Apterodela (s. str.) lobipennis (Bates, 1888)

Figs 16–24, 51–53, 85–87, 90–92, 124–127, 129–132, 148, 193–198, 203–210, 220, 221, 232, 240, 247, 254, 261.

Cicindela lobipennis Bates, 1888: 380 (Type locality— China, Kiu-Kiang).

Cicindela lobipennis Bates, 1888: Fleutiaux 1892: 92; Jakobson 1905: 189; W. Horn 1915: 290; 1930: 403; 1938: 41, T. 50 fig. 6; Winkler 1924: 7; Mandl 1981: 23; Lei & Zhou 1998: 62.

Cylindera lobipennis (Bates, 1888): Ohno 1993: 69.

Cylindera (Cylindera) lobipennis (Bates, 1888): Schilder 1953: 547.

Cylindera (Apterodela) lobipennis (Bates, 1888): Cassola & Nidek 1984: 14; Wiesner 1992: 179; Lorenz 1998: 53; 2005: 165; Matalin 2001: 386–388; Puchkov & Matalin 2003: 108; Shook & Wiesner 2006: 13; Shook & Wu 2007: 33; Wu & Shook 2010: 81; Sota et al. 2011: 717; Wu 2011: 26.

Apterodela lobipennis (Bates, 1888): Rivalier 1950: 231; Putchkov & Matalin 2017: 217; Wiesner 2020: 266.

Type material. Neotype of Cicindela lobipennis Bates, 1888 (designated here), ♀ (Figs 16, 17)—Kiu-Kiang, Heyne [white hand-written label], lobipennis Bates [white hand-written label], coll. W. Horn, DEI Eberswalde [white printed label], DEI Münchenberg, Col – 10868 [green printed label], NEOTYPUS Cicindela lobipennis Bates, 1888, design. A. Matalin et J. Wiesner, 2023 [red printed label] (SDEI).

Additional material. China, Hubei Province: 1 ♂ — Ichang, Staudinger (ZISP) ; 1 ♂, 1♀ (digital images)— Ichang, China, 90–43 (BMNH) ; 1 ♂, 1 ♀ (digital images)— Ichang, Yangtcse, Staudinger (MNHN) ; 1 ♂ — Chang Yang, Tring Mus., Kraatz (SDEI) ; 1 ♀ — China, Hubei, Mt Dabies Shan [= Dabie Shan], Luatian [= Luotian] County, 1–10.VI.2008 (cJW) ; 25 ♂♂, 9 ♀♀ — AE北ākae东县, Dzx坪, 588 m, Coll. Ṃ 丹丹, 2020.6.19 [= Jinguoping, Badong County, Enshi City, Hubei Province, China, 588 m, coll. Dandan Liu, 2020.6.19] (cXX); 18 ♂♂, 6 ♀♀ — Hubei, Jinguoping, Badong County, Enshi, June 2020, leg. native collector (cTA); 2 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ — Hubei, Laoyan, Xianfeng Co, Enshi, 20–29.VI.2001 (cMH) ; 1 ♂, 1 ♀ — ibid (cTA); Anxui Province: 7 ♂♂ — Anhui, Tianzhushan, 22.VI.2004, leg. T. Sota & H. Liang (cMH) ; 1 ♂ (digital image)— ibid (cTS); 1 ♂ (digital image)—SW Anhui, Tianzhushan, 30.75oN 116.45oE, 11–26.V.2004, Ryjáček et Turna leg. (cJM) ; 1 ♂, 1 ♀ — Anhui, Taihu, Wanling, April 2018, native collector; 1 ♂ — ibid, May 2018, leg. native collector (both cTA); Jiangxi Province: 1 ♂ — Kiang-si [= Jiangxi]; 1 ♀ —Kiang-si [= Jiangxi], Yao-chow [= Jaochow]; 1 ♀ — China, Kiu-Kiang [= Jiujiang], Heyne K. (all MFNB) ; 2 ♀♀ (digital images)— Museum Paris, Chine, Kiu-Kang [= Kiang], Guillot 2323-90 (MNHN) ; Zhejiang Province: 1 ♀ — China, cent. Zhejiang, N of Jinhua, Dapanshan, 1100 m, 29.216667N, 119.65E, 15.V–21.VI.2011, leg. Jaroslav Turna (cFB).

