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

A STUDY ON THE GENUS CHRYSOLINA
111
5. Results of my revision of Arctic members of the subgenus Arctolina (in
preparation for publication now) are presented here.
6. MONROS & BECHYNÉ (1956) designated Ch. striata FABRICIUS as a type
species of the subgenus Atechna. Later, DACCORDI (1980) erroneously mentioned
Ch. duodecimguttata as type species of the subgenus in question. Among species
being at my disposal, Ch. dissoluta, Ch. duodecimguttata, Ch. figurata, Ch. hebe,
Ch. pardalina, Ch. revestita, and Ch. vigintimaculata correspond to the diagnosis
of the subgenus Atechna sensu DACCORDI (1980). However, Ch. tetraspilota,
Ch. fasciata, and Ch. striata differ from Atechna sensu DACCORDI (1980) in the
presence of setae along the entire length of elytral epipleura and should be placed
close to the subgenus Camerounia on the basis of this character. They differ from
the latter subgenus in the following characters: last segment of maxillary palpi is
narrow, elongate; elytral epipleura are oblique, visible on entire length in lateral
view. However, only Ch. tetraspilota, Ch. fasciata, and Ch. striata are real
members of the subgenus Atechna CHEVROLAT. Therefore, the subgenus Atechna
requires a revision. Ch. dissoluta, Ch. duodecimguttata, Ch. figurata, Ch. hebe,
Ch. pardalina, Ch. revestita, Ch. vigintimaculata, and probably some other
species should be transferred from Atechna to a new subgenus.
MATERIAL
Ch. dissoluta: S. Africa: Cape of Good Hope: 1 male.
Ch. duodecimguttata: S. Africa: Natal: 2 spec.
Ch. fasciata: S. Africa: Cape Province: 1 specimen.
Ch. figurata: S. Africa: Cape of Good Hope: 1 spec.
Ch. hebe: S. Africa: Cape Province: 1 male.
Ch. pardalina: S. Africa: Cape of Good Hope: 5 spec.; Natal: 1 spec.
Ch. revestita: Africa: 1 male without locality data.
Ch. striata: Africa: Transvaal: 1 female; Kenya, Mombasa: 1 female.
Ch. tetraspilota: S. Africa: Cape of Good Hope: 1 spec.; 3 specimens without
locality data.
Ch. vigintimaculata: S. Africa: Natal: 1 male, 1 female.
7. BECHYNÉ (1950) considered Bittotaenia to be a subgenus of the genus
Crosita on the basis of the structure of tarsi “Le troisieme article ... est echancre
au sommet bien profondement et la brosse du dessous des tarses est interrompue
d’un sillon longitudinal glabre”. This is true of Crosita. However, the species of
Bittotaenia being at my disposal have the third segment of hind tarsi with a
shallower emargination at apex. Hind wings are absent in all members of Crosita
and present in all members of Bittotaenia as well as in a number of representatives
of Chrysolina. Therefore, I transfer the subgenus Bittotaenia from the genus
Crosita to the genus Chrysolina. Within the genus Chrysolina, the subgenus
Bittotaenia is close to the subgenus Lithocrosita. Besides, I agree with MEDVEDEV