Fusius rubricosus
Creators: name: Liu, Yingqi
name: Li, Hu
name: Cai, Wanzhi
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Reduviidae
Fusius
Fusius rubricosus

description: Fusius rubricosus (Stål, 1855)
Figs 12–15
Pirates rubricosus Stål, 1855: 38. Type locality: South Africa: Limpopo.
Pirates basicollis Signoret in Fairmaire & Signoret, 1858: 310. Type locality: Caffraria. Synonymized by Stål 1865: 115.
Fusius ugandensis Miller, 1957: 62. Type locality: Uganda: Kampala. Syn. nov.
Fusius rubricosus – Stål 1865: 115. — Villiers 1948: 237. — Miller 1953: 589. — Maldonado Capriles 1990: 358.
Pirates rubricosus – Walker 1873: 111.
Pirates (Fusius) rubricosus – Stål 1874: 57.
Fusius ugandensis – Maldonado Capriles 1990: 358.
Diagnosis
Body color black and red in large part; anterior lobe of pronotum black, with distinct red stripes, posterior lobe of pronotum red; legs brown to dark brown, apex of fore femur, base of mid femur and basal half of hind femur yellow, tibiae with basal part yellow in various proportion; apex of clavus yellowish white; membrane with a yellowish white band in various size; sub-apical margin of sixth abdominal sternite of male strongly sclerotized and distinctly irregular; median pygophore process robust with basal half somewhat rectangular, apical half suddenly narrowed and tapered to apex; left paramere distinctly longer than right paramere; area near apex of right paramere with a round process; apical margin of dorsal phallothecal sclerite bluntly rounded; process on lower right corner of lateral phallothecal sclerite distinct and horned.
Material examined
Lectotype (designated in present study)
SOUTH AFRICA • ♂; “Typus; Caffraria.; J. Wahlb.; rubricosus Stål ”; NHRS-GULI 000000133 (Fig. 12).
Holotype of Fusius ugandensis Miller, 1957
UGANDA • ♂; “ HOLOTYPE; Type; UGANDA, KAMPALA 1-10. I. 1918 C C. GOWDEV.; Fusius ugandensis sp. n. (holotype) N.C.E. Miller det. 1956; 1918-65; G.”; NHMUK 013586530 (Fig. 13).
Additional material
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO • 1 ♂; “ N. Rhodesia: Congo Border. Kipushi. 26.1.1928. H. Silvester Evans.; Pres. by Imp. Inst. Ent. Brit. Mus. 1932-154., 12. 28, C.”; NHMUK.
KENYA • 1 ♂; “ Dr. van Someren. RABAI. May: 1928.; V.G.L. van Someren Collecton.; Brit. Mus. 1959-468”; NHMUK.
MALAWI • 1 ♂; “ NYASSALAND. Milanji. B. Mrris. vii.-ix. 1963.; B.M.1976-210”; NHMUK.
SOUTH AFRICA • 3 ♂♂, 1 ♀; “Barberton (P. Rendall).; Distant Coll. 1911 -383”; NHMUK • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; “ SOUTH AFRICA: Transvaal n. Kruger National Park Pafuri. 22°27’S 31°17’E 21/1 1979 L. Braack ex. Impala carcass; 9 21/1 1200 B 196; Brit. Mus. 1979-537”; NHMUK • 1 ♂; “ SOUTH AFRICA: Transvaal n. Kruger National Park Pafuri. 22°27’S 31°17’E 20/1 1979 L. Braack ex. Impala carcass; 8 20/1 1200 B 172; Brit. Mus. 1979-537”; NHMUK.
TANZANIA • 1 ♂; “ TANG. TERR: Temdaguru. 24. VI. 25. East Africa Exp. W.E. Cutler. B.M. 1925- 277”; NHMUK • 1 ♂; “ Tanganyika Terr. 20. X. 1919. A. Loveridge.; Pres. by Imp. Bur. Ent. Brit. Mus. 1926-394”; NHMUK • 1 ♀; “ Tanganyika Terr. 9. 1. 1917. A. Loveridge.; Pres. by Imp. Bur. Ent. Brit. Mus. 1926-394”; NHMUK.
ZIMBABWE • 1 ♀; “ ZIMBABWE: A. Watsham B.M. 1985 -248”; NHMUK.
Redescription
MEASUREMENTS [in mm, ♂ (n = 11), ♀ (n = 4)]. Body length 10.12–10.50 (♂), 10.59–11.41 (♀); maximum width of abdomen 3.00–3.53 (♂), 3.24–3.70 (♀); head length 1.65–1.69 (♂), 1.70–1.78 (♀); length of anteocular part 0.75–0.77 (♂), 0.77–0.83 (♀); length of postocular part 0.41–0.45 (♂), 0.49–0.51 (♀); head width 1.24–1.30 (♂), 1.27–1.27 (♀); eye width in dorsal view 0.23–0.26 (♂), 0.22–0.25 (♀); width of interocular space 0.78–0.82 (♂), 0.70–0.78 (♀); width of interocellar space 0.25–0.29 (♂), 0.29–0.29 (♀); lengths of visible labial segments I:II:III = 0.60–0.61:0.90–0.95:0.49–0.51 (♂), 0.50– 0.61:1.03–1.10:0.49–0.68 (♀); lengths of antennal segments I:II:III:IV = 0.80–0.80:1.50–1.60:0.88– 0.92:0.85–? (♂), 0.72–0.86:1.30–1.48:0.87–0.89:? (♀); length of anterior pronotal lobe 1.80–2.00 (♂), 1.70–1.79 (♀); length of posterior pronotal lobe 0.91–1.09 (♂), 0.90–1.00 (♀); width of anterior pronotal lobe 2.50–2.78 (♂), 2.10–2.59 (♀); width of posterior pronotal lobe 3.10–3.44 (♂), 3.12–3.19 (♀); scutellum length 1.11–1.35 (♂), 1.11–1.37 (♀); maximum width of scutellum 1.60–1.69 (♂), 1.18– 1.79 (♀); hemelytron length 7.00–8.11 (♂), 7.58–8.22 (♀).
