Chlorophorus arciferus

Chlorophorus arciferus (Chevrolat, 1863) Figs 8–14, 15 Amauraesthes arciferus Chevrolat, 1863: 330. TL: India. TD: BMNH. Caloclytus arciferus Gahan 1906: 263. Chlorophorus arciferus Aurivillius 1912: 403. Clytanthus varius v. pieli Pic, 1924: 15. TL: China, Jiangsu. TD: MNHN. Clytanthus verbasci v. rectefasciatus Pic, 1937: 14. TL: Vietnam. TD: MNHN. Chlorophorus semisinuatus Pic, 1949: 54. TL: India. TD: MNHN. syn. nov. Chlorophorus (Immaculatus) arciferus Lazarev 2019: 147. Chlorophorus (Humeromagnomaculatus) arciferus Özdikmen 2022: 655, 687, 691. Specimens examined. China • 13 ♂♂ 12 ♀♀; Xizang, Lingzhi City, Chayu County, Shangchayu Town, Shizhong Village; 1700 m; 26 VIII. 2017; Qiu Jianyue, Peng Chenli and Xu Hao leg. (SWU) • 4 ♂♂ 5 ♀♀; Xizang, Lingzhi City, Motuo County, Beibeng Township, Yarang Village; 800 m; 21 VIII. 2017; Qiu Jianyue, Peng Chenli and Xu Hao leg. (SWU). Male genitalia. Tergite VIII rounded at apical margin. Sternite VIII truncate at apical margin and with long setae (Fig. 15 a, b); Tegmen weakly arcuate in lateral view, paramere 3 / 5 the length of tegmen, dehiscent in apical 1 / 4, provided with short setae near apex (Fig. 15 c – e); median lobe long and slender, curved in lateral view, median struts 2 / 5 times as long as entire median lobe, ventral plate longer than dorsal plate, the apex of ventral plate pointed; median foramen convex (Fig. 15 f, g). Remarks. Gressitt (1951) reported C. varius pieli from China (Shanghai, Zhejiang, Anhui, Sichuan) and treated Clytanthus verbasci v. rectefasciatus as a synonym of this taxon. Gressitt and Rondon (1970) synonymized C. varius v. pieli and C. socius with C. arciferus. However, according to Holzschuh (1991 b), the figures provided in both Gressitt (1951, plate XI, fig. 5 with legend “ C. varius v. pieli?: Anhwei ”) and Gressitt and Rondon (1970, fig. 36 h – i; 36 h marked as C. arciferus and 36 i as “ ditto subsp? ”) do not show C. arciferus; fig. 36 h might represent C. ictericus Holzschuh, 1991 and fig. 36 i C. copiosus Holzschuh, 1991. Hua (2002) reported C. arciferus from China (Anhui, Jiangxi, Zhejiang, Hainan, Sichuan), Laos, Bhutan, India and Nepal. But fig. 145 in Hua et al. (1993, pl. X) and fig. 334 in Hua et al. (2009, pl. XXIX) do not show C. arciferus either. So far, we have examined specimens only from Xizang, China (Figs 11–14). Therefore, the distribution of this species is not wide: it might be distributed in India, Nepal, China (Xizang) and adjacent areas. Although based on the figures of Clytanthus varius v. pieli, Gressitt’s (1951) specimen is not C. arciferus. However, we did not examine the type specimen. Therefore, both are still treated as synonyms of C. arciferus. Furthermore, we examined the pictures of the type of Chlorophorus semisinuatus Pic, 1949 (Fig. 10), and found that the external morphological characteristics of this species are the same as C. arciferus (Figs 8–9, 11–14), so Chlorophorus arciferus (Chevrolat, 1863) = Chlorophorus semisinuatus Pic, 1949, syn. nov.