Lamprocoris lateralis Guerin-Meneville 1838
Creators: name: Tsai, Jing-Fu
name: Rédei, Dávid
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2010
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Scutelleridae
Lamprocoris
Lamprocoris lateralis

description: Lamprocoris lateralis (Guérin-Méneville, 1838)
Figs. 73–75
Callidea obtusa Westwood, 1837: 4, 16. Syntype (s): Indonesia: Java; OXUM!
Scutellera lateralis Guérin-Méneville, 1838: 159, 160. Syntypes: Indonesia: Java; MNHN, lost.
Callidea contraria Walker, 1867: 30. Holotype: “Hindostan” [= India]; BMNH. Synonymized by Distant 1899: 39.
Chrysophara formosana Matsumura, 1913: 109, 110. Lectotype (Tsai & Rédei 2009: 45) (♂): “ Formosa ” [= Taiwan]: “Arisan” [= Alishan]; EIHU! Synonymized by Tsai & Rédei 2009: 45.
References. Lamprocoris obtusus: Germar 1839: 119 (original description repeated); Vollenhoven 1863: 32 (original description repeated, identity); Walker 1868: 510 (listed, as “var.?” of lateralis); Stål 1873: 22 (listed); Atkinson 1887: 183 (original description repeated); Lethierry & Severin 1893: 28 (catalogue, distribution); Distant 1900: 820 (generic placement); Schouteden 1904a: 28 (catalogue, distribution); Kirkaldy 1909: 301 (catalogue, distribution); Tsai & Rédei 2009: 46 (as of doubtful identity).
Lamprocoris lateralis: Bibliography presented by Tsai & Rédei 2009: 45.
Type material examined. Lamprocoris obtusus: LECTOTYPE (Ψ) (present designation): “ Type ” [circle with red margin, printed]; “Java” [handwritten]; “ obtusa Hope ” [handwritten, folded]; “ Lamprocoris \ obtusa \ Westw.” [handwritten]; “ TYPE. \ = = \ WESTW. (HOPE) \ C. Hemipt. 1837 \ Part I, page 16. \ Distant, P.Z.S. \ 1900, p. 807-825.” [with red frame, printed + handwritten]; “ TYPE HEM.: No 25 \ CALLIDEA \ OBTUSA \ WESTWOOD \ HOPE DEPT. OXFORD” [with black frame, handwritten + printed]. Pinned; right antenna, left antennal segment IV, left fore leg distad of coxa, right mid and hind tarsi fully, right fore and left hind tarsi partly missing; deposited in OXUM (Figs. 73–75).
Lamprocoris lateralis: NEOTYPE (Ψ) (present designation): the lectotype of L. obtusus, see above.
Discussion. Lamprocoris obtusus and L. lateralis both have been described from Java by Westwood (1837) and Guérin-Méneville (1838), respectively. Their identities are clarified below.
The identity of Lamprocoris obtusus. Westwood’s (1837) original description of L. obtusus is brief and inadequate. The type material has not been re-examined since its original description, therefore this species remained as of doubtful identity until recently. No authors have ever presented original data on this species, and there are only a few subsequent papers mentioning it, as follows. In their comprehensive works, Germar (1839: 119) and Atkinson (1887: 183) repeated Westwood’s original description without any comment. Also without having seen any specimens, Vollenhoven (1863: 32) and Walker (1868: 510) expressed that it is most probably only a variety of (i.e., conspecific with) Callidea lateralis. The survey of the pentatomoid species deposited in the Hope Collections at Oxford compiled by Distant (1900: 820) as well as the catalogues by Stål (1873: 22), Lethierry & Severin (1893: 28), Schouteden (1904: 28) and Kirkaldy (1909: 301) listed the species under Lamprocoris without comment. Finally, Tsai & Rédei (2009: 46) treated it as a species of doubtful identity, and mentioned that it is almost certainly conspecific with L. lateralis.
A single female syntype of L. obtusa (Figs. 73–75) was received from OXUM, and it is hereby designated as the lectotype of this species.
