Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on the genera Themus Motschulsky and Lycocerus Gorham (Coleoptera, Cantharidae)

Abstract The following taxonomic or nomenclatural changes are proposed: Themus (s.str.) regalis (Gorham, 1889), nom. rest.; Themus (s.str.) scutulatus Wittmer, 1983 = Themus (s.str.) hmong Kazantsev, 2007, syn. n.; Themus (Telephorops) coelestis (Gorham, 1889) = Themus violetipennis Wang & Yang, 1992, syn. n.; Themus (Telephorops) uniformis Wittmer, 1983, stat. n. = Themus (Telephorops) cribripennis Wittmer, 1983, syn. n.; Themus (Haplothemus) licenti Pic, 1938, stat. rev., resurrected from synonymy with Themus coriaceipennis (Fairmaire, 1889); Lycocerus aenescens (Fairmaire, 1889) = Lycocerus tcheonanus (Pic, 1922), syn. n.; Lycocerus asperipennis (Fairmaire, 1891) = Lycocerus wangi (Švihla, 2004), syn. n.; Lycocerus borneoensis nom. n. for Athemellus atricolor (Wittmer, 1972); Lycocerus bilineatus (Wittmer, 1995) = Lycocerus amplus (Wittmer, 1995), syn. n.; Lycocerus fairmairei nom. n. et stat. rev. for Athemus dimidiaticrus (Fairmaire, 1889), originally in Telephorus, resurrected from synonymy with Lycocerus orientalis (Gorham, 1889); Lycocerus confossicollis (Fairmaire, 1891), comb. n. hereby transferred from Cantharis = Lycocerus multiimpressus (Wittmer, 1997), syn. n.; Lycocerus inopaciceps (Pic, 1926) = Athemus (Athemellus) bimaculicollis (Švihla, 2005), syn. n.; Lycocerus nigratus nom. n. for Lycocerus nigricolor (Wittmer, 1972), originally in Podabrinus; Lycocerus plebejus (Kiesenwetter, 1874) = Lycocerus brunneonotaticeps (Pic, 1922), syn. n. = Cantharis rufonotaticeps Pic, 1921 syn. n.; Lycocerus swampingatus (Pic, 1916), comb. n., hereby transferred from Cantharis. The neotypes of Themus violetipennis Wang & Yang, 1992 and Athemus (s.str.) maculithorax Wang & Yang, 1992 are designated respectively.


Introduction
This study presents some further taxonomic and nomenclatural clarification in the cantharid genera Themus Motschulsky, 1857 and Lycocerus Gorham, 1889, based on the examination of type specimens. See Wittmer (1961Wittmer ( , 1969Wittmer ( , 1972Wittmer ( , 1983aWittmer ( , 1995 for prior taxonomic changes. The present work primarily focuses on the Chinese species.

Material and methods
The aedeagi and the abdominal sternite VIII of female were dissected under a stereoscopic microscope, cleared in 10% KOH solution for several minutes, then placed in a droplet of glycerol and examined under a compound light microscope. Photographs of the type specimens were taken with a Canon 450D camera equipped with an EF 100mm f/2.8 USM lens. Line drawings were made with the aid of camera lucida attached to a Leica MZ12.5 stereomicroscope, and edited in the CorelDRAW 12 and Adobe Photoshop 8.0.1.
In the literature citations, the square brackets "[ ]" are used for my remarks and addenda. The type specimens are quoted verbatim, "[p]" indicated that the following data are printed and " [h]" that they are handwritten, and the quotation marks are used to separate data from different labels and a backslash "\" to separate data from different lines of the same label. The additional specimens are transliterated from Chinese labels, except those originally in English and cited in quotation marks.

