Luciola laticollis Gorham 1883
Creators: name: Jusoh, Wan F. A.
name: Ballantyne, Lesley
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2024
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Lampyridae
Luciola
Luciola laticollis

description: Luciola laticollis Gorham, 1883
Fig. 3 A – R
Luciola laticollis Gorham, 1883: 4. Olivier 1902: 82; 1911 a: 18; 1912: 88. McDermott 1966: 108. Ballantyne et al. 2019: 103.
Type locality.
“ Java: Bodjonegoro ”.
Lectotype and paralectotype.
1 ♂, 1 ♀ (herein designated).
Material examined
(1 ♂, 1 ♀ specimens). Lectotype (herein designated): INDONESIA ● ♂; (1) “ ♂ ”; (2) “ type ”; (3) “ Luciola / laticollis / Gorham ”; (4) “ Piepers / Bodjonegoro / Java ”; (5) “ RMNH Leiden / ex Indo-Austr. / Collection ”; (6) “ RMNH. INS / 968349 ” (Fig. 3 A). Paralectotype: ♀; (1) “ ♀ ”; (2) “ type ”; (3) “ Luciola / laticollis / Gorham ”; (4) “ Piepers / Bodjonegoro / Java. ”; (5) “ RMNH Leiden / ex Indo-Austr. / collection ”; (6) “ RMNH. INS / 968350 ” (Fig. 3 B).
Diagnosis.
Male with dark brown elytra having narrowly paler (appearing orange) lateral margins, apex and suture, light brown pronotum with a wide median dark brown marking (Fig. 3 C, D). Most similar to Luciola tiomana Ballantyne, 2019 from which it can be distinguished by its locality (L. tiomana is from the tip of the Malay peninsula), pronotal colour (that of L. tiomana is completely black); ventral surface dark brown almost black except for light brown legs and creamy white light organs in V 6, 7; female coloured as for male (Fig. 3 E, F), with full length elytra and shortened hind wings, not considered capable of flight.
Redescription of lectotype male.
Body length. 5.5–6.0 mm long (Fig. 3 C, D). The size range of this specimen is applied to indicate that its measurement may vary slightly from its actual length as it appears to have a slightly drooped body, which is a result of how it has died or been preserved in the past.
Colour (Fig. 3 C, D, G, H). Colour probably reflects age of specimen and description attempts to account for that; pronotum lateral margins orange, wide median dark brown marking extending across 6 / 10 width, reaching neither anterior nor posterior margin, both margins narrowly orange; median dark area with somewhat irregular lateral margins; MS, MN paler colour like that of base of suture; elytra dark brown, very narrow brownish orange lateral, apical and sutural margins; head between eyes dark brown, antennae, palpi brown; venter of thorax almost black; legs 1 basal segments yellowish brown, apical ¼ femora and all of tibiae, tarsi dark brown; legs 2 basal segments yellowish brown with tibiae, tarsi dark brown; legs 3 all of legs yellowish brown except for dark brown apical 2 / 3 tibiae, and all of tarsi; basal abdominal ventrites very dark brown, creamy pale LO in V 6, 7.
Pronotum (Fig. 3 G). Pronotum width subequal to humeral width; subparallel-sided.
Elytra (Fig. 3 C). Parallel-sided; interstitial lines not defined.
Head. Not able to be retracted into prothoracic cavity; head width subequal to width across cavity; mouthparts well developed; antennal sockets not contiguous; antennal segments elongate slender, length antenna / GHW 1.5.
Abdomen (Fig. 3 D, I, J). LO in V 7 retracted from posterior and part of lateral margins; posterior margin of V 7 broadly rounded, no MPP defined (Fig. 3 D); T 8 with entire rounded posterior margin; anterolateral projections narrow, 0.3 as long as entire tergite (Fig. 3 J); posterior margin of T 7 entire, not emarginated (Fig. 3 I).
