|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05.09.2004
Remarks
#1
Philinae was regarded as a subfamily of Vesperidae by P.Svacha
(Svacha et al., 1997).
#2
The border line between two subspecies of Rhagium inquisitor in
East Siberia is not clear. According two Plavilstshikov (1936),
the area of Rh. i. rugipenne begins from about Baikal Lake. So,
it must be represented at least in East Mongolia, while in West
Mongolia (Altai and southwards Tuva) Rh. i.inquisitor is
distributed.
Only Rh.i. rugipenne was recorded for Mongolia by Namhaidorzh
(1972).
#3
Brachyta breiti was recorded for Mongolia by Danilevsky (1998).
#4
Nivellia extensa was recorded for Mongolia by Janovsky (1980).
#5
Anoplodera rufiventris was transformed to Xestoleptura by Miroshnikov
(1998).
#6
Pachytodes orthotrichus is definitely known from Tuva and Khakassia to
Irkutsk Region (Sarma River in my collection). The species must
occur in Mongolia, though up to now (2002) no exact records were
published. It was recorded for Mongolia and for West Siberia by
Lobanov et al. (1981), but without any comments
#7
The record of Pidonia puziloi for Mongolia (Lobanov et al.,
1981) is rather doubtful.
The reasons for supposition of Dokhtouroffia nebulosa for
Mongolia (Lobanov et al., 1981) are not clear.
#8
Niisato (1994) recorded Necydalis major aino for Mongolia.
#9
According to Hayashi (1979), Asemum punctulatum is represented
in Mongolia.
#10
Atimia maculipuncta was recorded for Mongolia (as Myctus) by Lindeman
and Lyamtseva (1979).
#11
Asias tuvensis seems to be never recorded for Mongolia. I've got
two males of Asias tuvensis from Mongolia: "North Mongolia, Zuun- Erzu, 5.8.63", another locality is not readable ("5.8.62").
#12
Asias gobiensis Namhaidorzh, 1973 was compared with Asias
degener (Semenov, 1907) described from Tsaidam - a big area in
China westwards from Kuku-Nor Lake. The species was never
recorded for Republic of Mongolia, but absent in Gressitt's
(1951) monograph on China.
#13
Amarysius duplicatus, described from Salair Mts. (near
Novosibirsk) and Tuva, was recorded for Far East Russia (Amur
Region and Primorsky Region) by Danilevsky (1998a) and so must
be distributed in East Siberia, North China and probably in
Mongolia. Two males and a female from Kazakhstan (Ust-
Kamenogorsk env.) are represented in my collection. Here both
Amarysius species occur sympatrically.
#14
I do not have any Amarysius from Mongolia, but my Amarysius
altajensis from Buryatiya and Chita region are similar to Far
East specimens and can be regarded as A.a. ussuricus. So in
Mongolia must be also represented A.a.ussuricus.
#15
The area of Amarysius sanguinipennis was enlarged eastwards by
Tsherepanov (1982) to Altai and Tomsk.
#16
It seems, that all records for Mongolia of Chlorophorus with
reduced black elytral design (obliteratus, faldermanni,
ubsanurensis, mongolicus, diadema kaszabi) as well as records of
Chlorophorus diadema belong to one taxon.
According to Danilevsky (1993): Chlorophorus obliteratus
(described from "centralen Mongolei")= Ch. ubsanurensis. Ch.
obliteratus was recorded for Mongolia by Heyrovsky (1965).
Chlorophorus mongolicus Pic was described after one specimen "de Mongolie". According to Gressitt (1951), it is distributed in
"NW China". The type of the taxon is absent in Pic's collection
in Paris (2002). It was mentioned by Namhaidorzh (1972) as a
separate species. One specimen with such identification is
preserved in Heyrovky's collection (Prague) and looks very
similar to my 3 males of Ch. obliteratus from Mongolia.
Evidently just that specimen was compared with Ch. diadema
kaszabi in its original description. Most probably Ch.
obliteratus = Ch. mongolicus.
The dark elytral patterns in all my three Mongolian Ch.
obliteratus (from rather distant localities: Gobi-Altai aimak,
South-Gobi aimak, Kobd aimak) are a little different. The last
specimen (with more reduced dark elytral pattern) is totally
agree with the picture of Ch. ubsanurensis (recorded for
Mongolia by Namkhaidorzh, 1982: Gobi-Altai aimak, Baian-Khongor
aimak,) in Tsherepanov's(1982) monograph.
The dark elytral pattern in Ch. obliteratus looks like reduced
black patterns of the darkest Mongolian specimens recorded for
Mongolia as "Ch. diadema diadema" (Namkhaidorzh, 1974 1976).
Such specimens with totally black dark elytral areas are also
represented by two specimens in my collection (South-Gobi aimak
and Baian-Khongor aimak). According to big series in Kaszab
collection in Budapest, dark and pale specimens are connected by
all transition forms and belong to one taxon - Ch. obliteratus.
Dark Ch. obliteratus are really similar to typical Ch. diadema
from Far East, but has a little different elytral design. Such
dark specimens of Ch. obliteratus from Mongolia are identified
in Kaszab collection in Budapest, as Ch. diadema ab. artemisiae
Fairmaire, 1888 by L.Heyrovsky. (Clytus artemisiae was described
from near Peking as well as Clytus diadema and must be its
synonym).
Specimens of "Ch. diadema kaszabi" and "Ch. diadema ab. artemisiae" identified by Heyrovsky in Kaszab collection
(Budapest) are just pale and dark Ch. obliteratus from one
locality, so Ch. obliteratus = Ch. diadema kaszabi.
There is a unique female in Kaszab collection, identified by
Heyrovsky as "Ch. faldermanni". The corresponding record was
published (Heyrovsky, 1968 for Kobd aimak, Khara-Us-Nur and
independently by Namkhaidorzh, 1976 for South Gobi-aimak, 20km S
Bulgan). Heyrovsky's female is just a small pale Ch. obliteratus
without elytral design; most probably, that Namhaidorzh record
was also based on Ch. obliteratus.
