Dindymus (Pseudodindymus) pulcher Stål, 1863

Stehlík, L., 2009, Pseudodindymus, a new subgenus of Dindymus (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pyrrhocoridae) from the Oriental Region, Zootaxa 2010, pp. 1-15 : 9-10

Dindymus (Pseudodindymus) pulcher Stål, 1863 , stat. restit.

( Figs. 6, 8)

Dindymus pulcher Stål, 1863: 400 . Syntypes: ♂ ♀, Philippines, Manila (NHRS).

Dindymus pulcher: Stål (1870) : 110 (catalogue, distribution); Stål (1871): 666 (list, diagnosis); Walker (1873): 4 (catalogue, distribution); Taeuber (1927): 188 (variability, distribution); Hussey (1929): 60 (catalogue, distribution); Barrion & Jackson (2000): 292–304 (bionomy, distribution); Jackson & Barrion (2002): 53 –67 (bionomy, distribution); Jackson & Barrion (2004): 485 –491 (bionomy, distribution).

Dindymus albicornis var. pulcher: Blöte (1931) : 109 (taxonomy, distribution).

Dindymus albicornis (partim): Schmidt (1932): 251 –252 (distribution); Kerzhner (2001): 249 (catalogue).

Material examined. Philippines: Luzon : Laguna province, Laguna College of Forestry , 27.x.1963, 7 ♂♂ 7 ♀♀, W. L. Stern leg. ( USNM) . Panay: NW Panay, 1 ♂, Baker leg. ( USNM) .

Differential diagnosis. There are important characters in the shape of pronotum and colouration, as well as size of both D. pulcher and D. albicornis . The measurements of both species are given for comparison.

Dindymus pulcher is somewhat larger, especially females. Pronotum ( Fig. 6) dull black with finer and less prominent punctation; yellow spots on pronotal base more elongated. Head wider. Pronotum generally longer; lateral pronotal margin at the level of median furrow less concave; both prosternal and pronotal collar as well as pronotal lobe longer. Antennomere 2 somewhat longer and black. Epicoxal lobes in male on pro- and mesosternum black, on metasternum yellow; in female all epicoxal lobes black. Pale yellow colouration on posterior pleural flange I developed only medially.

Measurements of D. pulcher (mean (minimum–maximum); mm). MALES (n = 5). Body length 9.98 (9.50–10.15); head: width (including eyes) 2.02 (1.97–2.05), interocular width 1.13 (no span); lengths of antennomeres: 1 – 2.33 (2.21–2.43), 2 – 1.55 (1.43–1.62), 3 – 1.44 (1.35–1.51), 4 – 2.36 (2.32–2.40); pronotum: total length 2.04 (2.02–2.11), collar length 0.38 (no span), callar lobe length 0.49 (0.46–0.51), pronotal lobe length 1.19 (1.13–1.24), width 2.70 (2.65–2.75); scutellum: length 1.23 (1.19–1.30), width 1.28 (1.24–1.30); corium: length 4.63 (4.48–4.83), width 1.52 (1.40–1.62). FEMALES (n = 5). Body length 12.56 (12.31–12.85); head: width (including eyes) 2.30 (2.27–2.35), interocular width 1.33 (1.30–1.35); lengths of antennomeres: 1 – 2.59 (2.38–2.70), 2 – 1.82 (1.73–1.89), 3 – 1.61 (1.46–1.73), 4 – 2.59 (2.48–2.65); pronotum: total length 2.54 (2.48–2.59), collar length 0.41 (0.38–0.43), callar lobe length 0.60 (0.59–0.65), pronotal lobe length 1.52 (1.46–1.57), width 3.44 (3.37–3.54); scutellum: length 1.53 (1.46–1.67), width 1.62 (1.57–1.73); corium: length 6.25 (6.21–6.37), width 1.95 (1.89–2.00).

