Cymophorus (Pseudocymophorus) pulchellus subsp. tonkinensis , Schein 1954
Creators: name: Xu, Hao
name: Qiu, Jian-Yue
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Cetoniidae
Cymophorus
Cymophorus pulchellus
Cymophorus (pseudocymophorus) pulchellus tonkinensis schein, 1954

description: Cymophorus (Pseudocymophorus) pulchellus tonkinensis Schein, 1954
(Figs. 11–34)
Cymophorus pulchellus tonkinensis Schein, 1954: 383 * (type locality: Hoa-Binh, Tonkin [= Hòa Bình, N. Vietnam]); Krajčík 1999: 35; Krajčík 2012: 85; Bezděk 2016: 391 (in synonymy).
Cymophorus pulchellus (nec Arrow): Paulian 1961: 4 * (N. Vietnam: Hoa Binh; Ha Giang), fig. 336 (habitus); Ma 1987: 578 * (China: Yunnan: Maguan, Jinpin, Pu’er, Xishuanbanna); Ma 1995: 151 *, figs. 122a–c, plate V, fig. 27 (habitus); Sakai & Ikeda 1996: 40 * (Thailand: Mae Taeng; Samoeng; Hang Dong; Huay Gaew; Doi Phu Kha), fig. 45 ♂; Sakai & Nagai 1998: 153 *, plate 2, figs. 18- 1 ♂ and 18- 2 ♀ (Huay Gaew, Chiang Mai, N. Thailand), 18- 3 ♂ (Bao Loc, S. Vietnam); Krajčík 1999: 35; Ma 2002 *: 342 (Hainan, China); Ek-Amnuay 2008: 204 (Chiang Mai, N. Thailand), plate 74, fig. C 6 ♂; Krajčík 2011: 68 * (Maung Ma, Dawei, S. Myanmar); Bezděk 2016: 391 (China).
Type material. Cymophorus pulchellus tonkinensis Schein, 1954 was originally described based on an unspecified number of specimens preserved at BMNH, MNHN, and MFNB (Schein 1954). The original publication indicated that part of the type series were originated from Go Mit, Cochinchina (exact location unknown) and originally deposited in MNHN, but no specimen from the locality was found in the three museums. There are two additional paratypes housed in ZSM where contains the personal collection of Schein (Michael Balke, personal communica-tion, July 2012), and whether the two are the type specimens from Go Mit have not been yet confirmed since they are unavailable for the current study. Among the type specimens we examined, Schein used the term “Parallotypus” for four specimens he identified as females. This term is not governed by the ICZN (Hawksworth 2010), and these females should be treated as paratypes since the label data agree with the original publication.
The male holotype (BMNH, Figs. 11–12) is labeled: TONKIN: Hoabinh. A. de Cooman. B.M.1940-13 // Typus! Cymophorus tonkinensis n.ssp. ♂ det. H. Schein, 1954 // ♂. Eight examined paratypes (2♂♂, 6♀♀) are labeled: 1♂ (BMNH, Figs. 19–20), Xieng Khouang, Aout 1917 // Cymophorus pulchellus Arrow // Bourgoin coll., B.M. 1938-252 // Paratypus!, Cymophorus tonkinensis n. ssp. ♂ det. H. Schein, 1954; 1♂ (BMNH, Figs. 15–16), TONKIN, Hoa-Binh, Coll.J.Clermont // Bourgoin coll., B.M. 1938-252 // Cymoph. pulchellus Arrow ssp. tonkinen-sis nov. det. H. Schein, 1954 // Paratypus!, Cymophorus tonkinensis n. ssp. ♂ det. H. Schein, 1954; 1♀ (BMNH, Figs. 13–14), TONKIN: Hoabinh. A. de Cooman. B.M.1940-13 // Parallotypus! Cymophorus tonkinensis n.ssp. ♀ det. H. Schein, 1954; 1♀ (MNHN, Figs. 21–22), TONKIN, Env. de Hoa-Binh, J.Laisi 1902 // MUSEUM PARIS // Parallotypus! Cymophorus tonkinensis n. ssp. ♀ det. H. Schein, 1954; 1♀ (MNHN, Figs. 23–24), TONKIN, Bao-kan, Lemée, 1908 // MUSEUM PARIS // G.J.Arrow, vidit 1910 // Parallotypus! Cymophorus tonkinensis n. ssp. ♀ det. H. Schein, 1954; 1♀ (MNHN, Allotype, Figs. 25–26), Tonkin occ. Rég. de Hoa Binh, 1919 // MUSEUM PARIS // allotypus! Cymophorus tonkinensis n. ssp. ♀ det. H. Schein, 1954; 1♀ (MNHN, Figs. 27–28), Tonkin // MUSEUM PARIS (Coll. Ph. FRANCOIS), Coll. L. BEDEL 1922 // Parallotypus! Cymophorus tonkinensis n. ssp. ♀ det. H. Schein, 1954; 1♀ (MFNB, Figs. 17–18), CAMBODGE // Paratyp., Cymophorus pulchellus Arrow tonki-nensis ssp. det. H. Schein, 1954.
