Physopelta (Neophysopelta) slanbuschii
Creators: name: Stehlík, Jaroslav L.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2013
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Largidae
Physopelta
Physopelta slanbuschii

description: Physopelta (Neophysopelta) slanbuschii (Fabricius, 1787)
Cimex Slanbuschii Fabricius, 1787: 299–300 (description, distribution).
SYNTYPES: 5 spec., China (ZMUC; see ZIMSEN 1964).
Cimex Slanbuschii: GMELIN (1790): 2172 (diagnosis); ZIMSEN (1964): 327 (types).
Lygaeus schlanbuschii (incorrect subsequent spelling): FABRICIUS (1794): 155 – 156 (new combination, redescription, distribution);
Lygaeus Schlanbuschii (incorrect subsequent spelling): FABRICIUS (1803): 222 (diagnosis, distribution).
Pyrrhocoris Schlangenbuschii (incorrect subsequent spelling): BURMEISTER (1835): 286 (new combination,diagnosis, distribution).
Dysdercus schlanbuschii: UHLER (1861): 229 (new combination, distribution).
Physopelta Schlangbuschi (incorrect subsequent spelling): STÅL (1861): 195 (list of species);
Physopelta Schlanbuschii (incorrect subsequent spelling): STÅL (1863): 391 (catalogue, distribution); STÅL (1868): 80 (catalogue, distribution); STÅL (1870): 100 (catalogue, distribution); WALKER (1873): 18, 20–21 (key, variability, catalogue, distribution); DISTANT (1879a): 127 (distribution); LETHIERRY & SEVERIN (1894): 242 (catalogue, distribution); DISTANT (1903a): 99 (redescription, distribution); MATSUMURA (1905): 27 (distribution); MAXWELLLEFROY (1909): 325 (distribution).
Physopelta schlanbuschi (incorrect subsequent spelling): MANNA et al. (1985): 621–630 (chromosomes, figures, distribution); GHOSH et al. (1989): 207 (catalogue, distribution); CHAKRABARTY et al. (1994): 35 (differential diagnosis, distribution); SINGH & BANYAL (2013): 1056 (distribution).
Physopelta slanbuschi (incorrect subsequent spelling): SEN et al. (1998): 331, 333–334, 339–340 (checklist, key, diagnosis, distribution).
Physopelta slanbuschii: KIRKALDY & EDWARDS (1902): 165 (catalogue, distribution); HUSSEY (1929): 33 (catalogue, distribution); BLÖTE (1931): 100 (distribution); SCHMIDT (1931): 46 (distribution); LIU (1981): 222, 224, pl. 28 (key, redescription, figure); ZAMAL & CHOPRA (1990): 7, 10–11 (redescription, figures, distribution); Hu & Gui in ZHANG (1995): 111−112 (redescription, habitus, distribution, biology); STEHLÍK (2004): 4 (distribution); STEHLÍK & JINDRA (2003): 8 (distribution); STEHLÍK (2005a): 145 (distribution); RÉDEI et al. (2009): 12, 14, 18 (key, figure, distribution); ZHU et al. (2012): 195–198 (ecology, distribution).
Physopelta slanbushii (incorrect subsequent spelling): HUA (2000): 187 (check-list, host plants, distribution).
Physopelta (Physopelta) slanbuschii: VOIGT (2006): 224 (key, distribution).
Neophysopelta schlanbuschi (incorrect subsequent spelling): AHMAD & ABBAS (1987): 135–136, 141–142 (new combination, redescription, figures, host plant, distribution).
Neophysopelta schlanbuschii (incorrect subsequent spelling): PERVEEN & AHMAD (1991): 161–162, 164 (key, differential diagnosis).
Neophysopelta neoschlanbuschii Perveen & Ahmad, 1991: 162–164 (key, description, figures, differential diagnosis, distribution).
HOLOTYPE: ♂, India, Puducherry, Karaikal Territory, Karumbagarans [= Kurumbagaram] (USNM). New synonym.
