identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
437D87B4FFED3248FF6C1B05FEBBFF2C.text	437D87B4FFED3248FF6C1B05FEBBFF2C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amphicnemis rigiketit Dow 2019	<div><p>Amphicnemis rigiketit sp. nov.</p><p>(Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31)</p><p>Holotype. 1 ♂ (SAR18_COE58), in forest around stream, near road from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=110.4046&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=1.4096" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 110.4046/lat 1.4096)">Kota Samarahan</a> to <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=110.4046&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=1.4096" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 110.4046/lat 1.4096)">Siburan</a>, Samarahan Division, Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo, 1.4096N, 110.4046E, ca 13m a.s.l., 21 ii 2018, leg. R. A. Dow, deposited in the Natural History Museum, London.</p><p>Paratypes. 6 ♂♂ (SAR18_COE53-57, 59), 5 ♀♀ (SAR18_COE60-64), location and date as holotype, leg. R. A. Dow, 1 ♂, 1 ♀ to be deposited in the Sarawak Museum, Kuching .</p><p>Etymology. The species epithet, rigiketit, is a noun in apposition, formed from the names of two highly skilled Iban (the largest indigenous group in Sarawak) collectors, Ketit and Rigi, employed by the Sarawak Museum in the early Twentieth Century. Both collectors took part in the expedition during which the holotype of A. remiger, the closest species to A. rigiketit, was collected. Although the holotype of A. remiger is attributed to J.C. Moulton (likely merely because it was Moulton who sent the specimen to F.F. Laidlaw and it was not customary at the time to explicitly name native collectors) it is entirely possible that it was actually collected by one of these two collectors. In any case the contributions of the Sarawak Museum’s Iban collectors to our knowledge of Sarawak’s natural history are largely undocumented but significant, see Morris (2018), and deserve wider recognition.</p><p>Description of holotype. Head (Figs 1, 3). Labium entirely pale. Labrum black, cream in lower ca one third. Mandible bases cream with dark central patch. Genae cream, this extended narrowly beside compound eye to beyond level of antennae bases. Horizontal surface of clypeus shining black, vertical surface pale brown with intrusions of black from above (Fig. 1). Vertical face of frons shining black becoming dark metallic green above, but largely occupied by irregular, complete cream transverse stripe joined to pale colour on genae. Rest of frons, vertex, occiput and underside of head bronzy metallic green. Ocelli whitish. Antenna bases with broad yellowish stripe on anterior face, this just extending to base of scape, scape black, yellowish at top, base of pedicel yellowish, this extended on anterior and posterior faces as stripe running almost to top, remainder brown, flagella missing.</p><p>Thorax. Prothorax (Figs 9, 11) with anterior pronotal lobe cream except anterior carina black, middle and posterior pronotal lobes metallic green, propleuron mostly cream. Posterior pronotal lobe short, collar-like centrally but with rear lateral extremities produced as outward directed, finger-like projections. Synthorax (Fig. 17): mesepisternum, most of mesepimeron, upper part of mesokatepisternum and small area of metepisternum adjacent to antealar carina metallic green, with small pale area in upper part mesepimeron immediately adjacent to antealar carina, remainder of synthorax cream. Legs (left anterior leg absent below trochanter) cream except dark brown to black spines, small dark mark lowest part femur and immediately adjacent part flexor surface tibia, black rings between tarsal segments, tips of claws black. Wings: 12 Px in Fw, 11 (left) or 12 (right) in Hw. Arculus slightly distal to Ax2. R 4 arising well distal to subnodus in all wings, IR 3 joined to it by a short stalk. Pterostigma almost trapezoidal with costal side shorter than anal side, dark brownish grey with whitish border, covering ca one underlying cell.