Cassida imparata Gressitt & Kimoto, 1963,

Sekerka, Lukáš, Jia, Fenglong, Pang, Hong & Borowiec, Lech, 2016, Cassidinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) types deposited at Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, Zootaxa 4084 (1), pp. 50-78: 56

publication ID

publication LSID

persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Cassida imparata Gressitt & Kimoto, 1963


Cassida imparata Gressitt & Kimoto, 1963 

( Fig. 5View FIGURES 4 – 11. 4)

Cassida (Taiwania) imitatrix Gressitt, 1952: 493  (primary junior homonym of C. imitatrix Spaeth, 1916  ). Cassida imparata Gressitt & Kimoto, 1963: 971  (new substitute name).

Type locality. China, Guangxi prov., Longzhou Co., 5 mi S of Longzhou.

Original type series. Described only from the holotype ( LMNH).

Type material examined. Holotype, pinned: ‘Kwangsi,South China | Mts. 5 mi S.of Lung- | chow, Lung-chau Dist. | August 8, 1934. | Ernest R. Tinkham [w, p, cb] || 603 [w, t, cb] || HO[hw]LOTYPE | CASSIDA  [hw] | ( TAIWANIA  ) [hw] | IMITATRIX [hw] | J.L.Gressitt [r, p, cb] || [vernacular name in Chinese, hw] | Taiwania imparata  [hw] | (Gressitt) [hw] | det. Li-Zhong Hua [in Chinese, p] 1987 [hw] [w, p, cb] || En-289773 | [Data Matrix barcode] SYS [w. p, cb]’.

Current status. Valid species.

Remarks. Gressitt (1952) named this species as C. imitatrix  however, the name was already proposed earlier by Spaeth (1916) thus Gressitt & Kimoto (1963) proposed a new substitute name C. imparata  . Medvedev & Eroshkina (1988) synonymized C. imparata  with C. gentilis Spaeth, 1926  without any comments. However, Borowiec (1999) followed Chen et al. (1986) and considered the species as valid.

Gressitt (1952) compared the species to C. circumdata Herbst, 1799  and C. obtusata Boheman, 1854  however, both species are very different from C. imparata  and the reason why Gressitt compared it to these two is inapprehensible. Cassida imparata  is characterized by apparently appendiculate tarsal claws, uniformly yellow ventrites, semicircular pronotum, the base of elytra only slightly wider than the base of pronotum, elytra with raised postscutellar relief and diffuse pattern formed by black spots dispersed on yellow disc. Chen et al. (1986) separated C. imparata  from other similar species by subangulate lateral sides of the pronotum (see Fig. 8–36 inView FIGURES 4 – 11. 4View FIGURES 12 – 19. 12View FIGURES 20 – 25. 20View FIGURES 26 – 31. 26View FIGURES 32 – 36. 32 Chen et al. (1986)), however, the holotype has them rounded. The shape of lateral sides of the pronotum is usually a constant character and diagnostic for several taxa and subangulate shape is not particularly very frequent among Asiatic species of Cassida Linnaeus, 1758  . We assume that Chen et al. (1986) misidentified C. imparata  as the characters and figures given by them match to another species— C. pseudosyrtica Medvedev & Eroshkina, 1988  . However, comparison of Chenʼs specimens with types of the latter species would be desirable to confirm this.

Cassida pseudosyrtica  is the most similar species as it has also apparently appendiculate claws. The paratype specimen (deposited at DBET) distinctly differs by subangulate pronotal sides and more circular body outline. Other similar species are C. gentilis Spaeth, 1926  , C. perplexa (Chen & Zia, 1961)  , and C. simanica (Chen & Zia, 1961)  but these have appendiculate tarsal claws while C. imparata  has them apparently appendiculate due to projecting flanks of ultimate tarsomere. Cassida gentilis  also differs in regularly circular body with pronotum strongly expanded forwards thus lateral corners are situated distinctly in basal 1/4 length thus appearing more semicircular while C. imparata  has less circular body with pronotum rather elliptical not expanded strongly forwards thus lateral corners are situated around midlength. In addition C. gentilis  has antennomeres III and IV subequal in length and about 1.5 times as long as II while C. imparata  has antennomere III distinctly longer than IV and twice as long as II. Cassida perplexa  differs in subangulate humeral angles of elytra (obtuse in C. imparata  ) and black elytral disc with yellow spots (yellow with several black spots in C. imparata  ). Cassida simanica  also differs in ventrites partly black (uniformly yellow in C. imparata  ). Cassida varians Herbst, 1799  is also similar, particularly its pale forms and moreover it has apparently appendiculate tarsal claws as C. imparata  but differs in ventrites mostly black (uniformly yellow in C. imparata  ) and clypeus almost as wide as long (distinctly longer than wide in C. imparata  ). Other species with similar pattern such as C. praensis Borowiec, 2001  and C. thailandica Borowiec, 2001  differ in simple tarsal claws.


Museum d'Histoire naturelle


Zhongshan (Sun Yatsen) University














Cassida imparata Gressitt & Kimoto, 1963

Sekerka, Lukáš, Jia, Fenglong, Pang, Hong & Borowiec, Lech 2016

Cassida (Taiwania) imitatrix

Gressitt, J. L. & Kimoto S. 1963: 971
Gressitt, J. L. 1952: 493