Mt. Minamo, Shinano ; ELKU. Synonymized by ESAKI (1926: 200).

Acanthosoma forficula: LETHIERRY & SEVERIN (1893: 253) (catalogue, distribution), KIRKALDY (1909:171) (catalogue, distribution), ESAKI (1926: 200) (type material, records, distribution synonymy, comparison with forcipatum ), ESAKI (1932: 1588) (redescription, habitus, figure, distribution, host plants), ISHIHARA (1947: 69) (listed, figures), ESAKI (1950: 202) (redescription, habitus, distribution), MIYAMOTO (1962: 80) (redescription, host plants, habitat, distribution), KERZHNER (1964: 364) (records), LEE (1971: 214) (in key, redescription, photo, figure, records, distribution), 500 (catalogue, distribution), HIURA (1977: 106) (diagnosis, photo, record,distribution, bionomics), JOSIFOV & KERZHNER (1978: 164) (synonymy, records), KANYUKOVA (1988: 913) (in key, figures, distribution), KWON et al. (2001: 369) (catalogue, host plants, distribution), DERZHANSKY et al. (2002: 362) (type material), GÖLLNER- SCHEIDING (2006: 167) (catalogue, distribution), YAMAMOTO et al. (2009: 33) (host plants), VINOKUROV et al. (2010: 225) (catalogue, distribution), YAMAMOTO & HAYASHI (2011: 145, 150) (in key, records, diagnostic characters, figures), YAMAMOTO & HAYASHI (2012: 504) (redescription, photos of adults and larvae, host plants, distribution), TSAI & RÉDEI (2015b: 30) (figures).

Acanthosoma virens: LETHIERRY & SEVERIN (1893: 253) (catalogue, distribution), KIRKALDY (1909: 172) (catalogue, distribution).

Material examined. TAIWAN: TAICHUNG CO.: Wuling Farm, 15.iv.2013, leg. S. Wu (1 ♀ NCHU). NANTOU CO.:

Kahoerhshan, 7.v.1992, sweeping net, leg. W.T. Yang, 1447–728 (1 J NMNS).

Diagnosis. The species can be readily recognized by the combination of the following characters: humeri rounded, not produced; connexival plates with narrow (not wider than tibia) black markings enclosing intersegmental sutures; genital capsule of male with a pair of long, slender, posteriorly strongly diverging posterolateral projections; posterior margin of laterotergite VIII of female truncate. ESAKI (1932, 1950), ISHIHARA (1947), MIYAMOTO (1962), LEE (1971), HIURA (1977), KANYUKOVA (1988), and YAMAMOTO & HAYASHI (2012) provided redescriptions and illustrations which are useful for recognizing this species.

Etymology. The species epithet is the Latin noun forficula (feminine diminutive form of forfex ) ‘a pair of small scissors’ in apposition; ending not to be changed.

Bionomics. The following plant species were recorded as host plants of A. forficula in Korea: Acanthopanax chiisanensis Nakai and other unspecified Acanthopanax spp. (Araliaceae) , Cornus controversa Hemsl. , C. kousa Bürger ex Hance , C. macrophylla Wall. , C. walteri Wangerin (Cornaceae) ( KWON et al. 2001). Cornus controversa and the following additinal species were reported from Japan: Carpinus cordata Blume and C. japonica Blume (Betulaceae) , Berchemia racemosa Siebold & Zucc. (Rhamnaceae) ( YAMAMOTO et al. 2009). The host plants in Taiwan are unknown.

Distribution. The species has been recorded from the Russian Far East, Japan, and Korea. There is only a single old record from the Khabarovsky Krai (‘Amuria’) ( REUTER 1881), VINOKUROV et al. (2010) regarded it as questionable.The records from China ( HSIAO & LIU 1977 and subsequent authors) are based on misidentification, most of them apparently pertain to A. forfex Dallas, 1851 ( TSAI & RÉDEI 2015b); the occurrence in the country is in need of confirmation, as we could not see any voucher specimens. We present the first record from Taiwan. The available Taiwanese specimens do not differ from specimens from Japan and the Russian Far East.

Summary of known records: RUSSIA: FAR EAST TERRITORY: Khabarovsky Krai: Amuria? [= Amur Region] ( REUTER 1881, as A. virens ); Primorsky Krai ( KERZHNER 1964, KANYUKOVA 1988, VINOKUROV et al. 2010). — JAPAN: HONSHU: Izu! (HNHM), Kanagawa! (SEHU). SHIKOKU ( YAMAMOTO & HAYASHI 2012). KYUSHU: Kirishima!, Kyoto! (SEHU). HOKKAIDO: Shikotsuko!, Nopporo!, Sapporo!, Katsurasawa!, Yuni! (SEHU). OKI ISLANDS: Dogo (HAYASHI et al. 2006). — KOREA: NORTH; SOUTH ( KWON et al. 2001). — TAIWAN: TAICHUNG CO.!; NANTOU CO.!