A study on the genus Chrysolina MOTSCHULSKY, 1860, with a ...

A STUDY ON THE GENUS CHRYSOLINA
121
nal sternite is convex in both sexes, without special structures; aedeagus (Fig. 6)
is similar to that of Ch. (Chrysocrosita) spectabilis.
MATERIAL
Ch. jakowlewi: E. Siberia: Yenisei valley, 16-20.7.1902: 2 males, 1 female,
P. SUSHKIN leg.; W. Sayan Mts.: Oiskoe lake, 30.6.1902: 1 female, P. SUSHKIN leg.
Ch. sogdiorum: Kyrghyzstan: “Alatau Geb., E. FISCHER”: 1 male. Specimens
without locality data from O. STAUDINGER collection: 1 male, 1 female.
Ch. spectabilis: Russia: Tuva: Barun-Khemchik, 8.8.1962: 1 male, 29.7.1962:
1 female, D. BERMAN leg.; Khabarovsk Krai: Badzhalskii Ridge, W part, 40 km S
from Mogdy, 1800m, 10-20.7.1997: 3 males, 2 females, A. BRINEV leg.
24. Three males of Ch. spectabilis from Khabarovsk Krai being at my
disposal correspond to the descriptions of the nominotypical subspecies
(MOTSCHULSKY 1860, MEDVEDEV & KOROTYAEV 1975): lateral impression of
pronotum is deeper than in both Ch. spectabilis viridipurpurea and Ch. spectabilis
polychroma and spreads on anterior half, elytron is red with discal stripe blackish,
with epipleuron and narrow sutural stripe golden. However, two females
from the same locality are closer to subspecies viridipurpurea: lateral impression
of pronotum develops only near its base, elytron is red with broad sutural and
lateral stripes goldish green, head and pronotum are green.
MATERIAL
Ch. spectabilis: see remark 23.
25. The subgeneric name Chrysomela (Chrysonotum) was originally proposed
(SAHLBERG 1913) in combination with available names Ch. viridana and
Ch. angelica. Therefore, this subgeneric name is available (ICZN, 1999, Art.
12.2.5).
26. The subgeneric name Chrysomela (Byrrhiformis) was originally proposed
(SAHLBERG 1913) in combination with available names Ch.vernalis and Ch.
blanchei. The type species was not designated. Therefore, this subgeneric name
is available (ICZN, 1999, Art. 12.2.5), but it is a junior synonym of Colaphoptera
MOTSCHULSKY partim and Ovosoma MOTSCHULSKY partim.
27. BECHYNÉ (1952) considered Ch. fuscicornis as a subspecies of Ch. caspica.
Later MEDVEDEV & OKHRIMENKO (1991) reduced Ch. caspica fuscicornis to a
synonym of the nominotypical subspecies. I have examined the original description
of Ch. fuscicornis, description of Ch. caspica by WEISE (1892), and available
specimens, and concluded that Ch. fuscicornis is a separate species, not a synonym
or subspecies of Ch. caspica. Ch. caspica has the following features: body is
smaller, more robust, pronotum without longitudinal pit in middle of lateral