Two new species of Episymploce Bey-Bienko, 1950 (Blattodea, Ectobiidae, Blattellinae) from China

Abstract Two new species of Episymploce Bey-Bienko from China are described. Nine individuals of E. sichuanensissp. nov. were collected from Sichuan Province and four individuals of E. maxima, sp. nov. were collected from Guangxi Province. Morphology, especially the wings, specialized abdominal tergum and genitalia of adults, are described and illustrated in detail. Episymploce sichuanensissp. nov. is similar to E. kunmingi (Bey-Bienko, 1969), but can be easily distinguished by the reduced wings, bifurcated two processes at the hind margin of the supra-anal plate, and the unspecialized first abdominal tergum (T1). Episymploce maximasp. nov. is similar to E. taiheizana Asahina, 1979 but is distinguished by its large size, the lateromedial margins of the subgenital plate without processes, and the unspecialized T1. A key to the recorded Episymploce species from China is provided in this paper.


Introduction
The genus Episymploce was established by Bey-Bienko in 1950, with the type species E. paradoxura Bey-Bienko, 1950, who later described three other new species, E. marginata Bey-Bienko, 1957, E. popovi Bey-Bienko, 1957, and E. uncinata Bey-Bienko, 1969. Princis (1969, 1971) recorded six species of Episymploce, five of which originated from China. In 1979, Asahina (1979 redescribed the Japanese species E. amamiensis with water before examination. The specimens were dissected and observed under a ZEISS Discovery V12 stereo microscope. Photographs were taken with a ZEISS/Smart Zoom5 and Canon EOS 5D Mark III, and illustrated with Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 software. After illustration, the genitalia were stored in 0.5 ml centrifuge tubes containing 50% glycerol. The type specimens were deposited in Zhongshan Customs Technology Center.
Type species. Episymploce paradoxura Bey-Bienko, 1950: 157. Diagnosis. According to the traits proposed by Bey-Bienko (1950), Asahina (1979) and Roth (1986), this genus can be described as follows: the tegmina and wings are fully developed. Wings cubitus anterior vein has 1-5 complete and 1-6 incomplete branches, and the triangular apical area is small, reduced or absent. The first abdominal tergum can be specialized or unspecialized; the seventh abdominal tergum is always specialized; right and left lateral plates of the ninth abdominal tergum are similar, or the size and shape are obviously different, and the apex can be with or without small spines. The supra-anal plate is asymmetrical, symmetrical, or approximately symmetrical, the apex of the posterior margin is invaginated, or slightly concave; the subgenital plate is asymmetrical. The anteroventral margin of the front femora is of Type A3, rarely Type B, or between Type A and Type B. The male left aedeagus is in the shape of a hook.
Small size. Body yellowish orange, head extending somewhat beyond pronotum, ocellus white, interocular space almost equivalent to ocellus space. Pronotum approximate ladder-like, hind margin wide. Tegmina and wings reduced, veins inconspicuous, reaching of T2. Anteroventral margin of front femur Type A3; the first tarsus of the hind leg longer than the sum of the remaining tarsi; tarsal claws symmetrical and unspecialized, arolium and pulvillus present. The T1 unspecialized; T7 specialized with a pair of approximately triangular depressions (Fig. 7); T9 asymmetrical with left side longer than right, apex margin with some small spines (Fig. 9). Male supra-anal plate asymmetrical, hind margin of lamina bilobed, left hind margin has two inwardly curved processes, apex process of which is bifurcate (Figs 6, 8); left side paraproct with three processes and right side with single process. Subgenital plate asymmetrical, basolateral with two processes, left process longer, and apex of right process curved; left of hind margin apparently thicker and covered strongly spinulose, middle hind margin with two spine-like processes reversed and outwardly with long styles (Fig. 10); left aedeagus hook-shaped (Fig. 11). Female is similar to male; abdominal tergum suffused with dark brown, supra-anal plate symmetrical, approximately triangular, apex concave (Fig. 14). Subgenital plate simple and hind margin rounded (Fig. 15) Asahina, 1979, but can be distinguished as follows: 1) lateromedial margins of subgenital plate without processes, while with processes in E. taiheizana Asahina, 1979; 2) T1 was unspecialized, but T1 was specialized in E. taiheizana Asahina, 1979; 3) ventral margins of T9 without spines, but with 3 spines in E. taiheizana Asahina, 1979. Description. Male, pronotum: length × width: 5.2-6.0 × 6.0-6.5 mm; tegmen: 23.5 mm; overall length (including tegmen): 27.8-28.5 mm. Female, pronotum: length × width: 5.5-6.6 × 6.0-6.6 mm; tegmen: 23.4 mm; overall length (including tegmen): 27.8-29.5 mm. Large size. Body dark brown, head extending beyond the pronotum, vertex tawny, ocellus yellow, face dark brown, interocular space is 3/4 of ocellus space, antenna base dark brown, a pair of symmetrical reddish-brown dots next to the antenna sockets, antenna sockets slightly wider than ocellus width. Pronotum approximate triangular, hind margin wide, dark brown. Tegmina and wings fully developed, tegmina extending beyond the end of abdomen; hind wing with radius vein branched near middle; medial vein simple; cubitus anterior vein with five complete and two incomplete branches, triangular apical area small. Anteroventral margin of front femur Type A3; the first tarsus of the hind leg longer than the sum of the rest tarsi; tarsal claws symmetrical and unspecialized, arolium and pulvillus present. The T1 unspecialized; T7 specialized with numerous hairs in the intermediate region (Fig. 22); right and left lateral plates of the T9 are similar, hind margins truncate, posterior corners rounder (Fig. 23). Male supra-anal plate symmetrical, middle of the hind margin concave (Fig. 24); subgenital plate asymmetrical, two styles on the left side of the hind margin, with some spines in the interstylar margin (Fig. 25); left aedeagus hook-shaped (Fig. 26); median aedeagus exposed, extending beyond the supra-anal plate, spicular (Fig. 27). Female similar to male; supra-anal plate and subgenital plate symmetrical, hind margin round, apex with small concavity (Figs 29, 30).
Etymology. Species name maxima refers to its large size, currently the largest species in Episymploce.