References. CHINA, Hubei Province: Tschang Jang [= Changyang] (Horn 1930); Changyang (Lei & Zhou 1998); Hunan Province: Chinshantze [= Zhangjiajie], 1500 m (Mandl 1981); Jiangxi Province: Kiu Kiang (W. Horn 1930).

Differential diagnosis. Apterodela lobipennis is readily distinguished from A. bivirgulata by the well-developed, especially in males, subapical sinuate notch, the narrow white elytral pattern (Figs 193–198 vs. Figs 155–162 and Figs 173–179; Figs 203–210 vs. Figs 165–172 and Figs 183–189), by the flatter body (Fig. 172), by the shape of aedeagus (Figs 220, 221 vs. Figs 214–219; Fig. 232 vs. Figs 228–231) and by the internal sack especially by small BLR (Figs 240, 254, 261 vs. Figs 238, 252, 259). Apterodela lobipennis is best distinguished from A. kazantsevi and A. latissima sp. nov. by the narrower elytra, the shallower subapical notch (Figs 193–198 vs. Figs 199–201; Figs 203–210 vs. Fig. 211), and by the shape of aedeagus (Figs 220, 221 vs. Figs 222, 223; Fig. 232 vs. Fig. 233), and additionally from A. kazantsevi by the wider pronotum (Figs 124–127 vs. Fig. 133; Figs 129–132 vs. Fig. 133; Fig. 274). From A. alopecomma sp. nov. A. lobipennis is distinguished by the shape of labrum (Figs 85–87 vs. Fig. 95; Figs 90–92 vs. Fig. 100), by the shape of elytra, and white elytral pattern (Figs 193–198 vs. Fig. 202; Figs 203–210 vs. Fig. 212) as well as by the shape of aedeagus (Figs 220, 221 vs. Fig. 224; Fig. 232 vs. Fig. 234).

Redescription. TL = 14.0– 16.4 mm (mean = 15.2 mm, n = 28) in males (Figs 19, 21), 15.5–18.0 mm (mean = 16.43 mm, n = 14) in females (Figs 18, 20, 22–24), 17.0 mm in neotype, 18.0 mm in the original description (Bates 1888: 381); body relatively flat, especially in males (Figs 274–276; Table 1)—TL/BH = 3.92–4.78 (mean = 4.34, n = 28) vs. 3.62–4.22 (mean = 3.87, n = 13).

Head metallic bronze, clypeus, frons, vertex and genae with light green and golden-cupreous lustre, gula with deep blue-green tinge; orbital plates with 8–10 deep furrows; vertex deeply and widely concave; HW/PW = 1.3–1.52 (mean = 1.4, n = 40) (Figs 274, 275, 278). Antennae projected posteriorly over basal quarter of elytra; antennomeres 1–4 metallic bronze or bronze-cupreous with greenish-gold or golden-cupreous reflection, scape except for single apical seta glabrous (Figs 51–53). Labrum transverse, LW/LL = 1.82–2.4 (mean = 2.05, n = 28) in males, 1.5–2.0 (mean = 1.75 mm, n = 14) in females; unidentate, with long stout apical tooth in females and short tooth in males, with 3–8 submarginal setae (Figs 85–87, 90–92).