Other material examined (34♂♂, 29♀♀). CHINA: Hainan: 1♀ (BMNH), 1983.VII.28, Mount Jianfengling, Hainan // Yuan-Fu LIU leg. // I-10427 // 147 // BMNH(E), 2008-19, Ming Bai // IOZ(E) 900652 // Cymophorus pulchellus ssp.? Arrow, J.Ph.Legrand det. V-2008; 2♂♂ (MYNU), 28.V.2012, Nansheng, Mount Wuzhishan, Xin ZHOU leg.; 1♀ (SYSM, No. En-346726), April. 13–14.1935, Hainan Is., S. China. Cheung-Kon-ts’uen, Ka-lukkong (18 mi. E. of Nam-fung [= Nanfeng]), Kiung-shan Dist. [= Qiongshan], F. K. To leg.; 1♀ (SYSM, No. En-346727), Hainan Is., S. China. Lok-kei [= Luoji Township], 9 mi. N-NW. of Nodoa [= Nada]. Tan-hsien (Dist.) [= nowadays Danzhou]. June 1. 1932, F. K. To leg.; 1♀ (IZAS), 1960.VI.28, Tongshi [= nowadays Wuzhishan City], Hainan, Guangdong, 340 m, Suo-Fu LI leg.; 3♂♂ (IZAS), 1984.V.25, Mount Limushan, You-Dong LIN leg.; Guangxi: 1♂ (NWAU), 1984.V.20, Longrui, Ningming County, Wen-Jie SUN leg.; 1♂ (GXIP), 1980.V, Nonggang, Longzhou County, Chongzuo, Zhu-Yin WANG leg.; 2♂♂ (IZAS), 1♂ (BMNH), 2000.VI.22, Beidou, Napo County, 550 m, Jun CHEN leg.; Yunnan: 2♀♀ (YNAU), 1992.IV, Caoba, Mengzi; 1♂ (MYNU), 2017.VII.23, Lushanxin-zhai, Nuozhadu, Lancang County, Zhen ZHOU & Xiao-Long LUO leg.; 1♀ (IZAS), 1957.VIII.3, Lancang County, 1,000 m, Shu-Yong WANG leg.; 1♀ (IZAS), 1958.VII.1, Jinghong, Xishuangbanna, 850 m, Le-Yi ZHENG leg.; 1♀ (KIZ), 1981.V.26, Mengla County, GAN, ZHOU, & LU leg.; 1♂ (KIZ), 1982.V.27, Mengla County, Jiang XIONG leg.; 1♀ (IZAS), 1959.VI.6, Mengla County, Xishuangbanna, 620–650 m, Yi-Ran ZHANG leg.; 1♂ (IZAS), 1958. VIII.18, Meng’a, Menghai County, 1,050 –1,080 m, Yi-Ran ZHANG leg.; 1♀ (HBUM), 2012.VIII.5, Meng’a, Menghai County, Ji-Shan XU & Ling-Xiao CHANG leg.; 1♂, 1♀ (IZAS), 1958.VII.3, Mengzhe, Xishuangbanna, 870 m, Fu-Ji PU leg.; 1♀ (IZAS), 1958.VII.3, Mengzhe, Xishuangbanna, 1,200 m, Shu-Yong WANG leg.; 1♂, 1♀ (MYNU), 2015.V, Tropical Botanical Garden of CAS, Menglun, Mengla County, 550m, Shu-Yin HUANG leg.; 1♂ (MYNU), 2017.VI.11, Tropical Botanical Garden of CAS, Menglun, Mengla County, Qing-Hua ZHOU leg.; 1♂ (MYNU), 2019.VI.15–30, Mangyu, Pingyuan, Yingjiang County, Chang-Gui LIU leg.; VIETNAM: 2♀♀ (MNHN), Tonkin; 1♀ (MNHN), Tonkin occ., Env. de Hoa-Binh, R.P.A. de Cooman, 1919 // MUSÉUM PARIS, 1952, Coll. R. Oberthür; 1♀ (MNHN), Ha-Giang, (Tonkin) Rau // MUSÉUM PARIS, (Coll. Ph. Francois), Coll. L. Bedel 1922; 1♀ (MNHN), MUSÉUM PARIS, Lang-Son et Cao Bang, Girard 1894; 1♂ (NSMT), 1997.VI.23, Deo Cao Pha (420 m), E. of Ban Song, Son La Prov., Masaaki Tomokuni leg.; 1♂ (BMNH), Tonkin, June 1917, R.V.de Salvaza. // Brit. Mus. 1921-89// Cymophorus; 1♀ (CKSJ), 1999.VI, Mau Son, N. Vietnam; 3♂♂, 2♀♀ (MNHN), Cochinchine: Larkhe Prov Bencat [106°37′ E, 11°8′ N], V.1944; 1♂ (MNHN), N. Annam Prov. De Thanh Hoa; 1♂ (CKSJ), 1♀ (MYNU), 1999.VI.23, Bao Loc, S. Vietnam, M. Ito leg.; 1♀ (CKSJ), 2000.V.25, Bao Loc, S. Vietnam, M. Ito leg.; 1♀ (CKSJ), 2000.V.15, Bao Loc, S. Vietnam, M. Ito leg.; 1♂, 1♀ (CKSJ), 2000.VI.1, Bao Loc, S. Vietnam, M. Ito leg.; 2♀♀ (MYNU), 2016.VII, Bao Loc, S. Vietnam; MYANMAR: 1♂ (BMNH, ex coll. Krajčik), Burma-Taninthy, Tavoy-Maungma, IV.1977, lgt. Thoomas; LAOS: 1♀ (NHMB), LAOS, Louang Namtha prov., 10 km E. Muang Sing, 750-1400 m, Ban Oudomsinh / B. Nam Det / B. Nam Mai, 21°09-10′ N, 101°13-15′ E, 14-20.V.2011 // NHMB Basel, Laos 2011 Expedition, D. Hauck & M. Geiser; 1♂ (MNHN), da Khone Harmand // MUSÉUM PARIS, Lak-hon, Harmand 1878; THAILAND: 1♂ (CKSJ), 1985.VII.18, Huay Gaew, Chiang Mai, N. Thailand; 1♂ (CKSJ), 1985.VIII.1, Huay Gaew, Chiang Mai, N. Thailand; 1♂ (CKSJ), 1990.VII.22, Meateang, Chiang Mai, N. Thailand; 1♂ (CKSJ), 1985.VI.17, Hangdong, Chiang Mai, N. Thailand; 1♂ (CKSJ), 1985.IX.16, Samoeng, Chiang Mai, N. Thailand; 1♂ (CKSJ), 2001.VIII.16, Doi Suthep, Chiang Khian, Chiang Mai, Okajima leg.; 1♂ (NSMT), 1965. VI.23, Haadyai, Thailand, K. Morimoto leg.
Distribution. China: Hainan, Guangxi (new record), Yunnan; Cambodia; Laos; Myanmar; Thailand; Vietnam.
Remarks. The type specimens of Cymophorus pulchellus tonkinensis were caught from northern Vietnam, northeastern Laos, and Cambodia (Schein 1954), which implied a widely distributional range of this subspecies in the Indochinese region. This was also confirmed by the scattered records from southern China, northern Thailand, and southern Myanmar (Ma 1987, 1995, 2002; Sakai & Ikeda 1996; Sakai & Nagai 1998; Ek-Amnuay 2008; Krajčik 2011). The subspecies name, however, has not appeared in these faunistic works, except of Sakai & Nagai (1998) who suspected the specimens from southern Vietnam as the subspecies C. pulchellus tonkinensis because the specimens have a distinctly larger body size compared to the individuals from other areas (Fig. 31). Whether C. pul-chellus tonkinensis was unknown to these authors or rather difficult to separate, the validity of its status has not been
recognized that became an unspecified consensus among these authors. Schein’s subspecies was eventually fall into synonymy (Bezděk 2016), but it has never received proper taxonomic treatment since the original publication.
