Physopelta Amyot & Serville 1843
Creators: name: Stehlík, Jaroslav L.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2013
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Largidae
Physopelta

description: Physopelta Amyot & Serville, 1843
Physopelta Amyot & Serville, 1843: 271.
Type species: Physopelta erythrocephala Amyot & Serville, 1843 (= Cimex albofasciatus DeGeer, 1773), subsequent designation by HUSSEY (1929: 28).
Note. DISTANT’ s (1903a: 97) designation of Cimex albofasciatus De Geer as the type species of Physopelta is unavailable, because its synonymy with Physopelta erythrocephala Amyot & Serville, an originally included nominal species, was not mentioned by Distant (see KERZHNER 2001: 246).
Physopelta: STÅL (1861): 195 (key to genera, list of species); STÅL (1863): 390 (revision of species); STÅL (1866): 2 (key to genera, diagnosis); STÅL (1868): 79 (diagnosis); STÅL (1870): 91, 99 (key to genera and species, catalogue, distribution); WALKER (1873): 17 (key to species, catalogue, distribution); LETHIERRY & SEVERIN (1894): 241 –242 (catalogue, distribution); BREDDIN (1901): 175 (distribution); KIRKALDY & EDWARDS (1902): 165 (taxonomy); DISTANT (1903a):94, 97–99 (key to genera,diagnosis, revision of Indian fauna); BERGROTH (1913):167 (catalogue); HUSSEY (1929): 28–33 (type species designation, catalogue, distribution); SCHMIDT (1931): 45–47 (catalogue, distribution); CACHAN (1952):72–73 (diagnosis, revision of Madagascar fauna); VILLIERS (1952): 120 (diagnosis); STEHLÍK (1965a): 287–289 (taxonomy); LESTON (1969): 225–227 (key to species of Ghana, biology, ecology); LIU (1981): 222–224, pl.28 (key, revision of the fauna of China and Taiwan); AHMAD & ABBAS (1987): 132, 136–138, 141–142 (key to genera, redescription, figures, phylogeny, distribution); ZAMAL & CHOPRA (1990): 3–7, 10–12 (key to genera, revision of Indian fauna); STEHLÍK & KERZHNER (1999): 121–122 (taxonomy); KERZHNER (2001): 245–246 (catalogue); CASSIS & GROSS (2002): 625–627 (catalogue); ROBERTSON (2004): 2, 4–5 (key to African genera and species, catalogue, distribution); STEHLÍK (2006a): 658 (differences from Jindraia); VOIGT (2006): 223–225 (key to Palaearctic genera and species); RÉDEI et al. (2009): 11–12 (morphology, distribution, fauna of Taiwan); ZHU et al. (2012): 193–198 (ecology, distribution).
Diagnosis. Head not shortened, not positioned much lower than pronotum. Callar lobe of pronotum usually strongly gibbose in male and less gibbose in female (different among subgenera). Pronotum not constricted, its lateral margins narrow, only slightly concave medially. Profemora ventrally with a longitudinal furrow (Figs 5, 19, 51, 66−67, 98). Stridulatory organs (when present) on coxa and trochanter of fore leg (Figs 1−2, 17−18). Macropterous. Male abdomen never prolonged behind apex of hemelytra. Body length 9.5–20.0 mm.