Dindymus albicornis is smaller. Pronotum ( Fig. 5) shining black with very prominent punctation; yellow spots on pronotal base less elongated, in some populations yellow spots may be somewhat reduced (e.g., on Mt. Kinabalu in Sabah) or there is an uninterrupted yellow band on posterior pronotal margin (D. a. siberutensis from Siberut Island). Head narrower. Pronotum shorter, lateral pronotal margin at the level of median furrow markedly concave, both prosternal and pronotal collar as well as pronotal lobe shorter. Antennomere 2 shorter, pale, only apically black. All epicoxal lobes in both sexes completely or at least partly pale yellow. Pale yellow colouration on posterior pleural flange I reaching coxa.

Measurements of D. a. albicornis (mean (minimum–maximum); mm). MALES (n = 5). Body length 9.56 (9.45–9.67); head: width (including eyes) 1.85 (1.78–1.92), interocular width 0.95 (0.92–0.97); lengths of antennomeres: 1 – 2.14 (2.05–2.21), 2 – 1.38 (1.35–1.40), 3 – 1.24 (1.16–1.30), 4 – 2.19 (2.11–2.27); pronotum: total length 1.81 (1.78–1.89), collar length 0.22 (no span), callar lobe length 0.50 (0.46–0.54), pronotal lobe length 1.08 (1.03–1.11), width 2.54 (2.40–2.70); scutellum: length 1.16 (1.08–1.30), width 1.23 (1.19–1.30); corium: length 4.63 (4.27–5.29), width 1.56 (1.51–1.67).

FEMALES (n = 5). Body length 11.82 (11.29–12.15); head: width (including eyes) 2.18 (2.16–2.24), interocular width 1.17 (1.13–1.19); lengths of antennomeres: 1 – 2.63 (2.59–2.70), 2 – 1.70 (1.67–1.75), 3 – 1.50 (1.46–1.57), 4 – 2.58 (2.43–2.70); pronotum: total length 2.25 (2.11–2.32), collar length 0.28 (0.24–0.32), callar lobe length 0.57 (0.54–0.59), pronotal lobe length 1.40 (1.30–1.51), width 3.22 (3.02–3.35); scutellum: length 1.53 (1.46–1.62), width 1.69 (1.57–1.84); corium: length 5.95 (5.56–6.43), width 1.97 (1.84–2.11).

Bionomy. Dindymus pulcher is one of the very few Dindymus species whose bionomy was studied in detail (see review by Jackson & Barrion (2004)). Dindymus pulcher is a rainforest bug that forages on the ground, on tree trunks, and among vegetation; it was collected at the forest edge, along road cuts and in clearings where trees are spaced widely apart. Both adults and larvae of D. pulcher prey on various invertebrates – snails and snail eggs (Gastropoda) (32 %), Coleoptera adults (23 %), adults and larvae of Hemiptera (18 %), Lepidoptera larvae (9 %), Isoptera (4 %), Lepidoptera adults and pupae, Coleoptera larvae and pupae, Blattodea larvae, spider eggs (Araneida), leeches (Hirudinea), and woodlice (Isopoda). To feed on snails, D. pulcher kill them by piercing through the shell. It passes five (occasionally six) larval instars. The males have shorter longevity than females. Two species of Antilochus Stål, 1863 were observed to prey on D. pulcher (Barrion & Jackson 2000; Jackson & Barrion 2002, 2004).

Distribution. Philippines: Luzon ( Stål 1863, Taeuber 1927, Blöte 1931, Schmidt 1932); Bohol ( Taeuber 1927), Masbate ( Taeuber 1927), Panay (new record).

Note. Blöte (1931) downgraded D. pulcher to a variety of D. albicornis . This synonymy was accpted by Schmidt (1932) and Kerzhner (2001). However, Barrion & Jackson (2000) and Jackson & Barrion (2002, 2004), being not aware of the paper by Blöte (1931), still treated D. pulcher as valid species. Based on the characters listed above, I reinstitute here D. pulcher as a valid species.