The identity of Lamprocoris lateralis. In contrast to that of L. obtusus, Guérin-Méneville’s (1838) original description of L. lateralis is detailed, and therefore subsequent authors readily recognized it during the last 170 years. We could trace 28 papers mentioning it in the immediately preceding 50 years. These works include identification books and taxonomical papers (Hsiao & Zheng 1977: 62; Tsai & Rédei 2009: 45), morphological studies (Kumar 1965: 45, 52; Fischer 2001: plate 13; Tsai et al. 2004: 795); catalogues and checklists (Stichel 1961: 730; Stichel 1962: 210; Hua 2000: 168; Göllner-Scheiding 2006: 197), faunistic papers and zoogeographical analyses (Zhang et al. 1983: 48; Chen et al. 1985: 45; Jiang 1985: 56; Zhang 1986: 426; Li et al. 1988: 138; Zhang & Lin 1988: 84; Li et al. 1989: 38; Lin & Zhang 1993: 113; Su et al. 1993: 281; Zhang et al. 1994: 63; Lin et al. 1999: 45; Liu & Wang 2004: 174), and ecological studies (Hu 1988: 195). The species is a minor pest of the oil-seed camellia, Camellia oleifera Abel and other Camellia spp. (Theaceae) in China, and several authors referred to it in this context (Yang 1962: 34; Qi et al. 1993: 18; Dai 1997: 35; Zhang & Han 1999: 85). The species is included even in popular field guides on insects, first of all targeting the public (Zhang 2001: 72; Ho 2003: 206). Several of the above papers provide redescriptions (Yang 1962; Hsiao & Zheng 1977; Lin & Zhang 1993; Lin et al. 1999), habitus illustrations (Yang 1962; Hsiao & Zheng 1977; Lin & Zhang 1993) and other drawings, photos of the adult (Hsiao & Zheng 1977; Zhang 2001; Ho 2003; Tsai & Rédei 2009) and immatures (Ho 2003), and genitalia illustrations (Kumar 1965; Fischer 2001) of this biological species under the name L. lateralis.
Neotype designation for L. lateralis. According to its original description, L. lateralis has been described based on several specimens. Together with other types of Guérin-Méneville described in the same work, the syntypes are supposed to be deposited in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France (cf. Göllner-Scheiding 2006: 197). Unfortunately, no specimens could be found there during a visit by the junior author in March 2010.
Because the original syntypes are apparently no longer extant, for clarifying uncertainties in the identification of this species and for fixing its identity, moreover for solving the nomenclatural problem between L. obtusus and L. lateralis outlined below, designation of a neotype is necessary, and we do so in the present paper under Article 75.3.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th edition, 1999).
The patria typica of both species is the same (Java). In accordance with the original description and with the equivocally accepted identity of L. lateralis (Distant 1902; Yang 1962; Kumar 1965; Hsiao & Zheng 1977; Lin & Zhang 1993; Lin et al. 1999; Tsai & Rédei 2009), we recognize this species as the same biological species represented by the lectotype of L. obtusus. Consequently, the lectotype of L. obtusus (data of the specimen were provided above) is hereby designated as the neotype of L. lateralis. Hence, L. lateralis (Guérin-Méneville, 1838) becomes a junior objective synonym of L. obtusus (Westwood, 1837).
Nomenclatural conclusions. The senior name L. obtusus was not used by subsequent authors and has never been positively treated as different from L. lateralis; but there is extensive and substantial literature on this biological species under the junior name L. lateralis, comprising agricultural handbooks and papers as well as popular field guides, i.e., references primarily targeting non-taxonomists. We believe that changing the prevailing usage of the name of this species simply because of adherence to the Principle of Priority is undesirable and would threaten stability. The number and authorship of the works using the junior name meet the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2; however, their distribution encompasses a span of 12 years (between 1965 and 1977), and consequently the ‘automatic’ conservation of L. lateralis under Article 23.9.2 is not possible. Therefore, no nomenclatural change is proposed in this paper, but an application has now been submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for suppressing the specific name L. obtusus under the provision of Article 23.9.3.
description: Published as part of Tsai, Jing-Fu & Rédei, Dávid, 2010, Taxonomical notes on Oriental and Pacific jewel bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae), pp. 25-47 in Zootaxa 2572 on pages 41-43, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.197410