#17
The true D. darigangense was unknown to Namkhaidorzh. The
identification of my series of the species was proved by
comparison with holotype (elytra only are available in Heyrovsky
collection in Prague). So, good collecting data of E.
darigangense seem to be never published. Here are the labels of
my materials: 5 males and 1 female, Sukhe-Bator Aimak, Dariganga
env., Duut-Nuur, 20.7.1985, Ulykpan leg.; 1 male and 1 female,
Dariganga env., Zeget-Nuur, 20.7.1985, Ulykpan leg.; male
elytra, 2km W Dariganga, 1230m, 45°18'N, 113°49'E, 15.8.2002,
M.Danilevsky leg.
The taxon, described as "E. darigangense" by Namkhaidorzh (1976:
210) is a Mongolian form of E. chinganicum and was recorded by
Heyrovsky (1973a) as "E. chinganicum rubrosuturale". D. ch.
rubrosuturale (described as a species from Inshan Mts - far
southwards from the territory of Mongolian Republic) was
regarded by Breuning (1962) as morpha of D. chinganicum, which
can be also found near Kharbin.
In fact all infraspecific taxa of E. chinganicum (including E.
ch. melancholicum) were described from China. The differences of
Mongolian E. chinganicum (under the name "darigangense") from
type specimens of D. ch. chinganicum and D. ch. ab.
melancholicum were described by Namkhaidorzh (1976:211), who
reliably supposed his "E.darigangense" as a geographical form of
E.chinganicum. So, Mongolian E. chinganicum represents a new
subspecies.
E. darigangense and E. chinganicum are not close. The
photographs of males and females of both taxa are represented in
http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/rus/atlasdan.htm
#18
E. virgatum was not recorded for Mongolia by Namkhaidorzh and
most probably absent in the republic, but was definitely
recorded for East Mongolia (foothills of Khingan Ridge) by
Plavilstshikov (1958).
#19
The description of E. lutshniki altanelsense from sands Altan-
els (Ubsunur Aimak near the border with Russia) was based on two
small males with antennae shorter than body (!?) and fused two
dorsal white stripes (so only three dorsal white stripes
present). Such elytral design is also known as rare aberration
from Tuva. A pair of E. l. altanelsense is preserved in
Zoological Institute (St.-Petersburg). A male ("Dzabkhan aimak, 20 km WNW Tes, 3.7.1968, Arnoldi leg.") is really with only 3
dorsal white stripes, antennae are a little longer than body, so
shorter than in the nominative form, body is relatively narrow.
A female ("Dzabkhan aimak, 20 km WNW Tes, 3.7.1968, Emelianov leg.") is without dorsal white stripes. The presence in Altan-
Else of both forms (striated and glabrous) was also mentioned by
Namkhaidorzh (1972). Which subspecies of E. lutshniki occurs
near Ulangom rests unknown to me, so I leave the name of the
nominative subspecies in Mongolian fauna until new information.
#20
Pterolophia rigida (Bates, 1873), which according to Kusama and
Takakuwa (1974), is a synonym of P. granulata (Motschulsky,
1866) - both described from Japan - was recorded for Mongolia by
Namkhaidorzh (1974: 173). Later (Namkhaidorzh, 1976: 213) the
corresponding specimens were identified as P. burakowskii.
I regard Pterolophia mandshurica = burakowskii on the base of
original description accompanied by a picture. P. burakowskii
was described from East-Gobi Aimak. I've got a female of
Mongolian P. mandshurica from Bulgan Aimak. It was originally
recorded for Mongolia by Namkhaidorzh (1974: 173 - Sukhe-Bator
Aimak, East Aimak, East-Gobi Aimak) as P. rigida. Later
(Namkhaidorzh, 1976: 213) the identifications of corresponding
specimens were changed to P.burakowskii.
According to Tsherepanov (1983):
Pteroplophia mandshurica = selengensis (described from Mongolian part of
Selenga River Valley). Holotype and a paratype of P. selengensis
are preserved in Zoological Museum (St.-Petersburg). In general
they are a little paler than specimens from Far East Russia, but
no other differences.
#21
Cerambyx hieroglyphicus Pallas, 1773 was described from
"Siberia". The taxon was accepted as easten subspecies by
Breuning (1952: 177) and Gressitt (1951: 554). It is
characterized by constantly blue colour of pale pubescence. It
is agree with my specimens from Tuva and Russian Primorie
Region.
The subspecies was recorded for "Lappland" by Breuning (1952),
so can be distributed in North of the European part of Russia,
as well as in Norway, Sweden and Finland; for Sakhalin Is. by
Matsushita et Tamanuki (1935) - afer Gressitt (1951); and for
Mongolia by Heyrovsky (1973b),as well as for "Nordeuropa".
#22
Ch. motschulskyi was recorded for Mongolia by Namkhaidorzh
(1976: 208). One male with a label: "Verkhneudinsk [now Ulan- Ude] env, Berezovka, 21.6.1920" is preserved in my collection.
#23
According to Namkhaidorzh (1972), E. maurum = E. grumi = E.
boldi - described from Ubsunur ("Uvs") aimak after one female
with striated elytra.
All taxa of Eodorcadion group "maurum-quinquevittatum" belong to
one species. Now I am ready to recognize 4 subspecies, though in
reality the number of subspecies must be more. Sometimes the
areas of different subspecies nearly contact one another (and
specimens from different populations are preserved with identic
labels). Sometimes populations of different subspecies are
intermixed or the area of one subspecies is interrupted by the
area of another. Very often morphologically identic specimens
can be observed in different subspecies.
E. maurum quinquevittatum was described as Neodorcadion
quinquevittatum: "Endast tvänne skadade exemplar tagna af Ehnberg vid faktoriet Soldan invid Jenisei (Ulu-kem) uti
Mongoliet i slutet af September." I do not know the location of "faktoriet Soldan", but "Ulu-kem" of 1893 is now Malyi Enisei or
Ka-Hem, so the type locality of the species is situated near
Kyzyl in Tuva Republic. It is agree with E. quinquevittatum
sensu Plavilstshikov (1958). Breuning (1962) recorded type
locality as: "Governement Minoussinsk" - now south part of
Krasnoirsk Region of Russia. Here another taxon is distributed,
but I do not know where Breuning received such information from.
E. maurum quinquevittatum includes specimens with the most
developed elytral carinae and is distributed from about Chadan
to Kyzyl and then southwards to Mongolian border (Erzin). I
collected a lot of very typical E.m. quinquevittatum near Ishtii-
Hem. From about here (40km northwards) Neodorcadion sajanicum
was described ("Nagra exemplar tagna invid floden Kemtschik i Mongoliet."). I do not know the type, but according to
Plavilstshikov (1958), it is similar to the type of N.
quinquevittatum, but looks like old specimen.
