Amphimenes Bates

Hunting, Wesley & Yang, Man-Miao, 2019, A taxonomic review of the pericaline ground-beetles in Taiwan, with descriptions of new species (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Lebiini), ZooKeys 816, pp. 1-164 : 8-9

Genus Amphimenes Bates

Amphimenes Bates, 1873: 322; Csiki 1932: 1353; Jedlička 1963: 366; Habu 1964: 472; 1967: 113; 1982: 90; Nakane 1957: 43; Lorenz 2005: 456; Fedorenko 2010: 17; 2014: 305.

Pseudosinurus Kirschenhofer, 1999: 74.

Type species.

Amphimenes piceolus Bates, 1873 (monobasic).

Type locality.

Nagasaki, Japan

Recognition of Taiwanese species of Amphimenes

Color. Various.

Pilosity. Dorsum of head and pronotum glabrous.

Fixed setae. Two pairs of supraorbital setae; clypeus with two lateral setae; labrum with six setae along apical margin; one pair of suborbital setae; pronotum with two setae along each margin; elytra with one seta in basal third of stria 3, two setae in apical third of stria 2; 16-17 lateral (umbilical) setae in interval 9; two setae on each of abdominal sterna III to VI, two setae along apical margin of sternum VII in males, four setae along apical margin of sternum VII in females.

Luster. Head capsule and pronotum dull.

Head. Mentum with single broad tooth; labium and palpi typical for genus Amphimenes .

Pronotum. Anterior and posterior transverse impressions shallow; median longitudinal impression shallow; apical margin curved forming two latero-apical lobes.

Elytra. Striae moderately impressed; elytral apices truncate.

Legs. Tarsal claws pectinate, three to five denticles per claw. Males with adhesive vestiture ventrally, two rows of squamo-setae on tarsomeres 1-3 of fore-leg.

Male. Ostium left pleuropic. Phallus cylindrical.

Female genitalia. Gonocoxite 2 (gc2) long and narrow; two lateral ensiform (les) setae and one dorsal ensiform seta (des) present. Sensory furrow, furrow pegs and associated nematiform setae not observed.

Taxonomic notes.

Jedlička (1963) recorded the type species, A. piceolus Bates from both Taiwan and Fukien, China. The type of A. piceolus from BMNH, London was examined as well as the material from both Taiwan and Fukien, China that Jedlička was referring to in his work at NMPC, Prague. After dissection and comparison of these specimens the example that Jedlička had from Taiwan was not A. piceolus , but rather A. carinacaulis sp. n. The specimen from Fukien, China, was also not A. piceolus , but something different from all other species examined from Asia and likely an undescribed species. After also examining the types of A. asahinai Nakane, A. ryukuensis Habu and undetermined material from several collections, it appears that A. piceolus is likely restricted to Japan only. One other specimen examined from Okinawa, Japan, on loan from NCHU, also appears to be an undescribed species.