Cassida imparata Gressitt & Kimoto 1963
Creators: name: Sekerka, Lukáš
name: Jia, Fenglong
name: Pang, Hong
name: Borowiec, Lech
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2016
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Chrysomelidae
Cassida
Cassida imparata

description: Cassida imparata Gressitt & Kimoto, 1963
(Fig. 5)
Cassida (Taiwania) imitatrix Gressitt, 1952: 493 (primary junior homonym of C. imitatrix Spaeth, 1916). Cassida imparata Gressitt & Kimoto, 1963: 971 (new substitute name).
Type locality. China, Guangxi prov., Longzhou Co., 5 mi S of Longzhou.
Original type series. Described only from the holotype (LMNH).
Type material examined. Holotype, pinned: ‘Kwangsi,South China | Mts. 5 mi S.of Lung- | chow, Lung-chau Dist. | August 8, 1934. | Ernest R. Tinkham [w, p, cb] || 603 [w, t, cb] || HO[hw]LOTYPE | CASSIDA [hw] | (TAIWANIA) [hw] | IMITATRIX [hw] | J.L.Gressitt [r, p, cb] || [vernacular name in Chinese, hw] | Taiwania imparata [hw] | (Gressitt) [hw] | det. Li-Zhong Hua [in Chinese, p] 1987 [hw] [w, p, cb] || En-289773 | [Data Matrix barcode] SYS [w. p, cb]’.
Current status. Valid species.
Remarks. Gressitt (1952) named this species as C. imitatrix however, the name was already proposed earlier by Spaeth (1916) thus Gressitt & Kimoto (1963) proposed a new substitute name C. imparata. Medvedev & Eroshkina (1988) synonymized C. imparata with C. gentilis Spaeth, 1926 without any comments. However, Borowiec (1999) followed Chen et al. (1986) and considered the species as valid.
Gressitt (1952) compared the species to C. circumdata Herbst, 1799 and C. obtusata Boheman, 1854 however, both species are very different from C. imparata and the reason why Gressitt compared it to these two is inapprehensible. Cassida imparata is characterized by apparently appendiculate tarsal claws, uniformly yellow ventrites, semicircular pronotum, the base of elytra only slightly wider than the base of pronotum, elytra with raised postscutellar relief and diffuse pattern formed by black spots dispersed on yellow disc. Chen et al. (1986) separated C. imparata from other similar species by subangulate lateral sides of the pronotum (see Fig. 8–36 in Chen et al. (1986)), however, the holotype has them rounded. The shape of lateral sides of the pronotum is usually a constant character and diagnostic for several taxa and subangulate shape is not particularly very frequent among Asiatic species of Cassida Linnaeus, 1758. We assume that Chen et al. (1986) misidentified C. imparata as the characters and figures given by them match to another species— C. pseudosyrtica Medvedev & Eroshkina, 1988. However, comparison of Chenʼs specimens with types of the latter species would be desirable to confirm this.
Cassida pseudosyrtica is the most similar species as it has also apparently appendiculate claws. The paratype specimen (deposited at DBET) distinctly differs by subangulate pronotal sides and more circular body outline. Other similar species are C. gentilis Spaeth, 1926, C. perplexa (Chen & Zia, 1961), and C. simanica (Chen & Zia, 1961) but these have appendiculate tarsal claws while C. imparata has them apparently appendiculate due to projecting flanks of ultimate tarsomere. Cassida gentilis also differs in regularly circular body with pronotum strongly expanded forwards thus lateral corners are situated distinctly in basal 1/4 length thus appearing more semicircular while C. imparata has less circular body with pronotum rather elliptical not expanded strongly forwards thus lateral corners are situated around midlength. In addition C. gentilis has antennomeres III and IV subequal in length and about 1.5 times as long as II while C. imparata has antennomere III distinctly longer than IV and twice as long as II. Cassida perplexa differs in subangulate humeral angles of elytra (obtuse in C. imparata) and black elytral disc with yellow spots (yellow with several black spots in C. imparata). Cassida simanica also differs in ventrites partly black (uniformly yellow in C. imparata). Cassida varians Herbst, 1799 is also similar, particularly its pale forms and moreover it has apparently appendiculate tarsal claws as C. imparata but differs in ventrites mostly black (uniformly yellow in C. imparata) and clypeus almost as wide as long (distinctly longer than wide in C. imparata). Other species with similar pattern such as C. praensis Borowiec, 2001 and C. thailandica Borowiec, 2001 differ in simple tarsal claws.
description: Published as part of Sekerka, Lukáš, Jia, Fenglong, Pang, Hong & Borowiec, Lech, 2016, Cassidinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) types deposited at Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, pp. 50-78 in Zootaxa 4084 (1) on page 56, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4084.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/1053949