Discussion. The present revision of the genus Physopelta in its traditional concept (i.e., excluding Delacampius) revealed that it is not a monophyletic taxon. While Physopelta festiva and Ph. apicalis must be excluded from the genus, the remaining species belonging to Physopelta can be further divided into four well-delimited subgenera. In contrast with the two Afrotropical subgenera proposed in the present paper (Afrophysopelta subgen. nov., Physopeltoides subgen. nov.) which lack any sexual dimorphism, the two subgenera from the Oriental and Australian Regions (Physopelta s. str., Neophysopelta sensu novo) have developed sexual dimorphism: males have more gibbose callar lobe, incrassate profemora, and a longitudinal row of small denticles on the ventral surface of the protibia. This sexual dimorphism is also connected with allometry causing individual differences among the conspecific males. This sexual dimorphism and allometry were described by STEHLÍK (2007: 127) who provided colour photos of a normal male, an allometric male, and a female of Physopelta (Neophysopelta) gutta gutta (Burmeister, 1834) and Ph. (N.) quadriguttata Bergroth, 1894. Moreover, males of Physopelta s. str. have a strong spine anteapically on the ventral surface of the protibia, which is missing in females. The presence of a longitudinal row of small denticles on the ventral surface of the meso- and metafemora, which could be sexually dimorphic and may also vary within the allometry in males, is recognized here as useful character for defining genera within Physopeltinae. This character was used for the first time in descriptions of Physopelta trimaculata Stehlík & Jindra, 2008 and Ph. kotheae Stehlík & Jindra, 2008 (STEHLÍK & JINDRA 2008a). In some cases, a longitudinal furrow on the ventral surface of the metafemora may even be present.
The Oriental subgenera Physopelta s. str. and Neophysopelta possess stridulatory organs, which has a specific structure in both of the subgenera, and which are missing in the Afrotropical Physopeltoides subgen. nov. and Afrophysopelta subgen. nov. These stridulatory organs, described here for the first time, seems to be unique within all known Heteroptera.
Key to the subgenera of Physopelta
1(4) Stridulatory organs present on procoxa and protrochanter (Figs 1−2, 17−18). Peritreme of metathoracic scent glands horizontal, scimitar-shaped, directed laterad to posterolaterad (Figs 3−4, 20, 22). Sexual dimorphism and allometry in males well developed. Mostly large species (with few exceptions, 10.5–21.0 mm). Oriental and Australian Regions....................................................................................................................................2
2(3) Antennomere 1 longer than antennomere 2. Males with a strong, orthogonally directed apical tooth on ventral surface of protibia (Figs 5, 15). Stridulatory organ in form of a strong tooth (strigil) on protrochanter and a depression on ventral surface of procoxa (plectrum) (Figs 1−2). Peritreme of metathoracic scent glands directed laterad (Figs 3−4). Paramere with apex longer and narrower, outer margin angulately produced basally (Figs 8−12). Large species: 15.7–21.0 mm. ................................... ........................................................................... Physopelta Amyot & Serville, 1843
3(2) Antennomere 1 shorter than antennomere 2 (except Ph. finisterrae). Tibiae in males apically without tooth. Stridulatory organ in form of a tooth on procoxa (strigil) and a wrinkled cuticule on protrochanter (plectrum) (Figs 17−18). Peritreme of metathoracic scent glands directed posterolaterad (Figs 20, 22). Paramere with apex shorter and narrower, outer margin without distinct angulate process (Figs 30−34). Smaller species: 10.5–15.1 mm. ................................ Neophysopelta Ahmad & Abbas, 1987 stat. nov.
4(1) Stridulatory organs on fore leg absent (Figs 48−49, 64−65). Peritreme of metathoracic scent glands longitudinal, crescent-shaped, projecting both anteriad and posteriad (Figs 68−69). Sexual dimorphism and allometry in males not developed.Antennomere 1 shorter than antennomere 2. Smaller species (8.5–12.6 mm). Subsaharan Africa including Madagascar and Mascarenes. ..................................................................................... 5
5(6) Callar lobe distinctly gibbose; profemora incrassate (Figs 60−61); meso- and metafemora of both sexes ventrally with a row of small denticles along their entire length. ............ ....................................................................................... Physopeltoides subgen. nov.
6(5) Callar lobe weakly gibbose; profemora not incrassate (Figs 62−63); meso- and metafemora ventrally without row of small denticles. .......... Afrophysopelta subgen. nov.
description: Published as part of Stehlík, Jaroslav L., 2013, Review and reclassification of the Old World genus Physopelta (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Largidae), pp. 505-584 in Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 53 (2) on pages 510-512, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5739959