Hemipeplus rugosus KC & Pollock, 2025

Kc, Sajan & Pollock, Darren A., 2025, Review of the Hemipeplinae (Coleoptera: Mycteridae) fauna of the world with descriptions of twenty-nine new species, Zootaxa 5574 (1), pp. 1-140 : 93-95

Hemipeplus rugosus KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

http://zoobank.org/ urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:FAC57127-B5D1-4ED6-A35B-F289C066C7AF

(Figs 42, 65)

Type Material. Holotype, male, labeled: ‘ MALAYSIA, Pahang, Cameron Highlands, Brinchang, Tr 11, 7-18-1992, 1457m.+ / Collectors: L.B. & C.W. O’Brien / [green label] ♂ / [red label] HOLOTYPE ♂ Hemipeplus rugosus KC & Pollock’, in FSCA . Allotype, female, labeled: ‘ MALAYSIA, Pahang, Cameron Highlands, TANAH RATA vill. env. Gunung Jasar (Mt.): 1470-1705 m, 04°28.4-7’N, 101°21.6-22.1’ E Jiří Hájek leg. 18.iv.-10.v.2009 / coll. general National Museum, Prague, Czech Republic’, in NMP6 V. Fourteen paratypes: 1 specimen, sex unknown, labeled same as holotype, in FSCA; 6 specimens, 1 male, 5 sex unknown, labeled: ‘ MALAYSIA, Pahang, Fraser’s Hill, May-bankL. Tr., 7-14.1992, C.W. & L.B. O’Brien’, in FSCA; 4 specimens, 1 male, 3 sex unknown, labeled: ‘ MALAYSIA, Pahang, Fraser’s Hill, May-bankL. Tr., 7-15-1992, C.W. & L.B. O’Brien’, in FSCA; 1 specimen, sex unknown, labeled: ‘ MALAYSIA, Pahang, Fraser’s Hill, May-bankL. Tr. 29.vii.1992, LB and CW O’Brien leg’, in FSCA; 1 specimen, male, labeled: ‘Philippinen Mindanao, Surigao leg. Böttcher [underside of label] 5.8.1916 ’, in ZMHB; 1 specimen, male, labeled: ‘SUMATRA (W.), G. Singgalang S of BUKITTINGGI 12.III.1991, 1900m, Bocák and Bocáková lgt.’, in NHMB .

Derivation of Specific Epithet. The specific name (adjective in the nominative case, in gender agreement with substantive) is given in allusion to the species’ rough pronotum, characterized by many distinct, wide punctures.

FIGURE 42. Hemipeplus rugosus sp. nov. (Holotype). A. Dorsal habitus (with scale bar); B. Dorsal head and prothorax; C. Lateral view of head and prothorax; D. Male genitalia dorsal view with spiculum gastrale; E. Tegmen dorsal view (with scale bar); F. Tegmen lateral view with one paramere removed.

Diagnosis. Hemipeplus rugosus sp. nov. can be distinguished from the similar-appearing H. miyamotoi (Figs 43.1, 43.2) by its relatively larger eyes, pronotum with coarser texture, and less produced anterolateral pronotal angles. Hemipeplus rugosus sp. nov. has the following diagnostic features: temples prominent; scape short and moniliform; eyes moderately large (as long as scape + pedicel), moderately wide and moderately convex; pronotum subcordiform; anterior emargination moderate but distinct; anterior half wider than posterior half; pronotal pad not very distinct; anterior pronotal angles broadly rounded, posterior rounded to slightly obtuse angled; pronotal lobe truncate without median notch; body long; elytra slightly convex; color dull, rufopiceous with darker head and pronotum to uniformly rufopiceous; distribution: Indonesia (Sumatra), Malaysia (Pahang), Philippines (Surigao).

Description. Measurements (in mm)—GHW: 0.53–0.60; HL: 0.50–0.53; AL: 0.78–0.95; GPW: 0.53–0.63; PL: 0.45–0.53, GEW: 0.60–0.88; EL: 2.30–3.03; TL: 3.25–4.09.

Head (Fig. 42B) wide (GHW/HL: 1.06–1.13); eyes moderately large (as long as scape + pedicel), moderately wide and moderately convex; temples prominent, about 1/3 length of eye, rounded posteriorly; occiput with raised areas; antennae shorter than head and pronotum length combined; antennal scape moniliform; pedicel small moniliform; antennomere III more elongate and apically dilated; IV shorter and submoniliform, apically dilated; V–VI larger, apically dilated; VII–X subtriangular or bowl shaped, each wider than the next; XI subpyriform with apex narrowed after the notch; lateral mandibular tooth absent to very small. Pronotum (Fig. 42B) wide (GPW/PL: 1.18–1.19) with wide punctures; anterior margin with moderate emargination; anterolateral angles broadly rounded; lateral margins sinuate with subparallel basal half; posterior half contracted; posterolateral angles obtuse, rounded to angled; pronotal lobe truncate without median notch; pronotal pad (Fig. 42C) indistinct; pronotal pits shallow without prominent grooves. Scutellar shield angulate, subhexagonal, not twice as wide as long. Elytra (Fig. 42A) long (EL/GEW: 3.44–3.83), slightly convex; vestiture long and dense; apical patch long and piceous, not visible when elytra are same color. Ventral surface. Prosternal process short, not extending to the posterior of procoxae; hypomeral edges well separated; mesosternal process narrow and linear. Color dull, rufopiceous with darker head and pronotum to uniformly rufopiceous; ventrally ununiformly rufopiceous with tarsi, labial palps, glossal sclerite, and galea lighter.

Male Genitalia (Figs 42D–F). (Tegmen length = 0.13 mm (n = 1)) Smallest among all Hemipeplinae species; lobe of basale long, needle-like, sharp and pointed; shoulders rounded; apicale and basale with distinct suture; parameres arcuate with apices sharp and pointed; wide penis subequal to tegmen. Note: the genitalia of H. rugosus sp. nov. are very similar to those of H. miyamotoi , but the parameres are different when viewed laterally, with their apices projecting upward resembling a snake’s head (Fig. 42F).

Remarks. Hemipeplus rugosus sp. nov. is inferred to be the adelphotaxon of H. miyamotoi , as evidenced by the morphology of the male genitalia.

Geographical Distribution (Fig. 65). Indonesia (Sumatra), Malaysia (Pahang), Philippines (Surigao).