Inside Tuva Republic several marginal populations of E. maurum
(mostly northwards Kyzyl, eastwards Kyzyl and south-westwards
Kyzyl) are characterized by reduction of elytral carinae and
elytral white stripes (which are often totally absent). Just
conditionally I attribute all of them to one subspecies. This
form was described as Neodorcadion leucogrammum Suv. from
"nördlichen Abhängen des Gebirgsrückens Tanny-Ola Anfang VIII.903 gesammelt." on the base of 3 males and 1 female with
hardly developed elytral carinae and white stripes (the syntype
female is preserved in the collection of Zoological Institute,
St.-Petersburg). A male (ZIN) with two hand labels by Suvorov:
"Neodorcadion leucogrammum typ.m." and "Namiur River to the north from Kobdo, 18.VII.1903, Gr.-Gr. leg." does not belong to
type series, because was collected out of the type locality much
before the expedition reached Tuva territory - it is striated
form of E. m. maurum. In my materials typical population of E.
m. leucogrammum is represented by specimens from Chal-Kezhig in
Elegest River Valley (north slope of Tannu-Ola Ridge), where
striated specimens are mixed with glabrous. My specimens from
Bai-Haak represent a transitional population to E. m.
quinquevittatum.
Recently (2003) I've received a big series of E. maurum with the
label: "Krasnoiarsk Region, Verchneusinsk, Us River Valley, 5.7.2002, A.Brinev leg." All specimens (about 50) are very
similar and have elytral carinae and white dorsal elytral
stripes. This form was evidently the base of Plavilstshikov's
record of his E. quinquevittatum for the south part of
Krasnoiarsk Region of Russia. Still the level of development of
elytral carinae and white stripes in that population is never so
strong as in specimens from Central Tuva, and often similar to
the typical E. m. leucogrammum. So now I also regard population
from Krasnoiarsk Region as E. m. leucogrammum.
"E. leucogrammum", sensu Tsherepanov (1983: "Ulug-Khem depression eastwards Chadan") is another species - E. tuvense
Plav.
A population of E. m. quinquevittatum from near Erzin (as well
as the population of E. m. leucogrammum from north Tannu-Ola:
Chal-Kezhig) consists of striated and glabrous specimens
(glabrous, smooth males are much more numerous than glabrous
females). According to Ju.Mikhailov (personal communication,
2003), glabrous males often copulate with striated females;
besides all transitional forms were observed (Erzin population
is represented in my materials with the specimens collected by
B.Korotiaev).
E. m. katharinae was described as Neodorcadion katharinae from
north Mongolia (most probably from Ubsu-Nur Lake Valley) after
one male (holotype in ZIN, St.Petersburg). The subspecies is
characterized by usually wide body with very strong elytral
carinae and with the widest white elytral stripes known in the
species. It is distributed around Ubsu-Nur Lake and in sands
(Altan-Els) along Tesiyn-Gol (north of Ubsunur and Dzabkhan
aimaks) westwards to the Russian territory (S Tuva, sands in
between Tere-Hol Lake and Tes-Hem River). The population from
sands eastwards Tere-Hol does not include glabrous forms. The
population of E. q. katharinae from Altan-Els Sands consists of
striated and smooth glabrous specimens with many transitional
forms (similar to the populations of E.m.leucogrammum from Chal-
Kezhig, north slope of Tannu-Ola, and to the population of E. m.
quinquevittatum from near Erzin, south Tuva).
The description of Neodorcadion maurum Jak. was based on three
syntypes: 2 males "trouvés en 1879 par Mr G.Potanin en Mongolie"
and 1 female "venant de l'Alaï" - the last locality is not
exact. According to Namhaidorzh (1972) the type series was
collected near Ulangom.
Same population was partly used for the description of N. grumi:
syntype male and sytype female in my collection with the label
in Russian: ["Namiur River between Kobdo River and Ulangom, 18.7.1903, Grum-Grzhimailo"]. Another part of N. grumi syntypes
was collected in north Tannu-Ola. One syntype male in my
collection with the label in Russian: ["north slope of Tannu-Ola Ridge, 3-5.8.1903, Grum-Grzhimailo"]. I've got very similar
specimens from Torgalyk River. I do not see the difference
between specimens from Tuva and Mongolia. If the diference
exists, the synonymy maurum=grumi could be canceled, after
respective lectotype designation. Now the area of the taxon is
very large. Tuva: planes northwards Tannu-Ola, hills southwards
Tannu-Ola from Mugur-Aksy to Samagaltai. Mongolia: from the west
part of Greate Lakes Valley - Ureg-Nug Lake eastwards along
Tesiyn-Gol to Dzabkhan aimak and southwards up to Kobdo. The are
of the taxon described by Plavilstshikov (1958) is totally
wrong: there is nothing similar to the taxon in Transbaicalie or
in Selenga and Orkhon Rivers Valleis.
E. m. maurum is characterized by smooth, often shining elytra
without humeri granules, without epical elytral white stripe,
abdomen with less dense pubescence. Specimens with elytral
carinae and white elytral stripes are well known as rare female
form (ab. leucotaenium), but very rare males also can be
striated.
In some areas the transitional forms between E. m. maurum and E.
m. leucogrammum (Chal-Kezhig) or E. m. maurum and E. m.
quinquevittatum (Erzin) or E. m. katatharinae (from Barun-Turun
to Delgerekh) are known, but in some areas - not (Khadyn Lake,
Bai-Khaak).
The proposed nomenclature must be regarded as preliminal as it
is not quite natural. In fact the population of E. m.
leucogrammum in Us-River Valley is totally isolated from any
other populations of the species and is rather peculiar and can
be described as new subspecies. That may also concern the
population of E. m. quinquevittatum from Khemtchik-River Valley
to Shagonar and futher eastwards to about Kyzyl with less
developed elytral carinae - this form can be named E. m.
saianicum (Hammer.). New names must be proposed for strongly
variable populations from near Erzin and for very stable
population from Tere-Khol Lake. With such point of view E. m.
leucogrammum is distributed only along north slope of Tannu-Ola,
while similat populations northwards and eastwards Kyzyl need
new names. So, at least 5 new subspecies names must be
introduced for Tuva only.