Material examined. BHUTAN: Boutan, no date, 1 ♀, no collector (BMNH). – INDIA: PUDUCHERRY: KARIKAL TERRITORY: Kurumbagaram, x.1945, 2 ♂♂ 1 ♀, iv.1946, 2 ♀♀, iv.1947, 1 ♀, P. S. Nathan lgt. (NMPC). – TAMIL NADU: Coimbatore [= Koimbatur], xii.1945, 2 ♀♀, P. S. Nathan lgt. (NMPC). – NEPAL: NARAYANI ZONE: Chitwan Roy. Nat. Park., Sauraha village, 27.35N 84.30E, 166 m a.s.l., at light, 1 ♀, D. Král lgt., P. Kment det. (NMPC). – MYANMAR: KACHIN: Myitkyina, 1945, 5 ♂♂ 1 ♀, D. N. Marks lgt. (AMNH). – SAGAING: Alaundaw Katthapa NP, 1.5 km SW Log Cabin Camp, Pagoda Road, 20°18.902′N 94°28.060′, 400 m a.s.l., semi-evergreen forest near Pagoda Stream, sifting moist leaf litter, 6.v.2003, 1 ♀, H. Schillhammer lgt., P. Kment det. (NHMW). – VIETNAM: HA NAM PROVINCE: Tonkin, Rég. d’Hanoi, Chiné, prés Phu-Ly [= Phu Ly], 1909, 3 ♀♀, L. Duport lgt., P. Kment det. (MNHN). – HOA BINH PROVINCE: Tonkin, Hoabinh, x.1916, 1 ♂, R. V. de Salvaza lgt. (BMNH). – NINH BINH PROVINCE: Cue Phuong, 23.–25.v.1986, 1 ♀ (with black metafemora), V. Švihla lgt. (NMPC). – SONG BÉ PROVINCE: Ca-Na env., 700–900 m a.s.l., 1923, 1 ♀, Palane lgt. (MNHN). – LAOS: ATTAPEU PROVINCE: Annam Highlands Mts., Dong Ampan NBCA, Nong Fa (crater lake) env., 15°05.9′N 107°25.6′E, ca. 1,160 m a.s.l., 30.iv.–4.v.2010, 2 ♀♀, J. Hájek lgt. (NMPC). – DONG NAI PROVINCE: Dong Nai Biosphere Res., I.G. 32.161, 11°18′N 107°06′E, 25.vi.–6.vii.2012, day collecting, 1 ♀, J. Constant & J. Bresseel lgt. (ISNB). – KHAMMOUAN PROVINCE: Ban Khoun Ngeun, 18°07′N 104°29′E, 250 m a.s.l., 4.–16.xi + 25.–30.xi.2000, 1 ♀, E. Jendek & P. Pacholátko lgt., P. Kment det. (NHMW). – SEXONG PROVINCE: ca. 51 km N Sekong, Ho Chi Minh trail, 15°48.1′N 106°39.4′E, ca. 580 m a.s.l., 13.–15.v.2010, 1 ♀, J. Hájek lgt. (NMPC). – VIENTIANE PROVINCE: Lao Pako env., 55 km NE of Vientiane, 200 m a.s.l., 1.–4.v.2005, 1 ♂, J. Bezděk lgt., Z. Jindra det. (NMPC). – CAMBODIA: BUTTAMBANG PROVINCE: Ptek Toa (Tonle Sap Lake), on light trap, 7.vii.2005, 1 ♂ 1 ♀, I. Var lgt. (ISNB). – PREAH VIHEAR PROVINCE: Phnom Kulen, light trap, 24.v.2003, 1 ♀, J. Constant & K. Smets lgt. (ISNB). – SIEM REAP PROVINCE: Prek, Toal (Tonle Sap Lake), light trap, 27.v.2003, 6 ♂♂ 3 ♀♀, K. Smets & Grootaert lgt. (ISNB); Siem Reap, light trap, 22.v.2003, 2 ♂♂ 4 ♀♀, J. Constant & K. Smets lgt. (ISNB); ditto, 23.v.2003, 2 ♂♂, K. Smets & J. Constant lgt. (ISNB); ditto, on light trap, 25.v.2006, 1 ♂ 4 ♀♀, J. Constant & K. Smets lgt. (ISNB); 8 km north of Sre Noi road to Along Vaeng, 29.v.2003, 2 ♀♀, J. Constant & K. Smets lgt. (ISNB); Angkor Thorn, day catch, 23.v.2003, 1 ♂, J. Constant & Grootaert lgt. (ISNB); Forest S of Angkor Wat, light trap, 26.iv.2005, 1 ♀, K. Smets & I. Var lgt. (ISNB). – THAILAND: MAE HONG SON PROVINCE: Northern – Pai, 1.–12.v.2001, 1 ♂, R. Kocina lgt., Z. Jindra det. (NMPC). – NAKHON SI THAMMARAT PROVINCE: Khao Luang, Banhan Sak Kah, 9.v.1922, 1 ♀, H. M. Pendelbury lgt., P. Kment det. (BMNH). – MALAYSIA: PERAK: Perak, no date, 1 ♂, Coll. Distant, P. Kment det. (BMNH).
