Emarginata Ho 2019, gen. nov.
Creators: name: Ho, - Z.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2019
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Aves
Passeriformes
Muscicapidae
Emarginata

description: Emarginata Ballantyne gen. nov.
Figs 73−75
Type species: Luciola trilucida Jeng et al. 2003b by monotypy.
Diagnosis. Emarginata gen. nov. is a S. E. Asian genus having orange pronotum, and black elytra having the unique feature of a slight emargination at their apices, and from which it derives its name. It belongs in a group of genera characterized by: an elongate slender aedeagus with LL largely concealed behind the ML when viewed from beneath; aedeagal sheath elongate slender, widest across middle, without bulbous paraprocts, and with both sides of posterior half of sheath sternite tapering evenly towards a narrow entire apex; pronotal width less than width across elytral humeri, parallel-sided elytra, no MFC. It is distinguished from all other Luciolinae genera by the emarginations of the posterior end of the elytra in males and from which it derives its name. Additionally males are distinguished from Colophotia in having no median carina on V7, nor expanded and oblique PLP, or bipartite LOs in V7; from Pteroptyx in having no MFC, nor deflexed elytral apices, bulbous aedeagal sheath paraprocts and bipartite LOs in V7; from Pyrophanes (which has a MFC) and P. testacea (which has no MFC) in not having incurving lobes along V7, or bipartite LO in V7; from Trisinuata by the entire LOs in V7 (those of Trisinuata are bipartite); from most Medeopteryx in not having deflexed elytral apices and trisinuate V7. It differs from Inflata indica in not having either the bulbous ML of the aedeagus or paraprocts on the aedeagal sheath.
Male. Pronotum (Jeng et al. 2003b fig.1): dorsal surface without irregularities in posterolateral areas and longitudinal groove in lateral areas; punctation dense; anterior margin not explanate; lateral margins diverging posteriorly along most of their length (C> A, B); width <humeral width; anterolateral corners rounded obtuse; lateral margins without indentation at mid-point, and sinuosity in either horizontal or vertical plane; without indentation in lateral margin near posterolateral corner, and irregularities at corner; posterolateral corners angulate or rounded obtuse; posterolateral corners not projecting as far as median posterior margin; separated from it by scarce emarginations.
Hypomera: closed; median area of hypomeron not elevated in vertical direction; median area more widely flattened than elsewhere; pronotal width/ GHW 1.2.
Elytron (Jeng et al. 2003b fig.2): punctation dense, not linear, not as large as that of pronotum, nor widely and evenly spaced; apices not deflexed; apices emarginated; epipleuron and sutural ridge extend beyond mid-point, almost to apex but not extending around emarginated apex, neither thickened in apical half; no interstitial lines; elytral carina absent; in horizontal specimen viewed from below epipleuron at elytral base wide, covering humerus; viewed from above anterior margin of epipleuron arises anterior to posterior margin of MS; epipleuron developed as a lateral ridge along most of length; sutural margins approximate along most of length in closed elytra; lateral margins parallel-sided; apex narrowly emarginated transversely with the outer edge (the lateral margin) forming a small hook..
Head: moderately depressed between eyes; well 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, without median elevation; posterolateral eye excavation not strongly developed, not visible in resting head position; antennal sockets on head between eyes, not contiguous, 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 labial palpomere flattened, shaped like a moderately broad triangle (widest at base and L 2xW), with inner edge entire (Jeng et al. 2003b fig. 3). Antennae 11 segmented; length> GHW up to twice GHW; no segments flattened, shortened, or expanded; pedicel not produced; FS1 not shorter than pedicel.
Legs: with inner tarsal claw not split; without MFC; femora 3 not swollen and curved and tibiae 3 not curved; no basitarsi expanded or excavated.