Discussion
The genus Symploce was established before the genus Episymploce, but it turned out that many species from other genera of cockroaches were included (Roth 1984). In 1950, Bey-Bienko (1950 established the genus Episymploce, and pointed out the difference between Episymploce and Symploce in the hind wings, the irregularly branched radial of the tegmina, and the conversion of the hind lateral processes of the T9 into spines. Subsequently, Asahina (1979) redefined Episymploce and dissected the male genitalia in detail, providing more reliable features for distinguishing Symploce from Episymploce. Roth (1986) considered that Bey-Bienko put too much emphasis on wing venation when distinguishing Episymploce from Symploce. He considered that the wing venation could not be used to distinguish Episymploce from Symploce, and suggested the symmetry of the supra-anal plate should be considered. He transferred E. marginata Bey-Bienko, 1957, E. popovi Bey-Bienko, 1957and E. ligulata Bey-Bienko, 1957to Symploce. In 1984and 1986, Roth (1984, 1986 respectively collated and supplemented the characteristics of the abdominal tergum, wing venation, anteroventral margin of front femur, and supra-anal plate to distinguish Symploce from Episymploce. More specializations of the male abdominal tergum were observed in Symploce than in Episymploce. In 1997, Roth rejected that symmetry of the supra-anal plate distinguished between Episymploce and Symploce, and returned E. marginata Bey-Bienko, 1957, E. popovi Bey-Bienko, 1957and E. ligulata Bey-Bienko, 1957 to Episymploce. We do not think it is appropriate to distinguish one genus from another only by a single feature as there are many similarities between the characteristics of Episymploce and Symploce. In 1985, Roth (1985 compared the characteristics of Blattella, Symploce, Parasymploce and Episymploce. He considered that the difference between Parasymploce and the other three is that the supra-anal plate is symmetrical and the T7 was always specialized. Roth (1995) considered Aristiger and Parasymploce were synonyms of Hemithyrsocera. The supra-anal plate of E. sichuanensis sp. nov. is asymmetrical, which is obviously different from Hemithyrsocera. Episymploce maxima sp. nov. has similar features to Hemithyrsocera on the supra-anal plate and T7, but E. maxima sp. nov. has 5 complete and 2 incomplete branches in the cubitus anterior vein of the hind wing, while the cubitus anterior vein of the hind wings of Hemithyrsocera have no branches or 1-3 complete branches, and no incomplete branches. The supra-anal plate of E. sichuanensis sp. nov. is asymmetrical and T1 unspecialized, T7 and T9 are specialized. In the diagnosis of Symploce (Roth, 1984), the supra-anal plate was described as symmetrical, rarely asymmetrical, and T7 and T9 without specialization at the same time. Episymploce maxima sp. nov. was similar to the genus Symploce in regard to the supra-anal plate, but the subgenital plate of Symploce has a highly specialized style, while the subgenital plate of E. maxima sp. nov. has a simple style and T1 is unspecialized, T7 specialized, and the left and right plate of T9 are similar. We think that these two new species do not agree with the characteristics of Symploce and Hemithyrsocera, whereas they do agree with the characteristics of the genus Episymploce.