Asymmetricata Ballantyne & Lambkin 2009, gen. n.
Creators: name: Ballantyne, Lesley A.
name: Lambkin, Christine
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2009
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Lampyridae
Asymmetricata

description: Asymmetricata gen. n.   
(Figs 5–8, 108–114)  
 Type species: Luciola circumdata (Motsch.)   
 Diagnosis. Dorsal surface, especially shape of pronotum, similar to many Atyphella; colour very like C. wolfi from above; distinguished from all other Luciolinae by the asymmetrical tergite 8 which is emarginate on its right side (Fig. 7).   
 Male. Pronotum (Fig. 5) dorsal surface lacking irregularities in posterolateral areas, longitudinal groove in lateral areas; punctation dense. Anterior margin not explanate.   
Pronotum wider across posterior area than rest, pronotal width greater than humeral width. Anterolateral corners rounded obtuse; lateral margins in anterior half divergent; lateral margins in posterior half diverge then converge with rounded convergence; lacking indentation at mid-point, or sinuousity in either horizontal or vertical plane; lacking indentation in lateral margin near posterolateral corner, and irregularities at corner; posterolateral corners rounded; rounded corners obtuse, posterolateral corners project as far as or beyond median posterior margin, separated from it by shallow emargination.  
Hypomera closed. Median area of hypomeron not elevated vertically; anterior area of hypomeron not flattened, posterior area of hypomeron widely flattened and strongly adpressed; pronotal width/ GHW index 1.6.  
Elytron (Fig. 5) punctation dense, not linear, not as large as pronotum, nor widely and evenly spaced; apices not deflexed; epipleuron and suture extending beyond mid-point almost to apex, not extending as ridge around apex; no expansion of epipleuron or sutural ridge in apical half; 2 interstitial lines, inner two do not exceed suture; elytral carina absent; in horizontal specimen viewed from beneath epipleuron at elytral base wide, covers humerus; viewed from above arises anterior to posterior margin of MS; epipleuron developed as lateral ridge along most of length; sutural margins approximate along most of their length in closed elytra; lateral margins convex–sided.  
Head (Fig. 6) moderately depressed between eyes; moderately exposed in front of pronotum, not capable of complete retraction within prothoracic cavity; eyes moderately separated beneath at level of posterior margin of mouthpart complex; eyes above labrum close to moderately separated; frons-vertex junction rounded, with no median elevation; posterolateral eye excavation not strongly developed, not visible in resting head position; antennal sockets on head between eyes, not contiguous and separated by <ASW; clypeolabral suture present, flexible, not in front of anterior eye margin when head viewed with labrum horizontal; outer edges of labrum reach inner edges of closed mandibles. Mouthparts functional; apical segment of labial palpi nonlunate, strongly flattened, wide triangular shape with inner edge dentate. Antennae 11 segmented; length> GHW to twice GHW; no segments flattened, shortened, or expanded; pedicel not produced; FS1 not shorter than pedicel; in very short antennae FS may be subequal in length and width.  
Legs (Fig. 6) with inner tarsal claw not split; lacking MFC; no femora or tibiae swollen or curved; no basitarsi expanded or excavated.  
Abdomen (Figs 6, 7, 108–111) lacking cuticular remnants in association with aedeagal sheath; no ventrites with curved posterior margins nor extending anteriorly into emarginated posterior margin of anterior segment; LO in V7 entire or bipartite, reaching to sides but not to posterior margin; both entire and bipartite LO occupying most of V7; anterior margin of entire LO in V7 narrowly medially emarginate; posterior half of V7 not arched or swollen, muscle impressions not visible here; LO present in V6, occupying almost all V6. MPP present, symmetrical or asymmetrical; medially shallowly emarginate or not; non-emarginate MPP apex rounded, entire; not laterally compressed, short or L=W, slightly inclined dorsally, sometimes engulfed by T8 apex, lacking dorsal ridge, dorsal median longitudinal trough. V7 lacking median carina, PLP, incurving lobes or pointed projections, median ‘dimple’, or reflexed lobes; V7 with median longitudinal trough between halves of bipartite LO, anteromedian face of entire LO with narrow longitudinal depression. T7 lacking prolonged posterolateral corners. T8 strongly sclerotised, asymmetrical, emarginated on right side, L>W, visible posterior area not narrowing abruptly, lacking prolonged posterolateral corners, median posterior emargination, median posterior projections; inclining ventrally, engulfing MPP, not extending conspicuously beyond posterior margin of V7. T8 ventral surface lacking flanges, lateral depressed troughs, median longitudinal trough, asymmetrical projections, median posterior ridge; T8 with concealed anterolateral arms as long as visible posterior portion of T8, narrow in horizontal plane and expanded dorsoventrally, not laterally emarginated before their origins, apices lacking bifurcation of inner margin and bases lacking ventrally directed pieces; lateral margins of T8 not enfolding sides of V7.  
