Asioperibalus (Asioperibalus) Belousova 2007, subgen. n.
Creators: name: Belousova, E. N.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2007
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Pentatomidae
Asioperibalus

description: Subgenus Asioperibalus Belousova, subgen. n.
Type species Cimex inclusus Dohrn, 1860.
Diagnosis. The new subgenus differs from the nominotypical one in the following characters: aedeagus with 2 pairs of conjunctive processes (one pair in the subgenus Peribalus), vesica strongly curved (weakly curved in Peribalus), theca with lateral processes, sensory lobe distinct (smoothened in P. hoberlandti), inner surface of paramere with uneven area pointed at base, spermathecal bulb weakly elongate or spherical, and sclerotized duct not widened at base, laterotergite IX wide at apex and narrowly rounded at base, sternite IX of medium length and width, its lower margin slightly concave medially, with obtused apices.
Composition. The subgenus comprises nine described species-group taxa mainly inhabiting Asia.
H. sinuatus Ahmad et al. (Figs. 22, 73) and H. urakensis Ahmad et al. (Figs. 14, 45), both described from Pakistan, demonstrate all the listed characters of the subgenus Asioperibalus and, undoubtedly, should be included in this subgenus. In the descriptions, these species were compared with representatives of other subgenera, or among themselves, but not with P. (A.) nitidus widely distributed in Middle Asia, Iran, and Afghanistan. H. urakensis differs from P. (A.) nitidus in the sclerotized spermathecal duct slightly widened at the base, whereas considering H. sinuatus a separate species needs additional confirmation since no differences have been revealed.
H. imtiazi Abbasi possesses the parameres characteristic of the subgenus (with sensory lobe) and lateral processes of the theca, but bears only one pair of conjunctive processes (Figs. 44, 71). Since this species was described from a single male and since its conjunctive processes, when straightened, probably resemble in shape those of species of the subgenus, it seems rather probable that the conjunctive processes of H. imtiazi in the figure of the original description are not entirely straightened and, therefore, this species should also be placed in the subgenus Asioperibalus.
Unfortunately, all the three above taxa remain unknown to the author of the present study. Treatment of the taxa by Ahmad and co-authors appears rather disputable. They relate P. sinuatus and P. pishinensis (in my opinion, representatives of different subgenera) on the basis of the antennal index, though this character varies rather widely even within a species and cannot be used for comparison of only two specimens, from which the descriptions have been made. One more evidence of affinity of the species was the ratio of two parameters: distance from the anterior margin of the head to the eyes and that from the eyes (including them) to posterior margin of the head. However, this difference mismatches even the measurements given by the authors in the original descriptions. Actually the first parameter is always greater than the second one. Thus, the Pakistan researchers overlooked features of the genitalia structure, characteristic of any subgeneric complex, and did not consider two species widely distributed in Palaearctic Asia, which resulted in the conclusions mismatching the comparisons. These species are not included in the present revision.
description: Published as part of Belousova, E. N., 2007, Revision of the shield-bug genera Holcostethus Fieber and Peribalus Mulsant et Rey (Heteroptera, Pentatomidae) of the Palaearctic Region, pp. 701-739 in Entomological Review 87 (6) on page 714, DOI: 10.1134/s0013873807060085, http://zenodo.org/record/15003141