Distribution. Vietnam.
Remarks. This species was originally described as Themus rufoscutus Pic, 1926 (located in Vietnam), which became a junior secondary homonym of T. rufoscutus (Pic, 1922) (located in Yunnan, China) since the taxonomic status of the latter was changed by Wittmer (1983a), so the former was replaced by T. (s. str.) scutulatus in the latter study. However, this nomenclature change was neglected by Kazantsev (2007), so that T. rufoscutus Pic, 1926 was replaced again by T. (s. str.) hmong. In the same work (Kazantsev and Brancucci 2007), the distribution of this species was recorded occurring in both Vietnam and China (Yunnan). Obviously, T. (s. str.) hmong is a junior objective synonym of T. (s.str.) scutulatus (ICZN, 4 th ed., article 72.7), which should be restricted to Vietnam and excluded from the Chinese fauna at the moment.   Wang & Yang, 1992 were deposited in the IZAS and China Agriculture University, Beijing, China (CAUB), but our search of the types in the two Chinese museums have been long, repeated and with no results. The original description of T. violetipennis was in accord with the standard of that time but insufficient considering the present level, and neotype allows us to satisfy a better comparision. Fortunately, a female specimen, which was collected at the same locality and date as that of one paratype designated by Wang and Yang (1992), was found in IZAS during our study. Its morphological characters are consistent with the original description, so it is designated as the neotype here, in order to clarify the taxonomic status of this species (ICZN, 4 th , article 75.3). Furthermore, a careful examination of the types shows that Themus violetipennis Wang & Yang, 1992 is a junior synonym of T. (Telephorops) coelestis (Gorham, 1889), which is widely distributed in China based on the data from a large series of examined specimens.  Wittmer, 1983b andT. bitinctus uniformis Wittmer, 1983a, we were unable to find differences justifying their separation, which has led us to consider all the examined specimens of both nominal species to be conspecific. Therefore, we synonymized T. cribripennis under T. bitinctus uniformis. Furthermore, T. bitinctus uniformis should be upgraded to the specific rank, because it is obviously different from T. bitinctus Wittmer, 1982 (located in Vietnam) in the aedeagus, except the difference in the elytra coloration from the latter.   Wittmer (1983a). However, examination of the holotypes of both nominal species shows that they are different species. Themus licenti is obviously different from T. coriaceipennis in the following characters: head (Fig. 3) width across eyes wider than anterior margin of pronotum, pronotum reddish brown with a large black marking in middle, abdominal sternite VIII of female (see Wittmer 1983a: fig. 111) deeply concaved on both sides of the middle emargination of posterior margin; while in T. coriaceipennis (Fig. 4), head width across eyes narrower than anterior margin of pronotum, pronotum uniformly dark brown, without any black marking, abdominal sternite VIII of female (Fig. 22) slightly concaved on both sides of the middle emargination of posterior margin. Therefore, we suggest Themus licenti Pic, 1938a be resurrected from synonymy with T. coriaceipennis (Fairmaire, 1889). (  Distribution. China (Gansu, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Henan, Hubei, Sichuan, Yunnan). Remarks. The neotype is designated for Athemus (s.str.) maculithorax Wang & Yang, 1992 here, according to the loss of the type, and for allowing a comparision based on most of the criteria (ICZN, 4 th , article 75.3). The latter's name was replaced by Athemus wangi by Švihla (2004) and now is placed in Lycocerus (Kazantsev and Brancucci 2007). Having examined the lectotype of L. asperipennis and a large series of additional specimens from China, we suggest L. wangi is a junior synonym of L. asperipennis, since that we could not find any difference to justify their separation.  (Pic, 1922), originally described in Cantharis.]

Distribution. Borneo.
Etymology. The new name is derived from this species' type locality "Borneo".
Remarks. This species was located in Borneo and originally described in Athemellus Wittmer, 1972, which was synonymized with Lycocerus Gorham, 1889 by Okushima (2005), so it should be placed in the latter genus for the time being. Because of this change, this species and Lycocerus atricolor (Pic, 1922) (originally in Athemus) become secondary homonyms and the junior is invalid (ICZN, 4 th , article 57.3.1), so its name is replaced by L. borneoensis nom. n. here. (Wittmer, 1995)   Remarks. Both Lycocerus amplus (Wittmer, 1995) and L. bilineatus (Wittmer, 1995) were originally described in Athemus and assigned to different subgenera. In the original manuscript (Wittmer 1995), L. bilineatus was described on a single male type, so it made no sense that it was attributed to the subgenus Isathemus because of no female available. Furthermore, having examined the holotypes of both nominal species and some paratypes, as well as a series of additional specimens, we could not find any difference justifying their separation, even in the tarsal claws, which is the character to distinguish the subgenera Athemus and Isathemus (Wittmer 1995 Wittmer (1972b) and now Lycocerus dimidiaticrus (Fairmaire, 1889), which however was neglected by Kazantsev and Brancucci (2007), and in the same original publication also a Telephorus dimidiaticrus Fairmaire, 1889: 41 which became Athemus dimidiaticrus by Wittmer (1972a) and now to be placed in Lycocerus, the two species become secondary homonyms and the junior is invalid (ICZN, 4 th , article 57.31.), so that a new name is needed, Lycocerus fairmairei nom. n., to replace the name of the latter species.
lished formally for this taxonomic change. In our opinion, this species is definitely a member of Lycocerus due to the following characters: pronotum subquadrate, all tarsal claws simple and the aedeagus with dorsal plates of parameres separated. At the same time, Lycocerus multiimpressus (Wittmer, 1997) is considered to be a junior synonym of L. confossicollis (Fairmaire, 1891) comb. n., since we could not find differences between both nominal species in their morphological characters, including appearance and aedeagus. Therefore, we suggest L. multiimpressus is a new subjective synonym of L. confossicollis. (Pic, 1916) (Fairmaire, 1889) 22 Themus (Haplothemus) coriaceipennis (Fairmaire, 1889). Scale bars: 1 mm.

Distribution. China (Sichuan).
Remarks. The type specimen of this species was damaged seriously, lacking the abdomen, thorax, all legs, one elytron and part of head, but its aedeagus has been kept well, of which dorsal plates of parameres are separated (Figs 19−21), which is a diagnostic character of Lycocerus (Okushima, 2005). This species is similar to L. canthariformis (Ishida, 1986) (located in Japan) in the pronotum, which is rounded, wider than long, lateral margins are arcuate and posterior angles rounded, but the aedeagus is differs from that of the latter. Also, it is related to L. pubicollis (Heyden, 1889) in the aedeagus, but obviously different from the latter in the pronotum. Consequently, we suggest the following new combination: Lycocerus swampingatus (Pic, 1916) comb. n.