Pronotum metallic greenish-bronze, bronze-cupreous, purple-bronze, or green-bronze with golden-green, golden-cupreous, or cupreous-green tinge; from slightly longitudinal to quadrate, PW/PL = 0.87–1.03 (mean = 0.95, n = 28) in males, 0.94–1.07 (mean = 1.0, n = 15) in females; lateral margins with narrow row of sparse, decumbent white setae, slightly converging to the base but most distinct in basal quarter in males; coarsely wrinkled, slightly convex on disc; anterior and posterior sutures shallow except distinct apical and basal impressions on thin metallic green-blue midline (Figs 124–127, 129–132). Thoracic segments deep bronze or greenish-bronze with purple-green, cupreous-green, golden-cupreous, or cupreous reflection, glabrous, coarsely rugose; mid-episternum of males clearly rugose (Fig. 148), in females finely rugose. Legs metallic bronze with cupreous-green or purple-cupreous reflection.

Elytra greenish-bronze, bronze-cupreous, or deep-bronze with purple-cupreous or cupreous-green tinge, with numerous, dense diffused, small blue punctures as well as with subhumeral, subsutural and double subapical rows of large green, bluish-green or golden-green setigerous pores; flattened, with relatively wide flat, lateral margins between humeral and apical portions; EL/EW = 1.66–1.8 (mean = 1.74, n = 28) in males, 1.51–1.7 (mean = 1.65 mm, n = 15) in females; with distinct smooth subapical sinuate notch in both sexes, but more developed in males; apices in females clearly wider than in males. Shoulders narrow, distinctly sloping, EW/EHW = 1.44–1.79 (mean = 1.61, n = 45); scutellum large, bronze-cupreous; humeral group of series umbilicata consists of 7–8 large setigerous pores (Fig. 148); epipleura broad, deep bronze, with blue tinge, in some specimens with green or cupreous-green bottom edge. White elytral pattern presented by small rounded or stripe-shaped sub-humeral spot and by short, clearly oblique drop-shaped or comma-shaped apical portion of middle band, supra-apical spot absent (Figs 193– 198, 203–210).

Abdominal ventrites black with bluish-green or violet tinge, finely striated along lateral margins; ventrites 3–5 with two pairs of long, thin setae on anterior margins.

Aedeagus medium-sized, EL/AL = 1.9–2.17 (mean = 2.02, n = 26), with with short, slightly broadened apex with large, rounded knob and extended lateral flanks (Figs 220, 221, 232); internal sac with long f and large mt as well as small BLR (Figs 240, 247, 254, 261).

Distribution. CHINA: Anxui, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangxi, Zhejiang Provinces (Fig. 280).

Notes. Cicindela lobipennis was described from a single female from Kiu-Kiang (Bates 1888). Thus, according to the Article 73.1.2 of ICZN (1999) this female is the holotype by monotypy. In the collection of BMNH one male with the label “Kiu-Kiang” is housed (Figs 9, 10). However, the handwriting on this label is not of Bates because the “ i ” is dashed, but not dotted as on the labels of Bates (see Horn et al. 1990; Moravec 2015). In addition, the sex of the museum’s specimen is not the same as in the holotype, and the shape of its elytra does not correspond to the original description “ … elytris elongato-ovatis, lateribusacute carinatis, epipleuris latis intus obliquatis paullo ante apicem terminatis, ibique margine subito depresso, apice ipso producto, quasi lobato … ” (Bates 1888). Thus, this specimen cannot be regarded as the type of C. lobipennis . At the same time, in the collections of MNHN (Figs 18, 205), SDEI (Figs 16, 17, 203) and MFNB (Fig. 204) the females labelled as “Kiu-Kiang” are housed (see the sections “Type material” and “Additional material”). However, according to the style of the labels none of them is the type of C. lobipennis, but all of them closely correspond to the original description. Based on these details, we assume that the type of C. lobipennis is most likely lost. According to the Article 75 of ICZN (1999) among mentioned above specimens a female with the labels “Kiu-Kiang, Heyne”, “ lobipennis Bates ”, “coll. W. Horn, DEI Eberswalde”, “DEI Mūnchenberg, Col – 10868” (Figs 16, 17) from the collection of W. Horn (SDEI) is designated here as the neotype of C. lobipennis (see the sections “Type material”).