</p><p>Abdomen. S1 cream with apical transverse dark mark. S2 metallic green above, cream below. S3–6 largely very dark brown above, cream lower laterally. S7 similar but dark markings extending lower laterally in apical ca onethird. S8 bronzy black above, brownish below. S9 almost entirely bronzy black, S10 dark brown and black above, mostly brownish white laterally, pale brown to rear. Anal appendages (Figs 23, 25, 27) white. Cerci in lateral view (Fig. 25) with upper branch narrow at base, directed gently upwards, narrowing further to ca two-thirds length where abruptly expanded and turned down at slightly more than a right angle, from downturn upper margin running straight then slightly out to rounded apex, lower margin curved. Lower branch tapering from base, directed gently down, abruptly expanding along upper margin at apex with black dorsal interior tooth just before apex. In dorsal view (Fig. 23) upper branch of cercus of approximately even width from base to shortly before ca half-length, lacking any well-defined projection although with a slight swelling just before contraction, expanded apical part appearing as a rounded shelf below an outer ridge running to apex. In ventral view (Fig. 27) lower branch tapering from base, slightly expanded at apex, where very weakly bifurcated. Paraprocts short, pale and brown with short finger like projection directed to rear in dorsal part (lateral view).</p><p>Measurements (mm). Abdomen without anal appendages 33.5, cercus ca 1, Hw 21.</p><p>Female (based on SAR18_COE64). Overall similar to male except in the thorax and as noted below. Head (Figs 5, 7). Only basal ca one-third of labrum black. Dark patches on mandible bases adjacent to base of labrum. Median ocellus yellowish.</p><p>Thorax. Prothorax (Figs 13, 15) with posterior pronotal lobe collar-like centrally in dorsal view (Fig. 13), slightly folded upwards laterally then extended downwards to rear as rounded flap, free margin arching upwards back to base (Fig 15). Almost entire prothorax bluish grey with indistinct darker and lighter areas, lateral parts anterior carina of anterior pronotal lobe black, centrally pale. Postepimeral strip slightly expanded just below posterior pronotal lobe (this is difficult to see because it is in the shadow of the lateral parts of the posterior pronotal lobe, indicated with a white line in Fig. 15). Synthorax (Fig. 19) dorsum bluish with a greenish cast, remainder bluish, become paler lower laterally, venter pale. Legs with broad black stripe on extensor surface of femur. Wings with arculus only very slightly distal to Ax 2, 14 Px in Fw, 13 Px in Hw.</p><p>Abdomen (Figs 21). S9 blackish with poorly defined pale lateral mark. S10 black below, whitish blue above. Cerci whitish, shorter than S10. Ovipositor pale, not extending further than tips of cerci except for mostly dark brown styles.</p><p>Measurements (mm). Abdomen without anal appendages or ovipositor 37.5, Hw 23.5.</p><p>Variation in paratypes. Males. There is little variation in markings except for small differences in the pattern of parts of the front of the head, none significant. There is some variation in the shape of the pterostigma with the costal side less short relative to the anal side in some, and R 4 is less distal to the subnodus in some. Many of the paratype males are semi-teneral with distorted anal appendages. Females. Two of the female paratypes are immature with the synthorax pale red to below the interpleural suture and most of the prothorax red. The legs are also pale red and lack the black stripe on the extensor surface of the femur, the brown marks on the abdomen are paler and the pale mark on S9 faint. On one of the mature females the posterior femurs are almost white on the flexor surface, in one of the immature females the femurs are white on middle and posterior legs, and on the other immature female the femurs are partially white on the posterior legs only. One of the mature females has the dark stripes on the extensor surface of the femur reduced. Other variation is minor and similar to that in the male paratypes.</p><p>Measurements (mm). Males: 12–14 Px in Fw, 11–12 in Hw, Abdomen without anal appendages 33.5–36.5, Hw 20–21. Female: 12–14 Px in Fw, 11–12 in Hw, abdomen without anal appendages or ovipositor 36.5–38.5, Hw 22.5–23.5.</p><p>Diagnosis. The male is easily separated from its known, named, congeners in Borneo except A. mariae Lieftinck, 1940 and A. remiger, by the combination of posterior pronotal lobe lacking a long central horn, pterostigma the same colour in both pairs of wings and not bicoloured, except for a narrow pale border, and the upper branch of the cerci lacking any well-developed projections. Males of A. mariae and A. remiger have a better defined subbasal projection on the cerci (visible in dorsal view, see Fig. 24 here and Plate 15, Fig. 1 in Lieftinck (1940)) and lack the abrupt downturn present in the cerci of A. rigiketit; the upper branch of the cercus in A. mariae forms a smooth arch (Plate 15, Fig. 1 in Lieftinck (1940)). The shape of the apical part of the lower branch of the cercus is different in A. rigiketit and A. remiger (compare Figs 25, 27 with Figs 26, 28). The male of A. remiger has the anterior pronotal