Apterodela bivirgulata

Apterodela (s. str.) bivirgulata (Fairmaire, 1889), stat. rest.

Figs 7–11, 35–41, 63–72, 103–112, 143, 147, 155–162, 165–172, 214, 215, 228, 229, 238, 245, 252, 259, 265– 268.

Cicindela bivirgulata Fairmaire, 1889: 5 (Type locality— China, Prov. de Ngan-Hoeï [= Anhui Prov.]).

Cicindela bivirgula Fairmaire, 1889 (incorrect subsequent spelling): W. Horn 1891: 328, 330; Jakobson 1905: 189.

Cicindela lobipennis Bates, 1888: Fleutiaux 1892: 92; W. Horn 1930: 403; Lei & Zhou 1998: 62; Zhu et al. 1999: 24; Fang & Wu 2001: 70.

Cylindera (Apterodela) lobipennis (Bates, 1888): Mandl 1981: 23; Wiesner 1992: 179; Puchkov & Matalin 2003: 108; Shook & Wiesner 2006: 13; Wu 2011: 26.

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

Type material. Holotype of Cicindela bivirgulata (by monotypy), ♂ (digital images, Figs 7, 8)— Chine, Ngan-Hoeï, R.P. Mouton [white typed label], Muséum Paris, 1952, coll R. Oberthur [white typed label], lobipennis Bates [white hand-written label] (MNHN).

Additional material. China, Shandong Province: 1 ♀ — China, Ho-Chan (SDEI); Henan Province: 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀ — Oi 南Ḇ信șǖ商Ẇ县Dz刚台ĸạ区, DZª 1200 *, g115.54083,31.75524, īae人: 丁*", 2023–V–13 [= Jingangtai Scenic Area, Shangcheng County, Xinyang City, Henan Province, China, alt. 1200 m, g115.54083 31.75524, leg. Mixuan Ding, 2023–V–13] (cXX); 1 ♀ —ХОй-СЯНь [= Huixian], 1–5.VII.1892, БЕрЕЗОвский (ZIN); Hubei Province: 1 ♂ — China, Hubei, Wuhan, ~ 200 m, 25.IV.1994, leg. W. Heinz (SMNS); Chongqing Municipalty: 4 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ — Chongqing Youyang, 15.VII.1995 (cTA); Jiangsu Province: 1 ♂ — China, Provins Kiangsu [= Jiangsu], Kolthoff, maj (SDEI); 3 ♂♂, 1 ♀ — Chin Kiang [= Zhenjiang], 24.5.1924, leg. Sŭenson; 2 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀ — ibid, 25.V.1924; 1 ♂ — ibid, 24.5.1933; 1 ♂ — China, Chin Kiang [= Zhenjiang], Sŭenson (all SDEI); 1 ♂ — China, Chin Kiang [= Zhenjiang], 29.5.1934, lg. E. Suenson (cJW); 1 ♀ — Chin Kiang [= Zhenjiang]; 1 ♂, 1 ♀ (digital images)— ibid (both BMNH); 1 ♀ — China, Hushukuan, 29.IV.1928, coll. Korell (MFNB); 1 ♀ — Chekiang [= Zhejiang], Sŭochow [= Soochow], 23.III.31, Mell G. (MFNB); 1 ♀ — Berg Pao-hwa b., Lungtan b., Nanking [= Nanjing], China, Juni (SDEI); 4 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ — 南京ǖŽẍ区mṉ仙墓NJū, Coll. +小®, 101 m, 2022.5.18 [= near Tomb of Fan Hongxian, Xuanwu District, Nanjing City, Coll. Xiaohan Zhu, 101 m, 2022.5.18]; 1 ♂ — ibid, 2022.4.22; 1 ♀ — 南京ǖÞƜãṳȓ园, 235 m, Coll. Ɨ 建, 2022.5.28 [= Nanjing, Laoshan Forest Park, 235 m, Coll. Jian Wang, 2022.5.28] (all cXX); 2 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀ — 南京KDzƜ, Ɨ优, 2015–07–21 [= Nanjing, Zijin Mountain, leg. You Wang, 2015–07–21] (SWFU); 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀ — Mt. Zhongshan, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China, VI.2022 (cTA); Zhejiang Province: 1 ♀ — Tsche-kiang [= Zhejiang], Wen chow [= Wenzhow] (MFNB); 10 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ — China, Zhe Chiang [= Zhejiang Province], Dao Shan [= Daishan] Island, 22.VII.1995 (cJW); 1 ♂ — ibid (MSPU); 1 ♀ — Zhejiang, Huangshan, 22.VI.1936, Chinese Academy of Science (cMH); Jiangxi Province: 1 ♂, 1 ♀ — China, N Jiangxi, Lushan Mt., 800 m, VI.1989, leg. Peng (MFNB); 1 ♂ — Jiangxi, Lushan, 22.VI.2004, leg. T. Sota & H. Liang (cMH); 1 ♂ (digital image)— ibid (cTS); 1 ♀ — Kiang-si [= Jiangxi] (MFNB); 1 ♂ — Kiu Kiang [= Jiujiang] (BMNH); Fujian Province: 1 ♀ — Mt. Daiyun, 1000–1400 m, Sanming, Fujian, China, VI.2018 (cTA); without exact locality : 1 ♀ (digital image)— China, Bowring, 63·47* (BMNH); 1 ♀ (digital image)— Khina, Fruhstorfer (HNHM); 1 ♀ (digital image)— Centr. China, Scherzer, 1892; Coll. Ing. K. Mandl (NHMB).