Several localities known to me (ZIN - collection of Zoological Museum,
St.-Petersburg; MD - my collection):
E. maurum katharinae:
1. Ubsu-Nur aimak, south bank of Ubsu-Nur Lake, 10.8.1975, L. Medvedev
leg. (typical form) (MD)
2. Ubsu-Nur aimak, 40km ESE Dzun-Goby (near Barun-Turun), 12.8.1975, L.
Medvedev leg. (typical).(MD)
3. Ubsu-Nur aimak, 30km NE Barun-Turun [Sands Altan-Els], 5.7.1968,
Arnoldi leg. (incl. strongly widened carinated males and
females, and very white females, as well as specimens with
partly reduced carinae and white stripes to totally smooth and
glabrous) (ZIN)
4. Dzabkhan aimak, 10km NW Tes (or Delgerekh), 13-16.8.1975 L.Medvedev
leg. (typical form) (MD)
5. Dzabkhan aimak, 30km WNW Tes (or Delgerekh), 3-4.7.1968, Emelianov
leg. (transition to E.q.maurum males with reduced carinae and
elytral stripes to totally smooth and glabrous) (ZIN)
E. maurum maurum:
1. Ubsu-Nur aimak, south bank of Ubsu-Nur Lake, 50km E Ulangom,
6.8.1970, Emelianov leg. (type locality?) (only typical form)
(ZIN)
2. Ubsu-Nur aimak, NW bank of Urug-Nur Lake, 17.7.1968, Arnoldi (typical
male and ab.leucotaenium)(ZIN)
3. Ubsu-Nur aimak, Dzun-Gobi, 9.8.1970, Emelianov (typical form) (ZIN)
4. Ubsu-Nur aimak, 30km W Ulangom, 13.7.1968, Arnoldi leg. (typical
form) (ZIN)
5. Ubsu-Nur aimak, 19-32km NW Ulangom, 27.6-8.7.1968, Kaszab's exp.
(typical form with Heyrovsky's identifications: "grumi" and
"dorcas morozum")(MD)
6. Ubsu-Nur aimak, 20km NW Mt.Turgen-Ula, 20.7.1968, Arnoldi (typical
form) (ZIN)
7. Ubsu-Nur aimak, SW Orog-Nur Lake, 14km WSW from Ulan-Daba, 6.7.1968,
Kaszab's exp. (typical form with Heyrovsky's identifications:
"dorcas morozum")(MD)
#24
E. dorcas was described (as Neodorcadion) from "Nord de la Mongolie". No specimens of typical form (with white stripes)
with good geographical labels are preserved in Zoological
Institute (St.-Petersburg), in Moscow Zoological Museum, in
Pic,s collection (Paris) or in Heyrovsky's collection (Prague).
My typical male has the label: "Shurgyngol" - it is a river in
the south part of Dzabkhan aimak south-eastwards Uliasutai. Same
locality was mentioned for E. dorcas by Namkhaidorzh (1972).
Neodorcadion morosum was described as a species from "Nord-Ouest de la Mongolie" on a single male ("21mm"). The holotype (20mm)
with the label in Russian: ["N-W Mongolia, 8.7.1894, Clemenz"]
is preserved in Zoological Institute (St.-Petersburg). The name
was faithfully declared as a synonym of E. dorcas (glabrous
form) by Plavilstshikov (1958). It is agree with my materials as
I've got E. dorcas ab. morosum from Aldarkhan, that is about
same population as from Shurgyngol River Valley. My series from
Ereen Lake (north part of Gobi-Altai aimak) consists mostly of
ab. morosum, but includes one female of typical form.
E. dorcas scabrosum was described from sands near Khukh-Mort
(north of Gobi-Altai aimak - type locality), that is less than
100km eastwards population of nominative subspecies. Another
locality represented in the type series is sandy desert in
Khungui River Valley (Dzabkhan aimak), that is about 120km
northwards from the type locality. Two paratypes from near Khuh-
Mort are preserved in Zoological Institute (St.-Petersburg).
Male is glabrous, but female with white stripes. I've got a
glabrous pair from near type locality. The taxon really differs
from the nominative subspecies by much more rough elytral
sculpture.
L.Heyrovsky had no adequate imagination of the species. I've got
a homogenous series of E. maurum maurum from one locality
(Ubsunur aimak, 32km NW Ulangom, 1200m, 27.6-7.7.1968,
Exp.Dr.Z.Kaszab) with two different identifications by
L.Heyrovsky: "E. dorcas m. morosum" and "E. grumi". In fact, the
very peculiar rough elytral sculpture of E. dorcas makes the
identification of the species very easy.
E. dorcas fortecostatum Heyrovsky, 1975 described after several
series from near Ulangom (Ubsunur aimak) most probably belongs
to the corresponding form of E. maurum maurum. The paratype
series must be represented in Heyrovsky collection in Prague,
but it is absent there.
The separation of E. dorcas annulatum, as it was mentioned by
Namkhaidorzh (1972), can not be accepted. Holotype was collected
near "_ergalan, Zarghan-Niederung, 23.6.1964" (Gobi-Altai aimak)
as well as two paratype-males with same labels preserved in
Heyrovsky's collection in Prague Národní Museum. All three
specimens are E. m. maurum, as well as paratypes collected in
Kobd aimak near Chara-Us-Nur lake (HNHM). So, E. m. maurum
(Jakovlev, 1890) = E. d. annulatum Heyrovsky, 1969. Another part
of the type series from south part of Kobd aimak (Altai) can not
be E. maurum, as the species absent here. If the label is right,
it can be only glabrous form of E. egregium, as it was also
mentioned by B.Namhaidorzh (1972). Before specimens from Hara-Us-
Nur lake were better named as E. grumi annulatum Heyrovsky, 1968
(nomen nudum), though were collected from same population as E.
grumi grumi sensu Heyrovsky, 1968. Later (Heyrovsky, 1973a) all
three names (E. grumi, E. dorcas morosum and E. dorcas
annulatum) were recorded for one locality (32km NW Ulangom).
Plavilstshikov (1958) described too wide area for E. dorcas. The
species sure absent near Ulan-Bator and in Selenga River Valley.
I believe, that its are is limited by the region to south-west
from Khingai Ridge (Gobi-Altai and Dzabkhan aimaks). It must be
absent both in Russia and in China.