Distribution. Japan (Ryukyus) (MATSUMURA 1905), China (Guangdong, Guangxi, Yunnan, Hainan) (FABRICIUS 1787, 1794; BURMEISTER 1835; UHLER 1861; STÅL 1863, 1870; WALKER 1873; DISTANT 1903a; LIU 1981; Hu & Gui in ZHANG 1995; HUA 2000; KERZHNER 2001; RÉDEI et al. 2009), Pakistan (Islamabad Capital Territory, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab) (AHMAD & ABBAS 1987), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry: Karaikal Territory, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal) (DISTANT 1879a, 1903a; MAXWELL- LEFROY 1909; BLÖTE 1931; SCHMIDT 1931; MANNA et al. 1985; AHMAD & ABBAS 1987; GHOSH et al. 1989; ZAMAL & CHOPRA 1990; PERVEEN & AHMAD 1991, as Neophysopelta neoschlanbuschii; CHAKRABARTY et al. 1994; SEN et al. 1998; SINGH & BANYAL 2013; this paper), Bhutan (new record), Nepal (STEHLÍK 2004; this paper), Bangladesh (AHMAD & ABBAS 1987), Myanmar (KIRKALDY & EDWARDS 1902, DISTANT 1903a), Vietnam (new record), Laos (BLÖTE 1931, STEHLÍK 2005a; this paper), Cambodia (VOIGT 2006; this paper), Thailand (STEHLÍK & JINDRA 2003; this paper), Malaysia (Malayan Peninsula: Pahang, Penang) (WALKER 1873; this paper).
The records from Taiwan (KERZHNER 2001) were not confirmed recently (RÉDEI et al. 2009).
Comment. PERVEEN & AHMAD (1991) distinguished Neophysopelta neoschlanbuschii from Ph. slanbuschii based on the following characters: ‘Size of black discal spot on corium larger, pronotal width distinctly less than 2× its length; in male ventroposterior margin of pygophore slightly sinuate, lateral lobes of paramere comparatively broader, in female spermathecal duct with more number of coils’, whereas in Ph. slanbuschii: ‘Size of black discal spot on corium smaller, pronotal width slightly less than 2× its length; in male ventroposterior margin of pygophore truncate, lateral lobe of paramere narrower, in female spermathecal duct with less number of coils’. I had possibility to examine several specimens of Ph. slanbuschii evidently belonging to the same series (NMPC, see Material examined) as the holotype and two male paratypes of N. neoschlanbuschii. The specimens represent Ph. slanbuschii without doubt. It is obvious that diagnostic characters listed by PERVEEN & AHMAD (1991) for Neophysopelta neoschlanbuschii fit to the considerable intraspecific variability of Ph. slanbuschii, particularly the size of the central spot on the corium. Therefore, Neophysopelta neoschlanbuschii Perveen & Ahmad, 1991 is here considered a junior synonym of Ph. slanbuschii.
description: Published as part of Stehlík, Jaroslav L., 2013, Review and reclassification of the Old World genus Physopelta (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Largidae), pp. 505-584 in Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 53 (2) on pages 543-545, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5739959