COLORATION. Body color black and red in large part (Figs 12–14); dorsal surface of head black, ventral surface of head dark brown, labium yellowish brown; antenna with scape brown, remaining segments blackish brown (Figs 12–14); anterior lobe of pronotum black with red stripes, red stripes distinct, posterior lobe of pronotum red (Figs 12A, 13A, 14); scutellum black (Figs 12–14), pleura and sterna dark brown (Figs 12–13); coxae and trochanters dark brown; fore femur dark brown, apically with irregular yellow markings, mid femur dark brown except base yellow, hind femur with basal half yellow and apical half dark brown; tibiae dark brown with basal part yellow in various proportion; tarsi brown (Figs 12– 14); base of clavus red, middle part with an oblong black spot, apex yellowish white (Figs 12A, 13A, 14); corium red with a triangular black spot on area between Cu and Pcu (Figs 12A, 13A, 14); membrane blackish brown with a yellowish white band around two cells, size of this band varies among individuals (Figs 12A, 13A, 14), sometimes not across membrane (Figs 13A, 14A), sometimes yellowish white area occupying large part of membrane (Fig. 14D), apical part of membrane paler (Figs 12A, 13A, 14A–C); connexivum reddish orange to red (Figs 12–14); second to sixth abdominal sternites brown to blackish brown in middle and yellowish brown in lateral part, seventh sternite yellowish brown with brownish markings on basal portion, eighth sternite and genitalic part brown to blackish brown (Figs 12B, 13B).
STRUCTURE. As in generic description. Sub-apical margin of sixth abdominal sternite of male strongly sclerotized and distinctly irregular (Figs 12B, 13B).
MALE GENITALIA. Median pygophore process robust with basal half somewhat rectangular, apical half suddenly narrowed and tapered to apex (Fig. 15A–B); left paramere (Fig. 15D) distinctly longer than right paramere (Fig. 15E), apex of left paramere rounded (Fig. 15D), area near apex of right paramere with a round process (Fig. 15E); apical margin of dorsal phallothecal sclerite bluntly rounded (Fig. 15F); process on lower right corner of lateral phallothecal sclerite distinct and horned (Fig. 15I). Other structures as in generic description.
Distribution
South Africa: Limpopo, Kruger National Park; Uganda: Kampala; DR Congo: Kipushi; Kenya: Rabai; Malawi: Milanji hill; Tanzania: Tendaguru, Lake Manyara (Miller 1957); Zimbabwe; Mozambique: Caia (Miller 1957).
Remarks
The character Miller (1957) used to distinguish F. rubricosus (Stål, 1855) and F. ugandensis Miller, 1957 is “anterior margin of collar strongly concave” in F. rubricosus, or “anterior margin of collar feebly concave” in F. ugandensis. In his revision of Fusius, Dispons (1969) mentioned that the red stripes on the anterior lobe of the pronotum are very wide in F. ugandensis, and that the male genitalia of these two species were divided into different groups.
After examining type specimens and other material of these taxa, we found that the degree of curvature of the anterior margin of the pronotum is not a stable character, it is indeed more concave in the lectotype of F. rubricosus (Fig. 12A), but there are still some individuals of F. rubricosus with the nearly straight anterior margin of the pronotum (Figs 14A, 14C). And instead of being wider, the red stripes on the anterior lobe of the pronotum in the holotype of F. ugandensis (Fig. 13A) are even narrower than those in the lectotype of F. rubricosus (Fig. 12A), which could not be a diagnostic character between these two species either.
As for the male genitalia, the asymmetry of peiratine male genitalia makes it difficult to observe and record as the shape of the asymmetrical median pygophore process could look very different when viewed from a slightly different angle. Besides, the male genitalia of the holotype of F. ugandensis were not dissected from its body (Fig. 13), which indicates that the illustrations Miller drew (Miller 1957: 63, fig. 19d) were based on the observation from the outside only. Therefore, we speculate that the illustrated differences in the median pygophore process between F. rubricosus and F. ugandensis (Miller 1957; Dispons 1969) have been presented due to the different viewing angles. In addition, the left paramere distinctly longer than the right paramere is a unique character of the male genitalia of F. rubricosus (Figs 15D, 15E). From Miller’s illustrations (Miller 1957: 63, fig. 19), we could find that the left paramere is also distinctly longer than the right paramere in F. ugandensis, but only slightly longer than the right in other species of Fusius.
Though the type localities of F. rubricosus and F. ugandensis, South Africa and Uganda, are relatively far from each other, F. rubricosus is recorded to be widely distributed in eastern and southern Africa (Miller 1957). By reason of the foregoing, we regard F. ugandensis Miller, 1957 as a junior subjective synonym of F. rubricosus (Stål, 1855).
description: Published as part of Liu, Yingqi, Li, Hu & Cai, Wanzhi, 2023, Taxonomic revision of the African assassin bug genus Fusius (Heteroptera: Reduviidae: Peiratinae), pp. 25-55 in European Journal of Taxonomy 910 on pages 45-51, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2023.910.2357, http://zenodo.org/record/10259349