Aedeagal sheath (Fig. 3 K – N). Slightly asymmetrical (asymmetry may be due to age of specimen); sheath sternite apex entire, densely hairy, projecting beyond tip of tergite (Fig. 3 K – N); median anterior dorsal margin of tergite of sheath broadly produced with narrow acute median apex (Fig. 3 K, N arrowed).
Aedeagus (Fig. 3 O – R). 2.5 × as long as wide; basal piece defined in two distinct halves Fig. 3 O); extending for approximately half aedeagal length along sides of LL (Fig. 3 Q, R; arrow in Q indicates posterior extent); dorsal anterior base of LL broadly rounded and evenly produced (Fig. 3 O); LL lateral margins subparallel when viewed from beneath (Fig. 3 P); LL expanded at apices partly enfolding ML from beneath; LL very close in basal half along middorsal line, becoming almost contiguous before diverging in next 0.4 (area of divergence arrowed in Fig. 3 O), converging at their apices (Fig. 3 O); LL with elongated slender apically acute lobes arising from their outer ventral surfaces, converging anteriorly behind ML (Fig. 3 P arrowed); ML, LL subequal in length; ML narrowed in apical 0.3 with apex rounded in dorsal aspect (Fig. 3 P, Q). Dorsal attachment of ML to LL (Fig. 3 O, Q, R): lateral margins of anterior dorsal ML thickened, darkened (Fig. 3 O left and right arrows to top of figure), extending and converging obliquely dorsally connecting with thickened, darkened paired lobes arising from inner basal margin of LL just behind anterior margin; from side the mid anterior margin inclines dorsally such that the dorsal margins of the LL appear concave (Fig. 3 Q upper left arrow); connection between the two areas probably muscle as attachment appears to permit some independent movement of the ML.
Redescription of paralectotype female.
Body length (Fig. 3 E, F). 6.0 mm long.
Colour (Fig. 3 E, F). Colour as for male except for dark brown basal abdominal ventrites, LO ill-defined in semi-transparent orange yellow V 6; V 7, 8 coloured as for 6; dorsal abdomen dark brown except for pale cream T 8.
Pronotum (Fig. 3 E). Wider than humeral width; anterolateral corners broadly rounded.
Elytra (Fig. 3 E, F). Interstitial lines not defined; elytra may be full length but difficult to assess (elytral length 4 × median pronotal length), extending beyond apex of abdomen but this could be a consequence of dehydration; lateral margins subparallel-sided and appear to be contiguous along most of their sutural margins when closed. Hind wings: shortened, 0.66 as long as elytra and female may be flightless.
Head (Fig. 3 F). Mouthparts well developed, and female could feed; antennae incomplete but segments elongate slender, visible length is greater than head width.
Abdomen (Fig. 3 F). Posterior margin of V 7 broadly and shallowly emarginated. No further dissections were attempted.
Notes.
Gorham (1883) referred to the broad pronotum (it is subequal in width to the width across the elytral humeri in the male, but wider in the female). He described the elytra as black with narrow pale margins (the elytral colour here is dark brown and the paler margins are very narrow and not obvious). Olivier (1911 a) indicated the median dark pronotal marking was reduced in a Sumatran female, while the median dark pronotal marking occupied the entire disc (“ disque entire ”) in the type. Yiu (2017) addressed a small population of males and females from Lantau in Hong Kong as “ near laticollis ”, and in his Table 1 attempted to reconcile features of the original descriptions of three Luciola species with his specimen identification. His Luciola nr. laticollis (page 55) is not inconsistent with what we describe here. Ballantyne et al. (2019) listed L. laticollis under Luciola s. lato and type not located, as they felt the distinctive colour pattern would allow subsequent association of specimens.
This species is assigned to Luciola s. str. because of the distinctive features of the male aedeagus.
description: Published as part of Jusoh, Wan F. A. & Ballantyne, Lesley, 2024, A catalogue and redescription of type specimens of fireflies (Coleoptera, Lampyridae, Luciolinae) deposited in Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, pp. 63-80 in Contributions to Entomology 74 (1) on pages 63-80, DOI: 10.3897/contrib.entomol.74.e107520