References. CHINA, Shandong Province: Ho Chan (Horn 1930, as C. lobipennis); Henan Province: Xinyang, Shangcheng (Zhu et al. 1994, as C. lobipennis); Province: Wuhan (Lei & Zhou 1998, as C. lobipennis); Jiangsu Province: Hushukuan, 31°19’N 120°36’E; Soochow, 31°21’N 120°40’E; Chinkiang [= Zhenjiang], 32°12’N 119 30’E (all Mandl 1981, as C. lobipennis); Mt. Pao Hwa near Lung Tan, Nan King (Horn 1930, as C. lobipennis); Tsching Kiang [= Chinkiang = Zhenjiang] (W. Horn 1930, as C. lobipennis); Shizi Mountain (Lei & Zhou 1998, as C. lobipennis); Shanghai Municipality: Shang Hai (W. Horn 1930, as C. lobipennis).

Differential diagnosis. Apterodela bivirgulata is distinguished from A. lobipennis, A. kazantsevi, A. latissima sp. nov. and A. alopecomma sp. nov. by the poorly developed subapical and sinuate notch, by the wider white elytral pattern (Figs 155–162 and Figs 173–179 vs. Figs 193–202; Figs 165–172 and Figs 183–189 vs. Figs 203–212), by the more convex body (Fig. 172), and by the shape of aedeagus (Figs 214–219 vs. Figs 220–224; Figs 228–231 vs. Figs 232–234). Additionally, it is distinguished from A. lobipennis, A. kazantsevi and A. latissima sp. nov. by the wider head (Fig. 278), and from A. lobipennis by large BLR (Figs 238, 252, 259 vs. Figs 240, 254, 261).

Redescription. TL = 15.0– 16.9 mm (mean = 15.84 mm, n = 32) in males, 15.4–18.7 mm (mean = 16.81 mm, n = 21) in females (Figs 7, 9, 11); body convex, in females (Figs 271–273) much better than in males (Figs 274–276; Table 1)—TL/BH = 3.17–3.95 (mean = 3.62, n = 21) vs. 3.69–4.41 (mean = 3.99, n = 32).

Head bronze or bronze-cupreous with golden-cupreous, golden-green, or purple reflection; genae dense and shallowly striated; gula black-bronze with violet, bluish-green or golden-green reflection; frons with thin, shallow, dense vertical furrows; orbital plates with 7–9 relatively deep straight furrows (Figs 35–41); vertex widely concave, with two shallow, oval impressions anteriorly; occiput coarsely wrinkled; HW/PW = 1.24–1.43 (mean = 1.31, n = 53) (Figs 274, 275, 278). Antennae in males projected over basal third while in females over basal quarter of elytra; antennomeres 1–4 metallic green with bright cupreous, golden-cupreous or bronze-cupreous reflection; scape besides single apical seta glabrous; antennomeres 3 with 5–10 while antennomere 4 with 3–5 short, stout white setae except apical ones. Labrum transverse, LW/LL = 1.83–2.63 (mean = 2.23 mm, n = 32) in males, 1.5–2.18 mm (mean = 1.92 mm, n = 21) in females, unidentate, with 4–8 submarginal setae (Figs 63–72).

