Calomera decemguttata
Creators: name: Moravec, Jiří
name: Dheurle, Charles
name: Schüle, Peter
name: Wiesner, Jürgen
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2025
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Carabidae
Calomera
Calomera decemguttata

description: Calomera decemguttata (Fabricius, 1801)
(Figs 1–47)
Cicindela 10- guttata Fabricius, 1801: 241. Non C. decemguttata sensu auctorum (partim)!
Cicindela decemguttata: Dejean 1826: 420.
Calomera 10guttata: Motschulsky 1862: 22.
Cicindela decemguttata: Fleutiaux 1892: 115.
Abroscelis (Calomera) decemguttata: Schilder 1953: 550.
Lophyridia decemguttata: Rivalier 1961: 132.
Cicindela (Calomera) decemguttata: Lorenz 1998a: 48; 1998b: 363; 2005a: 49; 2005b: 379.
Calomera decemguttata: Wiesner 2020: 231.
Type locality. Unknown, because mistakenly stated by Fabricius (1801) as “Insua Iaua” (= Java) in the original description by Fabricius (1801). See “Distribution” below.
Type material. Lectotype (designated here – see “Note” below), ♀ in ZMUK, labelled: “10 gut / tata” [yellowishtarnished, handwritten] // “Type” [red, printed] // “ Lectotype / Cicindela / decemguttata / Fabricius / by R. E. Acciavatti, ‘86” [red (invalid) label, handwritten] // linear code and: “ZMUKFabricius / 004988” [printed] // “ Lectotype / Cicindela / decemguttata Fabricius, 1801 / design. J. Moravec, C. Dheurle, / P. Schüle & J. Wiesner 2024” [red, printed].
Note for the lectotype designation. The lectotype is newly designated here, because, as mentioned above, Robert E. Acciavatti, who attached the above-cited lectotype label to the genuine type specimen in ZSM, never published the designation; the primary reason is that Fabricius (1801) did not indicate the number of specimens.
Other material examined. 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in SDEI: “ Banda / Kühn 05. 2 ♂♂ in NHMW: “Bernhard Wolf / Celebes 1893”. 10 ♂♂, 15 ♀♀ in JWCM: “ Insel Ceram / bei Kamarian / leg. E. Bauer, 10.1978”. 2 ♀♀ in JWCM: “ Indonesien, Molukken / Seram Solea, 12 km SE / Wahai, leg. S. Bily [BÍlý] / 17.1.- 18.2.1997 ”. 3 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ in NMPC: “ Maluku, Seram / 12 km SE Wahai, Solea / 31.10.- 4.11.1998 / J. Horák leg.”. 1 ♀ in NMPC: “ Indonesie / C - Moluccas / Seram Isl. / 12.2011 100-300m ”. 1 ♂ in NMPC: “ Indonesia, Central Moluccas / Banda Isl., 11,200 8 / 0-50m alt Mt. Api / local collector lgt.”. 1 ♂, 3 ♀♀ in NMPC: “ Celebes ”. 4 ♀♀ in NMPC: “ Insula / Banda / V. M. Duchon ”. 1 ♀ in NMPC: “ Ins, Gross / Banda”. 1 ♂ in MKPC: “ January 2021 / Banda Besar Is. / Indonesia / local collector” // “ Calomera / decemguttata / (Fabricius, 1801) / Miroslav KlÍcha det.”. 1 ♀ in CCJM: “ Malluku, Seram / Solea, 12 km SE / Wahai / 17.1.- 6.2.1997 / I. Martinů leg.”. 5 ♂♂, 1 ♀ in PSCH with same labels except for: “S. BÍlý leg.”. 3 ♂♂, 1 ♀ in PSCH: “ Indonesia, C. Moluccas / W. Seram, 400m alt, / Sahulau env. III.2013 / local collector leg.”. 2 ♂♂ in PSCH with same label data except for: “ 5-17.V.2013 ”. 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀ in CCJM: “ Indonesia, Maluku / Seram, Solea, 600 m / XI.1998, Sv. BÍlý leg.”. 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in CCJM: “ Maluku / Seram / Unit 0 / 34 km E Pasahari / 24-30.X.1998 leg. S. BÍlý”. 6 ♂♂, 4 ♀♀ in JWCM: “ Seram Isl., 27.3.1996, / Manusela NP / R. Gerstmeier leg.”. 2 ♀♀ in JWCM: “ Indonesia, Ambon / Pl. Dila Anton / 21.2.1995 / leg. Gasche ”. 2 ♂♂ in MFNB: “Ins. Key / Banda”. 1 ♂ in MFNB: “ Leitimor [barely legible]”. 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀ in CDCL: “W. Seram / Kamarian, 400m / 128° 38’ E.L / 3° 20’ S.B / 20.I.1986 ”. 1 ♀ in CDCL: “ Wahai / Nord Ceran [Ceram] / Exp. Martin 92”. 1 ♀ in IRSNB: “Amboine”. 1 ♀ in IRSNB: “ Amboina ”. 2 ♀♀ in IRSNB: “ Amboina / H. Rolle, Berlin W.”. 1 ♂ in SDEI: “ Amboina / Leitimor / Exp. Martin XII.’91”. 1 ♂ in BMNH: “ Amboina / Oct.1923 / C. J. Brooks coll. / No 1767”. 3 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ in BMNH: “Amboyne”. 4 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ in BMNH: “ Mansola / C. Ceram, 2500 ft. / Pratt 1919 / B.M.1932–116”. 9 ♂♂, 7 ♀♀ in BMNH: “ Indonesia / N.C. Seram / Manusela N.P. / Wae Mual Plain / 25.VII-9.IX.1987 ” // “ Lophyridia / decemguttata / F., 1801 / R. Naviaux det. 1996”. 3 ♂♂ in BMNH: “Ceram I. / E. Indies / Oct. Nov. 1909 / W. Stalker / 1910–127”.
