Agraphopus lethierryi Stal 1872
Creators: name: Rédei, Dávid
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2018
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Rhopalidae
Agraphopus
Agraphopus lethierryi

description: Agraphopus lethierryi Stål, 1872
(Figs. 1–5)
Agraphopus letherryi Stål, 1872: 56. Syntype (s): ♂, Algeria, Bone; MNHN? (not found: Göllner-Scheiding 1977: 230).
Agraphopus yunnanus: Hsiao (1965a: 56). Unavailable name (ICZN 1999, Art. 13.1).
Agraphopus yunnanus Hsiao, 1965b: 428, 433. Holotype: ♀, China, Yunnan, Mangshi (= Mang City); NKUM! Synonymized by Göllner-Scheiding (1977: 236) (suspected). Confirmed subjective synonym.
A complete list of synonyms was provided by Dolling (2006: 24).
Agraphopus lethierryi: Distant (1918: 171) (redescription, figures, records, distribution), Stichel (1960: 437) (in key, distribution), Stichel (1961: 721) (catalogue, distribution), Putshkov (1962: 147, 149) (in key, redescription, figure, bionomics, distribution), Stichel (1962: 202) (catalogue, distribution), Kerzhner & Jaczewski (1964: 820) (in key), Hsiao (1965b: 428, 433) (comparison with yunnanus), Chopra (1967: 364, 371, 377, 381) (figures), Kerzhner (1972: 356) (in key, figures, distribution, host plant), Göllner-Scheiding (1977: 230, 244) (redescription, figures, type material, distribution, host plant, phenology, in key), Göllner-Scheiding (1983: 105) (catalogue, distribution, bibliography), Putshkov (1986: 98, 101) (in key, redescription, figures, larva, distribution, bionomics), Moulet (1995: 228) (in key, redescription, figure, bionomics, distribution), Kis (2001: 72) (redescription, habitus, bionomics, host plant, distribution), Dolling (2006: 24) (catalogue, distribution), Carapezza et al. (2017: 46) (photo, bionomics, host plant, records, distribution).
Agraphopus yunnanus: Göllner-Scheiding (1977: 236, 244) (identity, type material, distribution), Hsiao (1977: 262) (redescription, figure, distribution), Göllner-Scheiding (1983: 108) (catalogue, distribution, bibliography), Xiong & Jiang (1987: 180) (in key, distribution), Yang et al. (1991: 26) (type material), Liu et al. (1994: 106) (listed, distribution), Dolling (2006: 24) (catalogue, distribution).
Agraphorus [incorrect subsequent spelling] yunnanus: Hua (2000: 184) (distribution).
Type material examined. Agraphopus yunnanus Hsiao, 1965. Holotype: ♀, “<Yunnan Mangshi 900 m> [ch] \ 1955.V. [pr] 17 [hw]. [pr] \ <Wu Le Buxike>” [ch, pr], “<Mangshi, 900 m.> [cy] \ <Yunnan> [cy, pr] 17 [hw] <V> [cy, pr] 1955 [pr] \ <Wu Le, Bushchik> [cy, pr], “ Agraphopus [hw] \ yunnanus [hw] \ HSIAO [hw] \ <holotype Hsiao Tsaiyu identified> [ch, pr] 19 [pr] 64 [hw]” [red, with pr black frame]; mounted on triangle, intact (Figs. 1– 5).
Discussion. Agraphopus yunnanus was described based on a single female (the holotype) from Mangshi, Yunnan, China (Hsiao 1965b). The original description (Hsiao 1965b) and Yang et al. (1991) indicated that the holotype was preserved in IZAS, however, it apparently has never been deposited there; currently it is in NKUM and it was re-examined in connection with the present study. The synonymy of this species with A. lethierryi was suspected by I.M. Kerzhner (cf. Göllner-Scheiding 1977: 223) and Göllner-Scheiding (1977: 236). The holotype of A. yunnanus (Figs. 1–5) indeed exhibits all diagnostic characters of A. lethierryi provided by Kerzhner (1972), Göllner-Scheiding (1977) and Putshkov (1986), and its direct comparison with several non-type females of the latter species from various localities of Spain (Ciudad Real, Sobradiel), France (Avignon), Romania (Caraorman), Greece (Crete: Chalepa [= Halepa]), India (Karnataka: Chikkaballapura [= Chikkaballapur]), and Ethiopia (Bubassa) (HNHM) could not reveal any difference of taxonomic significance. The differences provided by Hsiao (1965b) for distinguishing A. yunnanus from A. lethierryi are insignificant, the respective diagnostic characters are either greatly influenced by intraspecific variability or sometimes invalid, they obviously can be attributed to the lack of access to specimens of A. letherryi; none of them are considered sufficient for recognizing A. yunnanus as a valid species. Accordingly, the synonymy of the two species is confirmed.
Distribution. This species is widely distributed all over the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa; in subtropical and tropical parts of Asia it is found in Pakistan, southern (Karnataka: Chikkaballapur) and northeastern India (Bihar: Katihar, Purneah [= Purnia] Distr.), and Tibet (Distant 1918; Moulet 1995; Göllner-Scheiding 1977, 1983; Dolling 2006). Global and local distribution maps were presented by Putshkov (1986: 98, fig. 54) and Moulet (1995: 230, map 33), respectively. It was listed from China by Göllner- Scheiding (1977: 231) without specifying a concrete locality. The species is apparently rare in China, no specimens other than the holotype of A. yunnanus have been seen during the present study, but it is likely distributed sporadically all over the Sub-Himalayan Belt and reaches the eastern margin of its area in southwestern China.
description: Published as part of Rédei, Dávid, 2018, A review of the species of the tribe Chorosomatini of China (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Rhopalidae), pp. 308-328 in Zootaxa 4524 (3) on pages 309-311, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4524.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/2610569