Aedeagal sheath (Figs 115–117) never> 4 times as long as wide; lacking paraprocts; symmetrical in posterior area where sheath sternite subparallel-sided along length; sternite not angulate on L or R sides, posterior area not evenly emarginated on either side preapically, posterior margin of sternite broadly and slightly asymmetrically emarginated; anterior half of sternite broad, apically rounded; tergite lateral arms extending narrowly anteriorly to sides of sheath sternite; tergite not subdivided, lacking projecting pieces along posterior margin of tergite 9, anterior margin of tergite darker than rest with lateral margins narrowly darker (wider and slightly longer on right side).  
Aedeagus (Figs 112–114) L/W 3/1; LL lacking lateral appendages, visible from beneath at sides of ML, LL/ML wide; LL of equal length, slightly shorter than ML, diverging along inner margins, separated there by> half their length; LL base width not = LL apex width; LL apex width subequal to ML width; LL apices not expanded horizontally; dorsal base of LL asymmetrical, not excavated, anterior margin prolonged to left; LL lacking lateral hairy appendages along outer ventral margins, margins not produced preapically nor narrowly on inner apical margin, not obliquely truncate along preapical inner margins; apices of LL not inturned, or out–turned; lacking projection on left LL only; inner margins lacking slender leaf-like projection; ML symmetrical, lacking paired lateral teeth, tooth to left side; not strongly arched, apex not shaped like arrowhead, not bulbous, not inclined ventrally; BP hooded, not very narrow, not strongly sclerotised, not strongly emarginated along anterior margin.  
 Female. Macropterous in As. ovalis (Fig. 14), assumed capable of flight. Pronotum lacking irregularities in posterolateral areas; punctation moderate to dense; pronotum> humeral width; indentation of lateral margin, irregularities at posterolateral corner, absent; outline similar to male. Elytral punctation not as large as pronotum nor evenly spaced; 2 interstitial lines; elytral carina absent. No legs or parts thereof swollen and/or curved. LO in V6 only, V7 lacking any elevations, depressions or ridges.   
Larva not associated.  
 Etymology. Asymmetricata is a feminine noun latinised from the English word asymmetrical. If the last two syllables (at-a) are pronounced with the first ‘a’ sounded ‘ay’ (as in hay), then the generic name aptly evokes the distinguishing feature of an asymmetrical tergite 8.   
 Remarks. Ballantyne included representatives of all recognised species groups within the Luciolinae for this analysis, including these species. The Atyphella complex was shown to be paraphyletic, with the clear separation of these two species from Atyphella. This new genus is however based on a very restricted treatment and hindered by lack of specimens, and Ballantyne’s inability to borrow type material of L. ovalis. Ballantyne (1987b) described the asymmetrical T 8 in males in Luciola circumdata and suggested the aedeagus would have to be extracted dorsally. This feature is doubtless more widespread than this restricted treatment allows, and it is probable that L. impressa Olivier and L. humeralis Walker belong here.
description: Published as part of Ballantyne, Lesley A. & Lambkin, Christine, 2009, Systematics of Indo-Pacific fireflies with a redefinition of Australasian Atyphella Olliff, Madagascan Photuroluciola Pic, and description of seven new genera from the Luciolinae (Coleoptera: Lampyridae), pp. 1-188 in Zootaxa 1997 on pages 30-32