#25
E. brandti was definitely recorded for Mongolia by Heyrovsky
(1964, 1968, 1969), but all records are unbelievable, as it was
mentioned by Namkhaidorzh (1972). All specimens from Mongolia in
the collection of Hungarian Natural History Museum (Budapest),
identified as "E. brandti" by L.Heyrovsky are striated females
of E. m. maurum. So, E. brandti absent in Mongolia.
#26
E. zichyi was described from "Naran environs in Gobi Desert".
According to Namkhaidorzh (1972) the type locality is situated
in East-Gobi aimak (so it is not modern Naran in Sukhe-Bator
aimak, where E.zichyi absent). I've collected more than 100
specimens of the species (9-10.8.2002) in the central part of
East-Gobi aimak in sands near Khuvsgel (males: 16.0-24.7mm,
females: 22.7-32mm - so it is the longest known Dorcadionini).
Namhkaidorzh (1972) proposed a new synonymy: E. heros = E.
zichyi.
E. heros (Jakovlev, 1899) was described (as Neodorcadion) on one
female ("24mm")from "montibus Alashanicis meridionalibus:". The
holotype (24.5mm) is preserved in Zoolological Institute (St.-
Petersburg) with the label in Russian ["S Alashan, VI and beginning of VII.1873, Przhevalsky"; besides one conspecific
male is also preserved with the label in Russian ["China"].
E. heros is very close to E. zichyi, but differs from all
specimens of E. zichyi by rather flat male elytra, less rough
pronotal sculpture and red femora (that is impossible in E.
zichyi). Besides the area of E. zichyi is delimited from Alashan
Desert by the area of E. gorbunovi. So I regard both as
different species (Danilevsky, 2004).
#27
A revision of E. intermedium-group was published by M.Danilevsky
(2004) together with a description of E.gorbunovi.
E. intermedium was described (as Neodorcadion) "du Nord de Gobi, près de la fontain Ourdjume et à Outben-Kotel" on two syntypes.
According to Namkhaidorzh (1972), the type locality, Kotel-Usu
well or Khutel-Us, is situated in South-Gobi aimak between two
mountain ridges Tost-Ula and Nemegt-Ula (south-west part of the
aimak). Both syntypes (each with label: "Mong. centr., 20- 21.VIII.1886, G.Potanin") preserved in Zoological Museum, St.-
Petersburg (same specimens, as were studied by Namkhaidorzh
before 1972) do not correspond good enough to the original
description. Both are males, while Jakovlev mentioned male and
female; both males are about 16.5mm long, while Jakovlev's male
must be 15mm and "female" - 18mm. Elytra of both males are
ubnormal and rather different, but such situation is not
reflected in the original description, which is too general.
Still, I regard both specimens as true syntypes, as they are
characterized by very special character reflected in the
original description - antennae,legs, elytral borders and partly
frons are red.
E. mongolicum was described (as Neodorcadion) on series of
specimens "trouvées en 1893 dans la Mongolie par M.Clemenz".
Jakovlev mentioned the size of one male (17mm) and one female
(20mm), but in the text he used several males for description.
Now in Zoologica Institute (St.-Petersburg) three similar males
(14.5-16.5mm) are equiped with original Jakovlev's red type
labels, but all without any geographical label. A female
(19.5mm) undoubtedly belongs to syntype series, though has only
one original label in Russian ["V.Jakovlev's coll."]. Besides,
there are a very similar pair of males (17.5mm and 20mm) without
Jakovlev's labels, but with the geographical labels in Russian
["N-W Mongolia, 20.VI-7.VII.1894, Clemenz" and "N-W Mongolia, 9.VII-10.VIII.1894, Clemenz"]. Any way all these specimens look
like members of one population.
The syntype series does not allow to identify exactly its
geographical origine, as very similar specimens (collection of
Zoological Museum, St.-Petersburg) are known from very wide area
(from Dzabkhan River Valley in the north part of Gobi-Altai
aimak, to Ushugin-Obo Mt. in the east part of Uver-Khangai
aimak. Besides, I've got similar specimens from near Beger in
the east part of Gobi-Altai aimak.
The syntypes of E. intermedium do not possess any character,
which could distinguish E. intermedium as a species from E.
mongolicum. In general elytral and thoracic punctuation and
design are same. The locality of E. intermedium is situated at
the south part of E. mongolicum area. So, E. intermedium = E.
mongolicum.
E. kaszabi was described from two localities: Bogd environs in
Bain-Khongor aimak and Khovd environs in Uver-Khangai aimak.
Both localities are inside the area of E. intermedium. The
original description is equipped with photographs of a male and
a female, besides I've studied a syntype female in Heyrovsky
collection in Prague Narodni Museum. The specimens used by
Heyrovsky for his description are nearly identical to syntypes
of E. mongolicum. So, E. intermedium = E. mongolicum = = E.
kaszabi.
Heyrovsky did not compare his new species with any other
species, but mentioned: "Dem E. ornatum Fald. nahestehend.",
which was totally out of the reality.
All localities, mentined above, are situtated westwards from
103°E. So, I accept the area of the nonimative form as the
western half of the species area.
Neodorcadion kozlovi was described from "Zentral Mongolei; Chutzen-Shanda Brunnen 16.VII.1909 (Expedition P.K. Kozlov,
coll. P.P. Semenov-Tian-Shansky)." on series of males (16-20mm) and a female (22mm). Now a series with original Suvorov's type
labels preserved in Zoological Museum (St.-Petersburg) consists
of two specimens: male (15.5mm) with label in Russian ["Cent. Mongolia, Tzosto River, 28.VI-2.VII.1909, Kozlov's exp."] and a
female (22.5mm) with Russian label ["Cent. Mongolia, Khutzen- Shanda well, 16.VII.1909, Kozlov's exp."]. Namkhaidorzh (1972)
had in his disposal 10 syntypes. According to I.Kerzhner (2003,
personal communication), the well Chutzen-Shanda is situated in
the north part of South-Gobi aimak near Mandal-Obo (44°08_N,
104°05_E). One more male is preserved in the museum from the
type locality ("Omnogov aimak, Mandal-Obo, 26.7.1967, B.Namkhaidorzh leg"). Nearby I've collected a series of
specimens in 2002 from near Mandal-Gobi (45°10_N, 105°30_E) to
Manlai (44°03_N, 107°02_E) and to Mandah (44°24_N, 108°13_E -
more than 100 ex.); I've also got several specimens from near
Sain-Shand (44°47_N, 110°07_E). Both syntypes and a male from
Mandal-Obo are very similar to my series collected in 2002
becouse of usual (by not constant!) conjugation of internal
dorsal elytral stripes with sutural stripe forming wide central
white elytral trianguilar area, which are always absent in
specimens of E. intermedium from westwards of 103°E. So, I
regard all these populations as E. intermedium ssp. kozlovi.