Pronotum bronze with cupreous, cupreous-green, golden-cupreous, or purple-cupreous tinge; in males indistinctly longitudinal, PW/PL = 0.91–1.03 (mean = 0.98, n = 32) and indistinctly transverse in females, PW/PL = 0.97–1.12 (mean = 1.05, n = 21); with virtually straight, slightly converging base lateral margins; coarsely wrinkled, indistinctly covex, with two small impressions before posterior angles; anterior and posterior sutures indistinct and shallow; midline thin but clearly visible, metallic green or bluish-green with small deep impression in the base (Figs 103–112). Thoracic segments deep bronze with purple, purple-cupreous, or bluish-green lustre, glabrous, coarsely rugose (Fig. 147). Legs metallic bronze or bronze-green with golden-cupreous or bluish-green tinge.

Elytra bronze or bronze-cupreous with cupreous or golden-cupreous tinge; with numerous, dense diffused, small bluish-green punctures and subhumeral and subsutural rows, subapical diffuse cluster of large golden-green setigerous pores; narrower in males than in females—EL/EW = 1.62–1.88 (mean = 1.74 n = 32) vs. 1.53–1.77 (mean = 1.62 mm, n = 21); with shallow subapical notch, poorly developed in females; apices in males distinctly narrower than in females; shoulders narrow and sloping, EW/EHW = 1.34–1.74 (mean = 1.56, n = 53); scutellum large, bronze or cupreous-bronze, finely transverse striated; humeral group of series umbilicata made up of 5–8 large setigerous pores; epipleura broad, dark bronze with cupreous-green or purple-cupreous reflection. White elytral pattern in some specimens presented exclusively by large or medium-sized transverse, comma-shaped apical portion of middle band surrounded by black halo (Figs 155, 160, 161, 165, 169, 170); in some specimens additionally present is small, rounded sub-humeral spot (Figs 156, 157, 159, 166, 167, 171), in others—small supra-apical spot (Fig. 168) which sometimes replaced by triangular, dark brown patch (Figs 162, 172), rarely both small sub-humeral and supra-apical spots are present (Figs 158).

Abdominal ventrites dark bronze or greenish-bronze with greenish-gold, bluish-green or violet reflection especially along finely striated lateral margins.

Aedeagus large-sized, EL/AL = 1.82–2.19 (mean = 2.02, n = 29), with smoothly curved, short proximal portion as well as with short, straight, rounded apex and long lateral flanks (Figs 214, 215, 228, 229); internal sac with large, slightly curved mt and with large VA and BLR (Figs 238, 245, 252, 259, 265–268).

Distribution. CHINA: Shandong, Henan, Hubei, Anhui, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Fujian Provinces, Chongqing and Shanghai Municipalities (Fig. 280).

Notes. Cicindela bivirgulata was described by Fairmaire (1889) based on the study of a single male. The synonymy of C. lobipennis with C. bivirgulata was established by Flentiaux (1892), and it was accepted by all subsequent authors (W. Horn 1915, 1926; Wiesner 1992, 2020; Lorenz 1998, 2005; Puchkov & Matalin 2003; Putchkov & Matalin 2017). At the same time, according to the original descriptions, the type specimens of these two species are distinguished from each other first of all by the shape of elytral apices: “ elytris elongato-ovatis, lateribusacute carinatis, epipleuris latis intus obliquatis paullo ante apicem terminatis, ibique margine subito depresso, apice ipso producto, quasi lobato ” (Bates 1888 — C. lobipennis) vs. “ elytris ovatis, lateribus acute carinatis, ante apicem vix sensim sinuatis et apice sublobatis ” (Fairmaire 1889 — C. bivirgulata). Thus, according to these two portions of the original descriptions, the elytral subapical notch is developed more in the female of C. lobipennis compared with the male of C. bivirgulata. However, in Apterodela (s. str.) except A. ovipennis, the sexual dimorphism in the shape of subapical sinuate notch on the elytra is observed, and it is much more developed in the males (compare Figs 155–162 with Figs 165–172; Figs 173–179 with Figs 182–189; Figs 193–202 with Figs 203– 212). In the aforementioned case of two type specimens (female and male), they belong to two different species. Thus, A. bivirgulata stat. rest. is considered here as the separate species, but not as the synonym of A. lobipennis.