Aulacophora abdominalis Fabricius 1781
Creators: name: Lee, Chi-Feng
name: Beenen, Ron
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2015
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Aphididae
Aulacophora
Aulacophora abdominalis

description: [Aulacophora abdominalis (Fabricius, 1781)]
(Figs 8–9, 66, 68)
Crioceris abdominalis Fabricius, 1781: 151 (Pacific islands); Fabricius, 1787: 87 (redescription). Cryptocephalus abdominalis: Gmelin, 1790: 1719.
Galeruca abdominalis: Olivier, 1791: 590; Olivier, 1808: 623.
Galleruca abdominalis: Fabricius, 1792: 23; Fabricius, 1801: 483. Rhaphidopalpa abdominalis: Dejean, 1837: 402; Weise, 1892: 395. Aulacophora abdominalis: Baly, 1886: 14.
Type material. Crioceris abdominalis: lectotype ♂ (KIEL), here designated, labeled: “abdomina / lis [w, h] // LECTO - / TYPE [w, h, circle label with blue border] // Lectotype / Crioceris ♂ / testacea Fab. [h] // N. A. Aslam det. 19 [p] 71 [h, w]”. No paralectotypes designated (see under remarks).
Diagnosis. The lectotype of Crioceris abdominalis (Figs 8–9) is similar to Aulacophora. kotoensis but has yellowish brown antenna and legs. Besides, the penis of the lectotype of C. abdominalis is distinctly asymmetric near the apex and shows a lateral excavation at the middle (Fig. 66); abdominal tergite VIII has a semicircular incision and lateral processes and basal margin convex with rounded corners (Fig. 68). A. kotoensis has antennae (except basal segments) dark brown and middle and hind legs black. In A. kotoensis the penis is parallel sided, narrowed towards apex which is symmetrical; abdominal tergite VIII has a broad triangular incision and basal margin concave with sharp corners.
Remarks. To exclude conspecifity between Aulacophora kotoensis and A. abdominalis (Fabricius, 1781) it was necessary to study the type specimens of Crioceris abdominalis in the Fabricius-collection.
Most of Fabrician types in Kiel had been transferred to the Zoological Museum of Copenhagen (KIEL) (Zimsen 1964). Zimsen (1964) described the Coleoptera Collection as “There are no locality labels in Fabricius’ own collection. Also peculiar are the very small name labels which Fabricius used: usually only a small scrap of paper on which was written the name of the species; never any mention of the genus”.
In 1787 Fabricius described Crioceris testacea from India Orient., at present named Aulacophora indica (Gmelin). Later, Fabricius (1801) synonymized Crioceris testacea with Crioceris abdominalis Fabricius, 1781 a species he described from the South Pacific. Most probably he placed his specimens of both C. abdominalis and C. testacea in his collection together. Because of the uncertainty around the taxa C. abdominalis and C. testacea (see for example Baly 1879: 445 and Maulik (1936: 175, 197, 198) it was not only to exclude conspecifity between Aulacophora kotoensis and A. abdominalis (Fabricius, 1781) that made it necessary for us to study the type specimens of Crioceris abdominalis in the Fabricius-collection. The examination also could clarify the status of C. testacea.
In the KIEL collection there are five specimens besides the name label “ abdominalis, 1791 ”: one male specimen carrying a label in Fabricius handwriting “ abdominalis ”; the other four specimens without labels. One of them could be identified as Haplosomoides serena (Boheman) and one as Aulacophora coffeae Hornstedt. The two remaining specimens are a male of Aulacophora indica (Gmelin, 1790) and an Aulacophora female, that could not be identified.
The labeled specimen was designated as lectotype of Crioceris testacea Fabricius by Aslam in 1941. However, designation of the lectotype is not valid since it was never published. Anand and Cox (1986) redescribed A. abdominalis and A. testacea based on a female specimen collected in the South Pacific during the second voyage of captain Cook (Banks collection) and a male specimen collected in India (Assam) respectively. At least the redescriptions of A. abdominalis is not reliable since the female has fewer diagnostic characters. A redescription based on the presumed syntypes in the Fabricius collection could finally end the uncertainty.
Because the series of syntypes is composed of several species we excluded the specimens of Haplosomoides serena, Aulacophora coffaea and the female specimen from our examination. The two remaining male specimens are clearly different. One male specimen that has no tubercles on the pronotum is identical with Aulacophora indica (Gmelin,1790), the replacement name for Crioceris testacea Fabricius, 1787. This specimen is designated lectotype of Crioceris testacea Fabricius, 1787. The other male specimen with a pair of tubercles on the pronotum that unfortunately was labeled by Aslam as the lectotype of Crioceris testacea, is designated here as the lectotype of Crioceris abdominalis. This is the specimen bearing the Fabricius label “ abdominalis ”. Both specimens are labeled according these designations and serve nomenclatural stability.
Barroga & Mohamedsaid (2002) and Barroga (2002a) list a single male specimen as the type of Crioceris testacea Fabricius they studied from the Fabricius-collection (KIEL). They mention it is labeled as Crioceris abdominalis F., but do not list any further labels. In other type specimens they list all label information. Therefore it is not likely they studied the specimen we designated the lectotype of C. abdominalis, because in that case they would have listed the label attached by Aslam as well. It is very likely that they have studied the specimen we have designated the lectotype of C. testacea. Because Barroga & Mohamedsaid (2002) and Barroga (2002a) do not mention the presence of tubercles on the males pronotum, a character they unlikely would have left unnoticed, makes it plausible that they have studied the male specimen herein designated the lectotype of Crioceris testacea Fabricius, 1787.
description: Published as part of Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2015, Revision of the genus Aulacophora from Taiwan (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), pp. 151-190 in Zootaxa 3949 (2) on pages 169-170, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3949.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/237252