Still certain specimens of E.i.kozlovi are indistinguished from
the nominative form.
Plavilstshikov (1958) used in the key only one character for
separation of his E. mongolicum from his E. kozlovi: the wide
fusion between humeral elytral stripe and external dorsal stripe
at elytral base. According to the original description only one
syntype male (the biggest) had a connection between humeral
elytral stripe and external dorsal stripe at elytral base. This
character is really absent in all known to me E. i. intermedium,
but present in about 80% of E.i. kozlovi.
The description of Neodorcadion princeps was based on a single
male ("18mm") without exact geographical data. The holotype
(18mm) without geographical label, preserved in Zoological
Museum (St.-Petersburg), has an original label by Ménetriés hand
"D. ornatum var." mentioned in the original description and
totally corresponds to it. The holotype is characterized by
totally fused humeral and external dorsal elytral stripes
forming rather wide joined humeral stripe, sutural stripe is
also wide. In fact such elytral design is simply a very rare
abberation known in many different taxa (E. argali rugipenne, E.
i. intermedium, E. i. kozlovi, E. oryx). Among more than hundred
E. i. kozlovi, collected by me in East-Gobi aimak about 6 males
and 2 female have similar elytral design.
The holotype of N. princeps is the corresponding aberration of
E. ornatum (as it was reflected in the oryginal label by
Ménetriés) because of: black legs, black antennae, absence of
internal dorsal elytral stripe (so, not E. intermedium or E.
oryx), moderately rough elytral sculture near humeri similar to
E. argali rugipenne (so not E. intermedium, or E. zichyi, or E.
heros - besides much smaller than E. heros or E. zichyi), rather
rough elytral sculpure near middle - just same as in syntype
female of E. ornatum (so, not E. argali rugipenne). Besides, the
syntype female of E. ornatum has very special strongly developed
white pubescence of pronotum which is unknown to me in any
specimen of related species, but just same as in Holotype of N.
princeps. So, E. ornatum = E. princeps.
Namkhaidorzh (1972) mentioned a single male of E. princeps from
near Altan-Shire (East-Gobi aimak) as the first record of the
species for Mongolia. That was rather natural as the locality is
situated inside the population of E. i. kozlovi. So, E.i.kozlovi
= E. princeps, sensu Namkhaidorzh, 1972 (not Jakovlev, 1899).
I can suppose now several local subspecies inside the very big
area of E. intermedium, but now all infraspecific names belong
to the nominative form and to E.i kozlovi.
E. argali, E. novitzkyi, E. intermedium, E.oryx, E. gorbunovi
and E. zichyi constitute a system of vicariant species.
#28
E. argali rugipenne was described from near Dariganga (Sukhe-
Bator aimak). In 2002 I had the possibility to collect many
hundreds of specimens of this taxon in different populations
around Dariganga. E. a. rugipenne differs from E. a. argali (I
know about hundred specimens) by some more or less constant
characters and occupies south east part od species area.
Namkhaidorzh (1972) mentioned that the taxon was not known to
him. But in 1976 he reported it inder the name "E.argali",
though exactly from the type locality of E. a. rugipenne.
The abundance of the specimens just on the border with China
makes me sure that E.a.rugipenne is also distributed in North
China.
E. quadricarinatum described from near Ulan-Bator is a synonym
of E. argali, as it was faithfully supposed by Namkhaidorzh.
#29
According to Namkhaidorzh (1974), E. egregium = E. albitarsale
Breun.
#30
Olenecamptus octopustulatus was recorded for Transbaicalie
(Tchikoi - borderline with Mongolia) by Tcherepanov (1983), so
old records of the taxon for Mongolia (ignored by
Plavilstshikov, 1958) could be right.
#31
I've got in my collection one specimen of Apomecyna histrio with
the label: "East Siberia, Selenginsk, 1914".
#32
Several species were definitely recorded fore Mongolia by
Janovsky (1974): Anastrangalia renardi (Khubsugul and Ara-
Khangai aimaks), Callidium aeneum (Khubsugul, Baian-Ulegey, Kobd
aimaks), Xylotrechus altaicus (Ubsunur aimak), Amarysius
sanguinipennis (Selenga aimak), Leiopus albivittis (Selenga and
Khubsugul aimaks).
#33
Acanthocinus griseus and A. carinulatus were recorded for
Mongolia by Namkhaidorzh (1972). The taxonomy of Siberian
Acanthocinus was revised by Hasegawa (1996). A.carinulatus was
recorded by Hasegawa from Altai to Buriatia and so presents in
Mongolia. According to my materials (checked by Dr. M.Hasegawa
in 2003): A. griseus is distributed eastwards to about
Krasnoirsk Region and A. sachalinensis is distributed westwards
to about Buriatia, so in Mongolia can be represented both.
#34
Tetrops rosarum was recorded for Mongolia by Tcherepanov (1985)
and O.Krivolutzkaia (in: Tsherepanov, 1996) without special
comments. Most probably the records were based on Tetrops
mongolicus Murzin, 1977.
#35
Menesia flavotecta, Ropaloscelis unifasciatus, Agapanthia dahli
and A. villosoviridescens were recorded for Mongolia by Lobanov
et al. (1982) without any comments most probably on the base of
specimens which now are not in my disposal.
The occurrence of A.dahli in Mongolia does not look impossible,
as I have a very typical A.dahli specimen from Khakassia (Maina
- southwards Abakan). The species is very common near
Novosibirsk.
A. villosoviridescens is represented im my collection from Altai
and from Novosibirsk.
#36
Agapanthia leucaspis was recorded for Mongolia (Selenga aimak)
by Namhaidorzh (1982).