lobe almost entirely dark coloured but it is mostly pale in A. rigiketit (and A. mariae). The lateral extremities of the posterior pronotal lobe are produced as finger-like projections in A. rigiketit but these are lacking in A. mariae and A. remiger . The female can be separated from those of most species by the combination of the same pterostigma characteristics as the male and posterior prothoracic lobe lacking a strong central horn and projected to rear laterally. It can be separated from that of A. remiger by the shape of the lateral parts of the posterior prothoracic lobe and the expansion of the postepimeral strip (compare Figs 15 and 16). The female of A. mariae is unknown but may be similar. Using unpublished information supplied by myself, Kosterin &amp; Kompier (2018) noted that the female of A. annae Lieftinck, 1940 is apparently polymorphic in the structure of the posterior prothoracic lobe, with a long central horn present in some individuals in a small number of populations but not in most. The form without the central horn is the only one recorded in Sarawak but this hornless form is easily distinguished from the female of A. rigiketit because in dorsal view the central part of the posterior pronotal lobe appears almost rectangular with the lateral extremities projecting more to the rear in the same view.</p><p>Remarks. Although none were taken in tandem, the female is associated with the male by reasonable supposition, males of no other species of Amphicnemis were found at the site. The male is clearly closely related to A. remiger and the female is similar to that of A. remiger, further supporting the association of the sexes. It is likely that some characters of colour and pattern, not mentioned in the diagnosis, also consistently serve to distinguish A. remiger from A. rigiketit, for instance the extent of metallic colouration on the synthorax of males of the and the extent of pale colouration on abdominal segment 10 in females. However, the pattern of the anterior parts of the head is sufficiently variable in both species (and many other Amphicnemis) that it is of no diagnostic value.</p><p>All specimens of A. rigiketit were collected either hanging over a steep sided, turbid stream or around pools or trailside, perched on foliage, in the adjacent forest, which becomes flooded at least occasionally during the wettest periods of the year.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/437D87B4FFED3248FF6C1B05FEBBFF2C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Dow, Rory A.	Dow, Rory A. (2019): Amphicnemis rigiketit sp. nov. from Sarawak, with notes on Amphicnemis remiger Laidlaw, 1912 (Odonata: Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Zootaxa 4701 (4): 371-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4701.4.3
437D87B4FFE93247FF6C1C82FF09FB10.text	437D87B4FFE93247FF6C1C82FF09FB10.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amphicnemis remiger Laidlaw 1912	<div><p>Amphicnemis remiger Laidlaw, 1912</p><p>Figs (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31)</p><p>Material examined. Holotype. ♂, Kuala Madalam, Limbang Division, Sarawak, Malaysia, 11 v 1911, leg. J.C. Moulton, in the Natural History Museum, London . Other material. All in authors collection. Brunei: 1 ♂, peat swamp forest, Kuala Belai Road, Belait District, 2 iii 2013, leg. RAD ; 4 ♂♂, same location, 4 iii 2013, leg. RAD; 1 ♀, low pH swamp forest accessed from Lumut Pipeline Road East, Belait District, 8 iii 2013, leg. RAD ; 1 ♂, 1 ♀ (BRU13_COE103, in tandem with the male), same location, 13 iii 2013, leg. RAD; 9 ♂♂, peat swamp for- est on Labi Road, Belait District, 11 iii 2013, leg. RAD ; 3 ♂♂, 1 ♀, remnant peat swamp forest near Seria, Belait District, 22 v 2013, leg. RAD ; 3 ♂♂, peat swamp forest near highway, Rassau area, Belait District, 31 v 2013, leg. RAD. Malaysia, Sabah : 1 ♀, Klias Forest reserve, 26 v 2014, leg. unknown ; 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Klias Forest Reserve, 31 v 2014, leg. unknown ; 1 ♂, Kampung Hiridian Forest Reserve, 28 v 2018, leg. unknown. Malaysia: Sarawak : 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀, Headhunters Trail, Gunung Mulu National Park, Limbang Division, 11 ii 2006, leg. J. Simun ; 2 ♂♂, Men- tawei Boundary Trail, Mentawei, Gunung Mulu National Park, Limbang Division, 13 ii 2006, leg. J. Simun ; 1 ♀ (SAR11_12_COE63), dry peat swamp forest near Sungai Dabai, Marudi, Miri Division, 5 ix 2011, leg. RAD ; 1 ♂ (SAR11_12_COE332), peat swamp forest on Brunei Trail, Marudi area, 6 ix 2018, leg. RAD ; 1 ♂, old rubber on peat, near Marudi, Miri Division, 8 ix 2011, leg. RAD .</p><p>Descriptive notes on male (based on SAR11_12_COE332).