Monolepta rufipennis Jacoby, 1899

Hazmi, Izfa Riza & Wagner, Thomas, 2022, Revision of Monolepta Chevrolat, 1836 from the Sundaland area (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Bonn zoological Bulletin 71 (2), pp. 139-176 : 161-162

publication ID	https://doi.org/10.20363/BZB-2022.71.2.139
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7FFF8A8D-1640-4565-A9DE-239D1CD7F50A
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/FF69BE51-7504-9830-FF4D-FB12FE66FB94
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Monolepta rufipennis Jacoby, 1899
status

Treatment

Figs 33 View Fig , 36–37 View Fig View Fig

Monolepta rufipennis Jacoby, 1899: 325 .

Type material. Lectotype: “ Perak / Monolepta rufipennis Jac. / Jacoby Coll. 1909-28a / Type ” ( BMNH; Fig. 36 View Fig ). Type locality: 4º48›N/101º09› E. Jacoby mentioned two localities in his original publication and thus we designate a lectotype herein to fix the name on a single spec- imen.

Further material examined. – Malaysia. 2 ex., Perak, Doherty, 4º48′ N / 101º09′ E, Fry Coll. 1905.100 ( BMNH) GoogleMaps ; 2 ex., Perak, F. M. S. Larut Hills, 3700 ft., 5ºN/ 100º53′ E, VIII .1908; 14.II.1932, H. M. Pendle-

bury ( BMNH); 1 ex., Malay Penin, Selangor, Gombak Valley , 3º25′ N / 101º47′ E, 11.X.1921, H. M. Pendlebury ( BMNH); 3 ex. GoogleMaps , Perak, F. M. S. Batang Padang Jor Camp , 3º54′ N / 101º26′ E, 31. V GoogleMaps .–5. VI GoogleMaps .1923, H. M. Pendlebury ( BMNH); 1 ex. , Pahang, F. M. S. Cameron′ s Highlands, 4000–4500 ft. , 4º27′ N / 101º22′ E, 15. VI GoogleMaps .1935, H. M. Pendlebury ( BMNH); 1 ex. , Perak, Temenggor, Ekspedisi MNS-Belum , 5º35′ N / 101º21′ E, 10.–15. V GoogleMaps .1994, Is- mail & Sham ( UKM) .

Redescription

Total length. 4.75–6.35 mm (mean 5.61 mm; n = 10).

Head. Very finely punctuated, entirely black. Anten- na slender, extending beyond the middle of elytra, pale yellow yellowish-brown, two basal antennomeres black ( Fig. 37A View Fig ). Third antennomere slightly longer than second; ratio length of second to third antennomere 0.80– 0.83 (mean 0.81); ratio length of third to fourth antennomere 0.46–0.50 (mean 0.48; Fig. 37B View Fig ).

Thorax. Pronotum very finely punctuated, entire- ly black, shiny, surface rather convex. Pronotal width 1.35–1.90 mm (mean 1.64 mm), ratio length to width 0.61–0.64 (mean 0.62). Scutellum brown reddish. Meso- and metathorax black. Elytron entirely reddish-brown (in living specimens most likely carmine red), dense and finely punctuated, widened posteriorly. Elytron length 4.30–5.05 mm (mean 4.57 mm), maximal width of both elytra together 3.20–3.70 mm (mean 3.39 mm), ratio of maximal width of both elytra together to length of elytron 0.73–0.75 (mean 0.74; Fig. 54 View Fig ). Legs entirely brownish-red to blackish, distal part of femora paler.

Abdomen. Blackish.

Male genitalia. Median lobe lanceolate, broad, becomes continuously narrow towards apex. Tectum point- ed. Median spiculae long and slender, one pair shorter and stronger ( Figs 37 View Fig Ca, Cb), lateral spiculae, short, broad, lobe-like, ventral spiculae weakly sclerotised and not clearly visibly.

Female genitalia. Nodulus reduced, middle part and especially cornu long and curved ( Fig. 37D View Fig ). Bursa sclerites large, of two different types, the dorsal one with strong spines ( Fig 37 View Fig Ea).

Diagnosis. Monolepta rufipennis can be distinguished from others Monolepta species by the black pronotum and head contrasting to the reddish-brown elytra. Concerning body size and dark dorsal colouration and brownish-reddish elytra it is most similar to M. rubra . Both species are presumably closely related and form – next to some others – a distinctive clade within the Oriental species of Monolepta characterized by a lanceolate median lobe with simple brush-like median spiculae, lobed lateral spiculae and the lack of ventral spiculae ( Figs 8C View Fig , 37C View Fig ), and spermathecae possessing extremely reduced nodulus ( Figs 8D View Fig , 37D View Fig ), and two large, and strongly different pairs of bursa sclerites ( Figs 8E View Fig , 37E View Fig ). Both species can be in doubtful cases differentiated by this fine but constant genitalic differences, furthermore, is their distribution allopatric ( Figs 9 View Fig , 33 View Fig ).