#37
As it was written to me by G.Sama (personal communication,
2003): "Semenov (1914) introduced Asias a new name replacing Anoplistes Serville, 1833 not Westwood, 1831 (Diptera). I was
able to consult Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus, 1939, 1: 216);
according to it, Anoplistes was described by Westwood only in
1835 (Anoplistes Westwood, 1835, London & Edinb., Phil. Mag.,
3(6) (34): 280). This is confirmed by Horn & Schenkling, 1929
(Index Litteraturae Entomologicae, series 1, band 4: 1312) where
any Westwood's paper dealing with Diptera is listed in 1831,
while is confirmed for 1835 the description of "Insectorum novorum exoticorum". Phillos. Mag. (3), 6: 280-281".
So, the name Anoplistes Serville, 1833 is valid.
#38
Asaperda stenostola was recorded for Mongolia (as well as for
Kazakhstan) by Lobanov et al. (1982) most probably on the base
of specimens which are now not in my dosposal. I have in my
collection a female from Altai (Chemal).
#39
The occurrence in Mongolia (as well as in Siberia) Chlorophorus
sartor is rather doubtful. No collecting data were published by
Plavilstshikov, Heyrovsky or Namhaidorzh. Tsherepanov (1982) did
not find the species in Siberia.
#40
E. ptyalopleurum (Suvorov, 1909) absent in Mongolia. It was not
mentioned in any publication by Namnkhaidorzh. The record by
Breuning (1946) was evidently based on wrong identification of
E. maurum.
#41
Mantitheus pekinensis was recorded for Mongolia by Namhaidorzh
(1974) on the base of one female from East-Gobi Aimak, which is
not known to me. Later (Namhaidorzh, 1976: 221) apparently same
specimen was identified as Mantitheus gracilis. It is possible,
that both names are synonyms. In Hungarian Natural History
Museum (Budapest) specimens identified as "M. gracilis" are just
smaller and lighter than "M.pekinensis".
#42
The text below was published by M.Danilevsky (2004).
E. oryx was described (as Neodorcadion) without any geographical
data (and without size data). The original description was
undoubtedly based on a single male (15.4mm long), preserved now
in Zoological Institute (St.-Petersburg). The holotype is
characterized by exceptional elytral design (ubnormally narrow
sutural white stripe, and so ubnormally wide internal dorsal
glabrous carina), which is precisely reflected in the original
description. Other specimens (3 males and 1 female) identified
as E. oryx (by Suvorov and Baeckmann) in the Museum's collection
are sure conspecific with holotype, though differ from the later
by less deep elytral punctuation and by normally wide sutural
stripe and narrower glabrous dorsal internal carina. All 4
specimens belong to one series with the label: "Nordl. Mongolei, Changai, Leder". All 4 specimens and holotype have several
granules near humeri, which are nearly indistinct in one male;
so the main Plavilstshikov's (1958: 480) distinguishing
character of E. oryx - the presence of humeral granules - is
wrong. These granules are also indistinct in all my specimens of
E. oryx with good geographical labels:
1 male: "Mong. m., Barun-Bajan-Ulan, 18.8.1966" - Uver-Khangai aimak.
2 males and 3 females, "Uver-Khangai aimak, 50km NW Aiverkhei, 45°51_N, 101°58_E, 1800m, 19.7.2002, S.Churkin leg.".
As far as I know, no exact distributional data on E. oryx were
published up to now (2003). Three localities from East-Gobi
aimak (near Tenger-Nur Lake, near Shokhoi-Nur Lake and near
Sulan-Khere) published by Namkhaidorzh (1976) [wrongly
attributed by him to South Gobi aimak], concern another species,
close to E. intermedium (I've studied two males from near Tenger-
Nur, preserved in Zoological Institute, St.-Petersburg, and
identified by Namkhaidorzh as E.oryx).
So, E. oryx has small area near south-east part of Khangai
mountains. It must be in vicariant relations with neihbour
populations of E. argali and E. intermedium.
E. oryx easily differs from E. intermedium by smooth elytra and
from E. argali by wide sutural white stripe.
Neodorcadion oryx var. hedini Pic, 1926 is in fact E.
intermedium kozlovi. A male of the taxon (most probably
holotype) is preserved in Pic's collection (Paris) with the
label (by Pic's hand): "S Mongoliet 1927" and "Sven Hedins Exp. Ctr. Asien Dr. Hummet".
#43
E. ornatum was described (as Dorcadion) from "Mongoliae" on at
least one male and one female (without size data). The original
description is equiped with good colour drawing of a male. A
syntype female (22.5mm) is preserved in Zoological Institute
(St.-Petersburg) without any geographical label. It has just
same elytral design as pictured male.
All Eodorcadion (1 male and 3 females), identified as E. ornatum
by N.N. Plavilstshikov in his collection (Zoological Museum,
Moscow) are E. oryx, including two females - types of E. ornatum
ab. praeligatum and E. ornatum ab. illustartum.
Glabrous (without white hair stripes) form of E. ornatum was
described from China (according to the title of the article!) as
Dorcadion exaratum Ménétriés, 1854 (: 38-40) without any
geographical remarks. S. Breuning (1962: 40) mentioned: "Von Ménétriés" nach Stücken aus dem Umgebung von Peking beschrieben
(falsche Angabe)."- I do not know the base for such statement. Most probably the type locality is situated in NE China. The
geographical relations between glabrous and pubescent form in
China are not clear (I do not know both from one locality, but
the total number of known E.ornatum specimens is very small).
According to Plavilstshikov (1958) "glabrous form does not have own area, but usually does not occur together with pubescent
form". According to Namkhaidorzh (1972), all E.ornatum from Mongolien Republic have glabrous elytra (so, the type locality
of E. ornatum is also situated somewhere in North China), so, at
least in Mongolia E. ornatum is represented by a distinct
subspecies. Untill the type locality and status of E. exaratum
are not clear, I prefer to use for Mongolian subspecies the name
E. ornatum hircus Jakovlev, 1906. [One male from Mongolia (with
well developed elytral white stripes, though with totally fused
internal dorsal stripe and sutural stripe) preserved in
Zoological Institute (St.-Petersburg): East-Gobi Aimak, 10km NW
Erdene, 13.7.1975, Gurieva leg. is identified by Namkhaidorzh
(hand label) as E. ornatum - in fact it is normal E. i.
kozlovi.]
