Eotrogaspidia auroguttata ( Smith, 1855 )

Eotrogaspidia auroguttata ( Smith, 1855)

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:7DBC9CA9-FCC1-45AB-9A0C-3991FD25C166urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:3

( Figs 19A–19D)

Mutilla auroguttata Smith, 1855: 53 , ♀, holotype ♀ (“ Brasil ”, actually Xianggang [ = Hong Kong , China; Mickel 1939]) [NHMUK]; Dalla Torre 1897: 14; André 1902b: 72.

Mutilla repraesentans Smith, 1855 : Zavattari 1913: 29, ♀. Misidentification.

Mutilla analis Lepeletier, 1845 : Zavattari 1913: 41, ♂, part. Misidentification.

Timulla (Trogaspidia) disparilis Mickel, 1933a: 398 , ♂, holotype ♂ (Taihorin [= Dalin], [Chiayi], Formosa [= Taiwan]) [ZMNB]; Mickel 1933c: 314, ♂; Suzuki 1934: 23; Mickel 1935: 234, ♂; Wu 1941: 136. Synonymized by Lelej (1996b: 22) under Eotrogaspidia auroguttata ( Smith, 1855) .

Timulla (Trogaspidia) repraesentoides Mickel, 1933a: 411 , ♀, holotype ♀ (Hoozan [= Fengshan], [Kaohsiung], Formosa [= Taiwan]) [SDEI]; Mickel 1933c: 309, ♀; Suzuki 1934: 24; Mickel 1935: 254, ♀; Wu 1941: 136. Synonymized by Mickel (1939: 192) under Timulla auroguttata ( Smith, 1855) .

Timulla (Trogaspidia) auroguttata : Mickel 1939: 192, ♀.

Trogaspidia disparilis : Chen 1957: 168, ♂; Tsuneki 1972b: 6, ♂; Murota 1973: 119, ♂; Nambu & Tano 1983: 21, ♂; Tsuneki 1993: 48, ♂.

Trogaspidia auroguttata auroguttata : Chen 1957: 171, ♀.

Trogaspidia auroguttata repraesentoides : Chen 1957: 172, ♀; Tsuneki 1972b: 8, ♀.

Trogaspidia vallicola Tsuneki, 1993: 48 , ♀, holotype ♀ (Ssuchungchi, Pintung Pref. [= Pingtung], Taiwan) [MNHAH]; Hashimoto & Nakanishi 1997: 31. Synonymized by Okayasu et al. (2021a: 64) under Eotrogaspidia auroguttata ( Smith, 1855) .

Eotrogaspidia auroguttata : Lelej 1996b: 22, ♂ ♀; Lelej 2002: 81; Lelej 2005: 78; Hua 2006: 299; Pagliano 2011: 44, ♀; Terayama et al. 2011: 22, ♂ ♀; Lo Cascio 2015: 548; Okayasu 2016: 61, ♀; Terayama et al. 2016: 168, ♂ ♀; Barthélémy et al. 2018: 237 View Cited Treatment , ♂ ♀, part; Okayasu et al. 2018: 309, ♀; Ito 2018: 25, ♂; Williams et al. 2019b: 32 View Cited Treatment , ♀; Pagliano et al. 2020: 245; Pagliano & Scaramozzino 2021: 122, ♂ ♀; Okayasu et al. 2021a: 63 View Cited Treatment , ♂ ♀; Thaochan et al. 2022: 163, ♀; Boutin & Vilhelmsen 2024: supplementary table S2, S3, ♀; Barthélémy & Guénard 2025: 77, ♀.

Material examined. 3♂ 6♀. Vietnam: BAC KAN: Ba Be Nat. Park , 31.VII–2.VIII.2000, K. Okajima leg. [3♀ TUA] ; LANG SON: Huu Lung, Huu Lien, Lan Nghe , Huu Lien NR, 21°33'48.6"N 106°24'36.4"E, 289 m, 11.VI.2018, NTPL [= Nguyen Thi Phuong Lien], TXL [= Truong Xuan Lam], TTN [= Tran Thi Ngat], LVT [= Lam V. Tinh] & NTTH [= Nguyen Thi Thu Ha] leg. [1♂ IEBR] GoogleMaps ; VINH PHUC: Tam Dao , 21.440811°N 105.616088°E, 383 m alt., 7.VI.2023, L.T.P. Nguyen leg. [1♀ IEBR] GoogleMaps ; THANH HOA: Pu Luong N.R., Thanh Lam , 20.4315°N 105.1483°E, 900 m alt., 29.VII.2019, R. Matsumoto leg. [1♂ OMNH] GoogleMaps ; HA TINH: Vu Quang, Ben Cat , 18°19'30"N 105°23'8"E, 30 m, 8.VII.2023, X.L. Truong, T.P.L. Nguyen, Q.C. Nguyen & T.N. Tran leg. [2♀ IEBR] GoogleMaps ; QUANG TRI: Dak Rông, A Ngo , 150–200 m, 31.V.2006, ISD [= Insect Systematic Department] leg. [1♂ IEBR] .

Identification source. Voucher specimens ( Okayasu et al. 2021a).

Previous record. This species was recorded from Bac Kan, Dak Lak, Hoa Binh, Kon Tum, Nghe An, and Quang Ninh by Williams et al. (2019b), Okayasu et al. (2021a), and Boutin & Vilhelmsen (2024). Pagliano & Scaramozzino (2021) examined a single specimen from Vietnam, but additional locality data were unavailable.

Distribution. Bhutan. China. Taiwan. India. Indonesia. Japan. Laos. Myanmar. Thailand. Vietnam: Bac Kan, Lang Son *, Vinh Phuc *, Quang Ninh, Hoa Binh, Thanh Hoa *, Nghe An, Ha Tinh *, Quang Tri *, Kon Tum, Dak Lak.

Occurrence in Vietnam. March, June to August, October. South China-Vietnam subtropical evergreen forests, Northern Indochina subtropical forests, Luang Prabang montane rain forests, Northern Vietnam lowland rain forests, Northern Annamites rain forests, and Southeast Indochina dry evergreen forests ecoregions. 30–900 m alt. Forest.

Sex association. This species was initially described from the female only. The male was described as Timulla disparilis Mickel, 1933 and associated by Lelej (1996b) based on the sex association made by Børge Petersen, but the evidence of this association was not indicated. This association is supported by males and females repeatedly collected at the same place ( Williams et al. 2019b; Okayasu et al. 2021a).

Remarks. A habitus photo of the holotype of this species is available in Okayasu et al. (2018). Photos of the holotype of Timulla repraesentoides are available in Chan et al. (2025). This is one of the most widespread and common velvet-ant species in East Asia.