Pygoplatys

Magnien, Ph., 2011, Description of two new species of Pygoplatys Dallas, 1851, with a key to the species of the genus (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Tessaratomidae), Heteropterus Revista de Entomología 11, No. 2, pp. 287-297 : 294-296

Key to the Pygoplatys species

Until now, no key to species has been given for the genus. The following key allows the determination to the species level for most of the species, except for a few ones discussed below the key. It is as accurate as possible, given the specimens I saw. One should remember that in some cases, the key rely on one or two specimens only. However, except for the few problems above-mentioned, the species of Pygoplatys are fairly easy to recognize by their external appearance, and the pictures of those species presented on www.heteroptera.fr may be of some help.

(1) External margin of juga straight or slightly sinuous, with no anteocular tooth nor acute angle at basis (see Figs. 1 a-b).................................................. Pygoplatys (s. str.) ..... 2

- External magin of juga strongly concave, generally leaving the antenniferous tubercle visible from above, with an anteocular tooth or at least an acute angle at basis (see Figs. 1 c-d)............................................................................... Pygoplatys (Odontoteuchus) ..... 20

Subgenus Pygoplatys (2) No humeral processi, at most the humeral angle slightly protruding............................ 3 - Humeral processi present, more or less developed........................................... 4

(3) Humeral angle acute, abdomen and pronotum of the same width, species known from Moluccas Islands................................................................. subrugosus Vollenhoven - Humeral angle rounded, pronotum wider than abdomen, species known from Thailand and Laos......................................................................... auropunctatus Blöte

(4) Humeral processi well developed, with acute apex........................................... 5 - Humeral processi well developed, with truncated apex...................................... 13

(5) Hemelytron reddish brown, lighter hue of veins contrasting with the background................. 6 - Hemelytron showing no particular contrast between vein an background........................ 8

(6) Humeral processi projected forwards, nearly reaching the level of the apex of the head...................................................................................... lunatus Distant - Humeral processi transverse, not projected forwards......................................... 7

(7) Pronotum about two times wider than abdomen................................ lancifer Walker - Pronotum about one and a half times wider than abdomen.......................... zonatus Stål [ forticornis (Walker) ]

(8) Humeral processi transverse............................................................. 9 - Humeral processi projected forwards..................................................... 10

(9) Humeral processi less important, ratio habitus length versus pronotum width about 3/2................................................................................... ingenuus (Walker) - Humeral processi more important, ratio habitus length versus pronotum width about 4/3...................................................................................... bovillus Stål

(10) Humeral processi less important, with a metallic green tinge on the rear part....... shelfordi Distant - Humeral processi more important, no metallic tinge on the rear part.......................... 11

(11) Humeral processi projected forwards, surpassing head anteriorly............... tauriformis Distant - Humeral processi less projected forwards, not reaching anterior margin of pronotum............ 12

(12) Abdomen margins parallel; abdomen about as wide as maximum width of hemelytra; pygophore of males clearly surpassing posterior margin of segment VII.................... firmatus (Walker) - Abdomen margins convex; abdomen somewhat wider than maximum width of hemelytra; pygophore of males not reaching posterior margin of segment VII.............................. acutus Dallas

(13) Apex of humeral processi blunt........................................................ 14 - Apex of humeral processi with at least one clear angle..................................... 15

(14) Pronotum width surpassing abdomen width by 1/3; veins concolorous with the background............................................................................. montanus Distant - Pronotum width surpassing abdomen width by less than 1/4; lighter hue of veins contrasting with the background............................................................... obtusus Blöte

(15) Margins of humeral processi converging, truncature oblique.................. minax Vollenhoven [ ralandii (Ellenreider) ] - Margins of humeral processi parallel, truncature right...................................... 16

(16) Width of pronotum almost equal to lenght of habitus (known only by the type female).............................................................................. merinjakensis Distant - Length of habitus greater than width of pronotum, at least by 15%.......................... 17

(17) Length of antenna more than 0.55 times pronotum width.......................... jordii n. sp. - Length of antenna less than half of pronotum width...................................... 18

(18) Lighter transverse stripe of pronotum includes callosities................. tenangau Magnien et al. - Lighter transverse stripe of pronotum is behind the callosities............................... 19

(19) Medium size (about 20 mm); lighter hue of veins contrasting with the background (only known by the male type)............................................................ kerzhneri Magnien - Larger size (about 30 mm); veins quasi-concolorous............................. validus Dallas

Subgenus Odontoteuchus (20) Humeral processi present, more or less developed......................................... 21 - No real humeral processus, pronotum angular............................................ 24

(21) Humeral processi projected forwards.................................................... 22 - Humeral processi transverse........................................................... 23

(22) Smaller size, 4 th antennal segment longer than the 2 nd by more than 25%; apex denticulation of female abdomen reduced, unicolorous............................................. pluotae Magnien - Larger size, 4 th antennal segment longer than the 2 nd by only about 5%; apex denticulation of female abdomen deep, bicolourous................................................. rideri Magnien

(23) Head in front of the eye clearly longer than width of juga......................... longiceps Stål - Head in front of the eye shorter than width of juga............................. thoreyi Dohrn

(24) Anterior margin of pronotum concave.................................................. 25 - Anterior margin of pronotum almost straight............................................. 26

(25) Head in front of the eye clearly longer than width of juga......................... haedulus Stål - Head in front of the eye not longer than width of juga........................... berendi n. sp.

(26) 2 nd antennal segment 0.9 times as long as diatone; humeral angle of pronotum very acute................................................................................ celebensis Breddin - 2 nd antennal segment shorter than diatone by 1/3; humeral angle of pronotum almost right................................................................................. rosulentus Stål

Problematic species:

- P. forticornis ( Walker, 1868) . It is not clear whether Walker, who described P. forticornis in the genus Tesseratoma [sic], had actually taken in account P. zonatus Stål, 1863 when he wrote his diagnosis. Despite the fact that P. zonatus appears in his catalogue, it is to Tessaratoma cornuta (= Embolosterna taurus Westwood) that he compares this species in his diagnosis. Furthermore, the type of Stål is a female and that of Walker is a male, and Walker clearly demonstrated that he had not recognized the sexual dimorphism in the genus by describing the male and female of P. firmatus in separate species. It may be suspected that the species are synonyms, but larger series would be needed to get complete certainty.

- P. ralandii ( Ellenreider, 1862) and P. minax Vollenhoven, 1868 . There is a difference in aspect between the two specimens identified as P. ralandii I have seen in the BMNH and the series of P. minax I had in hand during my study about P. tenangau , but not really sufficient, in my opinion, to exclude the former being a limit case of the latter. As for now I have not been able to access the type specimens of this species, further examination is needed in this case.

- P. celebensis Breddin, 1901 , P. haedulus Stål, 1871 and P. rosulentus Stål, 1871 . Stål’s diagnosis for the two last does not really give any clue for a clear distinction, and Breddin, in his diagnosis, ignores the two Stål’s species and opposes P. celebensis to P. subrugosus , which does not even belong to the same subgenus. Synonymy between at least two of the three species is possible. I nevertheless included these species in the key, on the basis of examination of type specimens and others, but the characters I give should be considered with some suspicion.