Abdomen (Jeng et al. 2003b figs 5, 7; figs): without 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, occupying almost all of V7, and reaching to sides and posterior margin (Jeng et al. 2003b fig.7); PLP not developed; posterior half of V7 not arched or swollen, muscle impressions not visible in this area; neither anterior nor posterior margin of LO emarginate; LO present in V6, occupying almost all V6. Functional LO not present in V5. MPP present, symmetrical, apex slightly medianly emarginated (Jeng et al. 2003b fig. 7) or squarely truncate, not laterally compressed, short (L = W), not inclined dorsally nor engulfed by T8 apex, without dorsal ridge, median longitudinal trough. V7 without median carina, median longitudinal trough, anteromedian depression on face of LO, incurving lobes or pointed projections, median ‘dimple’, or reflexed lobes. T7 without prolonged anterolateral corners. T8: (Jeng et al. 2003b fig. 6) symmetrical, W=L, visible posterior area not narrowing abruptly, median posterior margin shallowly and narrowly emarginate; T8 lateral margins subparallel-sided; without prolonged posterolateral corners, median posterior projections, not inclined ventrally nor engulfing posterior margin of V7 nor MPP, not extending conspicuously beyond posterior margin of V7; T8 ventral surface without well-developed median longitudinal trough, without lateral depressed troughs, asymmetrical projections, median posterior ridge; concealed anterolateral arms of T8 very short and wide (Jeng et al. 2003b fig. 6), not laterally emarginated before their origins, not expanded dorsoventrally, expanded only in horizontal plane; without bifurcation of inner margin and ventrally directed pieces; lateral margins of T8 not enfolding sides of V7.
Aedeagal sheath: (Jeng et al. 2003b fig. 10) approx. 4 times as long as wide; without bulbous paraprocts; symmetrical in posterior area where sheath sternite tapers evenly to a narrow, rounded apex; anterior half of sternite relatively narrow, apically rounded; tergite without lateral arms extending anteriorly at sides of sheath sternite; tergite without projecting pieces along posterior margin of T9, anterior margin without transverse band.
Aedeagus: (Jeng et al. 2003b figs 11A, B) L/W 3.0; LL lack lateral appendages; apices of LL not visible from beneath at sides of ML, LL/ML narrow; LL of equal length, slightly shorter than ML, contiguous or closely approaching along inner dorsal margins; LL narrowly separated longitudinally by most of their length; LL base width not = LL apex width which is slightly narrower than that of ML; LL apices not expanded in horizontal plane; dorsal base of LL symmetrical, not excavated; LL without lateral hairy appendages along their outer ventral margins, not produced preapically nor narrowly on inner apical margin, apices of LL not inturned, nor out-turned; without projection on left LL; inner margins without slender leaf-like projection; ML symmetrical, without paired lateral teeth and tooth to left side, not strongly arched, apex not shaped like arrowhead, not bulbous, not inclined ventrally; BP not strongly sclerotised, not hooded, not strongly emarginated along anterior margin.
Female (Jeng et al. 2003b fig. 8). Macropterous and observed in flight; (Jeng et al. 2003: 251 observed a flight period beginning just after sunset, with peak numbers reached after about 25 minutes and cessation of activity after another five minutes). Pronotum without irregularities in posterolateral areas; punctation moderate to dense; pronotal width less than humeral width; without indentation of lateral margin, irregularities at posterolateral corner; outline similar to that of male. Elytral punctation not as large as that of pronotum, nor evenly spaced; no interstitial lines; elytral carina absent. No legs or parts thereof swollen and /or curved. LO in V6 only, without any elevations or depressions or ridges on V7; median posterior margin of V7 widely and very shallowly emarginate; median posterior margin of V8 very shallowly emarginated. Bursa plates not investigated.
Larva. Not reliably associated.
Etymology. Emarginata (feminine) is a noun latinised from the English word emarginate reflecting the nature of the emarginated elytral apices in the male.
Remarks. The distinctiveness of this species was established from phylogenetic inference from prior analysis (Jusoh et al. 2018).
description: Published as part of Ho, - Z., 2019, The Luciolinae of S. E. Asia and the Australopacific region: a revisionary checklist (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) including description of three new genera and 13 new species, pp. 1-174 in Zootaxa 4687 (1) on pages 78-79, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4687.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3508098