Differential diagnosis. Calomera decemguttata, in its original sense, is externally characterized by the pattern of its elytral maculation with constantly obliquely ovaliform subhumeral macula, while lateromedian macula is distinctly or always at least perceptibly distant from the outer elytral margin (Figs 1–2, 4–5, 11–19). Such presence of distant lateromedian macula is shared only with C. bordonii, which however differs in shape and coloration of more rounded and usually deep olivaceous-green pronotal disc, its elytra more dilated below the middle and usually almost black with shorter (mostly rounded) subhumeral macula; for other differences see under C. bordonii below.
Body (Figs 1–2, 4–5) comparatively large, 12.6–15.1 (LT 14.0) mm long, 4.30–5.40 mm wide, thus generally larger than in C. paradecemguttata sp. nov. (= C. decemguttata sensu auctorum), females usually larger than males. Pronotal surface (Figs 6–8) covered with noticeably shallower, fine intricate rugae forming an irregular mosaic on the discal surface, in contrast to much coarser sculpture on discal pronotal surface in C. paradecemguttata sp. nov. (Figs 52–54). In addition to the lateromedian macula which is in C. decemguttata placed distant from the outer elytral margin, the macula is also isolated from a large central macula, or only indistinctly connecter with it by a thin stripe (Figs 4–5, 11–19), in contrast to the elytral maculation in C. paradecemguttata sp. nov., which has the lateromedian macula adjacent to outer elytral margin and with the central macula forming a continuous, cranked lateromedian-discal band (Figs 48, 50–51, 65–73). Most other external characters of C. decemguttata are very similar to those in C. paradecemguttata sp. nov. as described below.
Aedeagus apex in its lateral view is in males of C. decemguttata variably shaped (Figs 31, 33–38), but its dorsal (and ventral) aspect (Figs 32, 40) possesses continuous lateral edges (as in all but one other species of the complex); the only exception is the aedeagus of C. paradecemguttata sp. nov., which differs both in its lateral and dorsal (and ventral) aspects (Figs 75–92).
Distribution. As mentioned above, the type locality of C. decemguttata is unknown. The occurrence in Java was questioned by Horn (1926), Cassola (1991) and others. Nevertheless, it was not the first case when historical authors did not recognize or confused geography – for instance, the type of Megalomma (M.) viridulum Quensel, 1806, endemic to Mauritius, was labelled by Quensel “ Inde oriental.” and other specimens “ India Orientalis”, and so on (see Moravec 2010). Dejean (1836) in his redescription of C. decemguttata from “Bourou” = island of Buru, Maluku, obviously had Calomera bordonii which is endemic to the Buru Island in his hands.
Most specimens of C. decemguttata examined come from the Maluku archipelago (= Moluccas), particularly from Seram (= Ceram), including Banda Island and the Key Islands (also known as Ewab Islands, Kei Islands, Kepulauan Kai), the island group of the southeastern Moluccas lying west of the Aru Islands and southeast of Seram in the Banda Sea and Ambon Island (in Dutch “ Amboina ”, but also spelled as “Amboine” or “Amboyne”) with the city of Ambon, the capital of the province of Maluku in this eastern part of Indonesia; specimens (MFNB) labelled “Leitimor” come from the Leitimor Peninsula, southern shore part of the Ambon area.
It must be noted here that due to the erroneous previous concept of C. decemguttata, the distribution of this species listed by both historical and recent authors, including Wiesner (2020), covers also the occurrence of C. paradecemguttata sp. nov.
Remarks. The hitherto erroneous concept of C. decemguttata (see “Abstract” and “Introduction” above), was primarily caused by the fact that probably no authors (evidently none of the recent ones) had examined the genuine type of Cicindela decemguttata Fabricius, 1801. An exception was the renowned entomologist Robert E. Acciavatti (Pittsburgh, USA), who labelled the genuine type in ZMKC (now in ZMUK) with a red lectotype label, but unfortunately never published the designation and results of the examination.
It must also be noted here that the male species which was illustrated recently as C. decemguttata by Schüle (2010, figs 5, 8, 11) and Wiesner (2018, figs 4, 11) was in fact a male of C. paradecemguttata sp. nov. described below.
description: Published as part of Moravec, Jiří, Dheurle, Charles, Schüle, Peter & Wiesner, Jürgen, 2025, Reassessment of the concept of Calomera decemguttata (Fabricius) with a description of Calomera paradecemguttata sp. nov. (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), pp. 1-56 in Zootaxa 5570 (1) on pages 6-14, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5570.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/14734482