In the original description of C. pulchellus tonkinensis, Schein (1954) claimed that his subspecies can be distinguished from C. pulchellus pulchellus by head with coarse wrinkles (fine in the latter); lateral margin of head usually without setae, at most sparse and short (with long and dense setae in the latter); posterior margin of pronotum bisinuate (almost straight and slightly notched in middle in the latter); different shape of the two basal depressions on pronotum; two red maculae on elytron usually completely separate (maculae connected along lateral margin in the latter); ventral side and legs deep black or dark brown (deep black in the latter). Actually, the differences of the posterior margin and basal depressions of pronotum are somewhat indistinct, as well the wrinkles on head. Among the specimens from Indochina, we found several exceptions to the diagnostic characteristics given by Schein (1954), such as head with setae (Figs. 29–30) and red maculae on elytron connected laterally (Figs. 13, 17, 25, 30). Moreover, all specimens we examined are black except that the four dark brown type specimens of C. pulchellus tonki-nensis (Figs. 11, 13, 15, 27) which seem like newly emerged individuals. Hence, all the aforementioned characters cannot serve to separate the specimens originate from India and Indochina. While the rest diagnostic characters of C. pulchellus tonkinensis mentioned by Schein (1954) agree with our observation on Indochinese specimens, i.e., posterior angle of pronotum rounded (Figs. 11, 23, 29; angular in C. pulchellus pulchellus, Figs. 1, 5), punctures on pronotum denser (Figs. 17, 29), and apical portion of pygidium blunter. Additionally, the pronotum of C. pulchellus tonkinensis is glabrous (Figs. 15, 17, 19, 29–31), but that of C. pulchellus pulchellus distinctly with setae on lateral margins (Figs. 3, 7, 9). Concerning the difference in male genitalia, no enough male specimens available for the current study; nevertheless, here we show the parameres (Figs. 32–33) of one Chinese specimen for future comparison with individuals from other areas. Although the knowledge on the distribution of this species is still limited, the nominate subspecies is likely restricted in India, Schein’s subspecies occurs in the mountain range of Indo-China and Hainan Island. The two subspecies are thus geographically isolated by the vast plain in eastern India and western Myanmar. Therefore, we suggest temporarily maintaining their subspecies status rather than synonymizing them. To confirm the exact taxonomic identity of the two subspecies, more sampling effort is required, particularly the specimens from eastern India.
The presence of Cymophorus in China was known to foreign scholars fairly recently (Krajčik 2011; Bezděk 2016). In fact, C. pulchellus was already mentioned in Chinese works three decades ago (Ma 1987). The Cetoniinae species documented in Ma (1987) were mainly based on the faunistic investigation of insects in Yunnan, and C. pulchellus was found in four regions of this province: Jinping, Maguan, Pu’er, and Xishuangbanna. For the last region, seven exact collecting sites were given in her subsequent work (Ma 1995), and these specimens are housed in IZAS now (details see the material examined sections). The remaining voucher specimens of Ma (1987) are presumed to be deposited in Yunnan Academy of Forestry and Grassland and are unavailable for the present study, but the identification and records should be reliable. However, the record of C. pulchellus from Lanzhou of Gansu Province mentioned in Ma (1995) is presumably simply mislabeled. In IZAS we did found a female collected from there (1957.IX.7, Yi-Ran Zhang leg.), but Lanzhou is situated at the Palaearctic Region where is far from the known distribution of this remarkable species.
Most specimens of C. pulchellus tonkinensis were collected in the second half of the last century, but the specimen records from China and Vietnam date back to as early as the 1930s (two females from Hainan Island) and 1900s (two females from Tonkin), respectively. The label data of recently captured individuals indicated that several populations still inhabit the forests in the southernmost part of China, ranging from southwestern Yunnan in the west and Hainan Island in the east. However, these primary forests are mostly at low elevation and being threatened by human activities, which results in a constant reduction of the habitat of this rare beetle, particularly in the southern part of Yunnan and Guangxi.
description: Published as part of Xu, Hao & Qiu, Jian-Yue, 2020, An update on the distribution of the poorly known flower beetle genus Cymophorus Kirby, 1827 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae) in Asia, pp. 575-586 in Zootaxa 4877 (3) on pages 579-584, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4877.3.9, http://zenodo.org/record/4424497