</p><p>Head (Figs 2, 4). Labium entirely pale. Labrum black, narrowly pale centrally at free margin. Mandible bases black with cream outline except adjacent to genae. Genae pale, this extended narrowly beside compound eye to beyond level of antennae bases. Horizontal surface of clypeus shining black, vertical surface pale with intrusions of black from above (Fig. 2). Vertical face of frons shining black becoming dark metallic green above, but largely occupied by irregular, pale transverse stripe very narrowly divided centrally, just joined to pale colour on genae. Rest of frons, vertex, occiput and underside of head bronzy metallic green. Ocelli whitish. Antenna bases with broad pale stripe on anterior face, this just extending to base of scape, scape black, pale at top, base of pedicel pale, this extended on anterior and posterior faces as stripe running almost to top, remainder brown, flagella missing.</p><p>Thorax. Prothorax (Figs 10, 12) with pronotum almost entirely dark metallic green apart from pair of small pale marks at rear anterior pronotal lobe, propleuron mostly cream. Posterior pronotal lobe short, collar-like centrally but with rear lateral extremities sharply angulated, directed more to rear than to sides (Fig. 12). Synthorax (Fig. 18): mesepisternum, mesepimeron, most of mesokatepisternum and metepisternum to top of spiracle, and extending to metepleural suture adjacent to antealar carina, metallic green, remainder of synthorax whitish except dark mark near antealar carina on metepimeron. Legs (right anterior leg absent below trochanter) cream with flexor surface femurs white, poorly defined, incomplete narrow dark stripes on extensor surface femurs, dark brown to black spines, small dark mark lowest part femur and immediately adjacent part flexor surface tibia, black rings between tarsal segments, tips of pale brown claws black. Wings: 12 Px in Fw, 10 (left) or 11 (right) in Hw. Arculus slightly distal to Ax2. R 4 arising just distal to subnodus in all wings, IR 3 joined to it by a short stalk. Pterostigma almost trapezoidal with costal side shorter than anal side, dark brownish grey with whitish border (poorly defined on proximal side), covering ca one underlying cell.</p><p>Abdomen. S1 cream with apical transverse dark mark extended laterally apically. S2 metallic green above, cream below. S3–6 largely very dark brown above, cream lower laterally, this becoming darker on successive segments. S7 similar but almost entirely dark brown laterally in apical ca one-third. S8 bronzy black above, dark brown below. S9 entirely bronzy black, S10 white except dorsally where mostly brown. Anal appendages (Figs 24, 26, 28) white. Cerci in lateral view with upper branch narrow at base, directed gently upwards from base, then straight before expanding along lower margin after half-length so that apical part is rounded ventrally and at apex (Fig. 24). Lower branch of cercus tapering from base before expanding slightly subapically where directed gently upwards to narrow but rounded tip, a small dorsal black subapical tooth just visible in this view (Fig. 24). In dorsal view (Fig. 26) upper branch with a small subbasal subtriangular tooth after which contracted along inner margin before expanding again just after half length, the inner margin with an excised appearance between the subbasal tooth and the subapical expansion.A strong ridge runs to the apex along the outer margin, giving the expanded part the appearance of a heel-like shelf below it. In ventral view lower branch of cercus tapering gently from base, turning gently inwards at ca two-thirds length, a small, poorly defined subapical tooth on inner margin after which running straight or slightly outwards to rounded but marrow tip (Fig. 28). Paraprocts short, pale with short finger like projection directed to rear in dorsal part (lateral view).</p><p>Measurements (mm). Abdomen without anal appendages 34, cercus ca 1, Hw 20.</p><p>Description of female (based on BRU13_COE103).</p><p>As male except as noted.</p><p>Head (Figs 6, 8). More extensive pale area on labrum, pale stripe vertical face of frons broadly divided.</p><p>Thorax. Prothorax (Figs 14, 16) almost entirely blue, anterior carina of anterior pronotal lobe black. Posterior pronotal lobe collar-like centrally in dorsal view (Fig. 14), laterally contracted before slightly folded upwards and then extended downwards to rear as a subtriangular projection, free margin running downwards back to base (Fig. 16). Postepimeral strip expanded to rear just below posterior pronotal lobe (this indicated with a white line in Fig. 16). Synthorax (Fig. 20) bluish with yellowish cast dorsally (not apparent in life). Legs as male but marking on extensor surface femurs better defined as narrow black line. Wings with 12 Px in Fw, 11 Px in Hw, white border of pterostigma well defined on all sides.