Neodorcadion hircus was described from East Mongolia (Kerulen
River Valley). The name was originally declared as a synonym of
E. ornatum by Plavilstshikov (1958), as well as Neodorcadion
novitzkyi var. inalbatum Suvorov, 1909 also from Kerulen River.
In Mongolien Republic E. ornarum hircus is known from Central-
Gobi aimak and East-Gobi aimak to Khentei aimak and East aimak.
It must be distributed in China from Mongolian border to Khangai
Ridge.
E. kaznakovi (Suvorov, 1912) was described (as Neodorcadion)
from "Alashan, Oasis Dyn-juan-ing, 20.VI.1908" on series of
males (15-19mm). A syntype male (15.1mm) is preserved in
Zoological Institute (St.-Petersburg) with the label in Russian:
[Alashan, Dyn-iuan-in, 26.6.1908, Kozlov's exp." Another male, preserved in the Museum's collection with the label in Russian
["Alashan Desert, South Gobi, end of IX.1901, Kozlov"] and
identified by Namkhaidorzh as E. kaznakovi, is very similar to
the syntype but a little longer (17.0mm) with a short basal
stroke of internal elytral dorsal stripe and so very similar to
the picture of E. ornatum male in its original description.
Still E. kaznakovi and E. ornatum looks as different species,
because of totally different pronotal and elytral sculpture.
#44
E. argaloides was described from "Mongolie méridionale" on 1
female. In the original description it was compared with E.
mongolicum, by latter (Breuning, 1962) with E.ornatum and E.
kaznakovi. It is difficult to realize exactly what species that
female belongs to and where it is from, but the red legs
indicates, that most probably it is a female of E. intermedium,
and long independent internal dorsal elytral stripe
("Praesuturalbinde") indicates, that it must be a nominative
form ("Praesuturalbinde" usually totally absent in E. ornatum or
in form of a short stroke near scutellum).
#45
The taxonomy of Asias close to A.halodendri is not clear. It was
evident mistake to regard all populations from European Russia
to Far East as one species without any subspesies, as it was
proposed by Namhaidorzh, 1972(halodendri = ephippium = minutus =
kozlovi).
The differences between European and Far East populations are
evident, so the name A. halodendri halodendri can not be used
for east populations, as Cerambyx halodendri Pallas, 1776 was
described "... ad Irtin" (= Irtysh), and the specimens from
Kazakhstan are not close to Far East populations.
As it was declared by Kostin (1974), populations from East
Kazakhstan differs from West Kazakhstan populations at the
subspecies level. I preliminary accept that A. halodendri
ephippium (Steven et Dalman, 1817), described from South Russia
(Terek River), is distributed from North Caucasus to the south
part of European Russia (northwards to about Saratov) and in
Ural Region of Kazakhstan.
In Semipalatinsk region Asias halodendri halodendri is
distributed.
For far east Maritime subspecies, which penetrates far in East
Siberia, the name Asias h. pirus (Arakawa, 1932) can be used. It
was introduced for Korean population as Purpuricenus pyrus.
Rather peculiar specimens from Tuva populations were described
as Anoplistes minutus Hammarström, 1893 - same in Mongolia.
According to Tsherepanov (1982), different A. halodendri (from
Urals to Far East Russia) were observed on Caragana, Quercus,
Salix, Fraxinus, Lespedeza, Daphne mezereum. He added for his
"A. ephippium" (Urals and Tuva): Caragana, Ulmus, Salix, Prunus,
Rosa.
#46
According to Namhaidorzh (1972): "In low, south areas of Mongolia as well as in neighbour China a small, pale, pubescent
form, described as A. kozlovi, occurs." (Lectotype was designated by him). It is sure a separate species. I've studied
a big series (about 60 ex.) of A.kozlovi collected by D.Obydov
and A.Saldaitis in Ara-Khangai aimak (47°19_N, 103°41_E, 3-
5.8.2003). A. kozlovi differs from A. halodendri first of all by
long white elytral and pronotal pubescence, pronotal
puncturation is much smaller and distinctly less homogenous. A.
kozlovi in general bigger than A. h. minutus (though only small
specimens were known to Namkhaidorzh). Body length in A. kozlovi
males is up to 15.5mm, in females - up to 16.3mm, while in A. h.
minutus males are up to 14.5mm, females - 14.9mm.
A. kozlovi was collected in same locality as A.h. minutus, thouh about 1
month later and, according to A.Saldaitis, on Salix, while A.
halodendri was collected by me in Kazakhstan (2002) and Mongolia
(2002) only on Caragana spp.
#47
The morphology of everted and inflated Dorcadionini endophallus is
described and figured by Danilevsky et al. (2004) on the base of
dry constant samples of 127 species and subspecies of four
genera: Neodorcadion, Eodorcadion, Iberodorcadion and Dorcadion
of all subgenera. The homology of different endophallus parts is
established. The original terminology is proposed. All genera
and subgenera of Dorcadionini are clearly delimited on the base
of endophallic structures. New compositions of Eodorcadion is
proposed. The phylogenetic relations inside the tribe are
discussed. A key for 4 genera and all subgenera is proposed on
the base of endophallic characters.
According to Danilevsky et al. (2005):
E. quinquevittatum, E. leucogrammum, E. tuvense, E. ptyalopleurum
and E. maurum, as well as E. sifanicum and E. glaucopterum are
placed in Eodorcadion (s. str.).
Several taxons are proposed to be accepted as subspecies:
Eodorcadion carinatum blessigi (Ganglbauer, 1883), E. c.
bramsoni Pic, 1901, stat. n., E. c. altaicum (Suvorov, 1909),
stat. n.
#48
The existence of Callidium chlorizans (described after one
female as Semanotus from Irkutzk) as a separate species is
rather doubtful. I do not know the type, but a series,
identified as "C.chlorizans" (mostly from Jakutia) in
Plavilstshikov's collection (Zool. Mus. of Moscow Univ.) shows
no real differences from his numerous C. coriaceum from all over
Siberia. The distinguishing characters, listed by N.N.
Plavilstshikov (1940), are not proved by his own materials. The
areas of both "species" coincide in Siberia, but according to
Tsherepanov (1981), C. chlorizans is monopagous on Larix.
#49
A very big series of Asias mongolicus is represented in
Hungarian Natural History Museum ("Südgobi Aimak, 100km W von Grenzposten Ovot Chuural, 1250m, 22.6.1967, exp. Dr.Z.Kaszab").