</p><p>Abdomen (Fig. 22). Dark marks on dorsum not metallic until apical part S7. S8 yellowish basally laterally, otherwise brown laterally, bronzy black dorsally. S9 brown laterally, bronzy black dorsally with irregular bluish white lateral apical mark. S10 and anal appendages almost entirely bluish white. Ovipositor largely cream, not quite reaching level of tips of cerci apart from styles, which are brown.</p><p>Measurements (mm). Abdomen without anal appendages or ovipositor 36, Hw 22.5.</p><p>Notes on variation. As in A. rigiketit the main variation in markings in both sexes is in those of the anterior part of the head. R 4 occasionally arises at, rather than distal to, the subnodus in one or more wings. A very few males have the central part of the posterior pronotal lobe produced into a very short horn-like structure. Two males (not among those mentioned in the previous sentence) have the rear lateral extremities of the posterior pronotal lobe only slightly angulated. The subbasal spine on the upper branch of the male cercus is sometimes just visible in a typical lateral view, rarely is it clearly visible in such a view.</p><p>Measurements (mm). Males: 11–14 Px in Fw, 10–12 in Hw, abdomen without anal appendages 30–35, Hw 18–21. Females: 11–14 Px in Fw, 10–12 in Hw, abdomen without anal appendages or ovipositor 33–35.5, Hw 21–21.5.</p><p>Remarks. The holotype of A. remiger is from somewhere in the vicinity of the mouth of the Madalam River (Kuala Madalam), a tributary of the Limbang River, in Sarawak’s Limbang Division (Laidlaw 1912), collected on the Sarawak Museum’s 1911 expedition to Mount Batu Lawi (Moulton 1912). Later Laidlaw (1913: 72) mistakenly gave the type locality as Batu Lawi, possibly believing that Kuala Madalam is actually in the vicinity of the mountain (actually it is more than 70 km distant from it). I have compared recently collected specimens of A. remiger directly against the holotype (in the Natural History Museum, London) to confirm their identity. The holotype is a slightly immature individual, so a fresh mature male specimen was used for the description above.</p><p>The type locality is at low altitude and it is likely that the holotype was collected in swamp forest of some type. Most subsequent records, where the habitat is recorded, are also from swamp forest, often peat swamp forest, or streams in swamp or alluvial forest; my own specimens are from such habitats. Orr (2001: 183) states “common in swampy areas” for Brunei.</p><p>There is a rather puzzling record of this species in Laidlaw (1920: 336) where as well as again incorrectly giving the type locality as Batu Lawi, he lists two males, stated to be “imperfect”, from “Murud”, collected on the 20 th of December 1914. Murud presumably refers to Gunung Murud, the highest mountain in Sarawak. Collectors from the Sarawak Museum went to Gunung Murud, in late 1914 (Moulton 1915), but it is not clear if they were still there in December and these specimens may have been collected somewhere on their route back. If these specimens were actually collected in the highlands it seems doubtful that they were actually A. remiger and might actually be the unnamed Amphicnemis species recorded in Dow et al. (2015) from Usun Apau and the Tama Abu Range (the range to which Gunung Murud belongs).</p><p>Laidlaw’s description of the male anal appendages of A. remiger is somewhat misleading. He states, referring to the upper branch of the cercus as the upper pair of anal appendages, “The shaft a little bowed with a small tooth at its middle” (Laidlaw 1912: 96). However, the illustration of the anal appendages of the holotype (Laidlaw 1912: Fig. 4) correctly shows the tooth in a subbasal position, as in all specimens that I have examined (including that illustrated here), although the tooth is only rarely visible in lateral view.</p><p>Amphicnemis remiger appears to have a rather restricted distribution in Brunei, immediately adjacent parts of Sarawak and extending to the south-west of Sabah (Fig. 31). In Sarawak it has not been found west of the Baram River.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/437D87B4FFE93247FF6C1C82FF09FB10	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Dow, Rory A.	Dow, Rory A. (2019): Amphicnemis rigiketit sp. nov. from Sarawak, with notes on Amphicnemis remiger Laidlaw, 1912 (Odonata: Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Zootaxa 4701 (4): 371-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4701.4.3
