Pyrophanes similis Olivier

Pyrophanes similis Olivier View in CoL

( Figs. 54 View FIGURES 54-64 −66, 68, 69)

Pyrophanes similis Olivier 1885: 370 View in CoL ; 1902: 72; 1907: 72; 1910: 48.? Blair, 1927 Fig. 10 View FIGURES 3-10 (larva). McDermott, 1966: 117

Nec Pyrophanes similis var crassicrus Olivier 1885: 370 ; 1907: 56. McDermott, 1966: 117.

Type. Syntype male. INDONESIA: Sulawesi as Celebes Kandar 1.iv.74 O. Beccari male (bears identification labels as Pyrophanes similis syntype male) ( MNHN) ( Figs. 54−56 View FIGURES 54-64 , 65) .

Specimens examined. PHILIPPINES. Luzon, Cavite Province, Bacoor P. Stangl 3 males (identification label reading “ Luciola infuscata no authority) ( USNM). Luzon Rizal Province, Alabang 15.i.1946 B. Malkin 2 males ( USNM). Manilla D Fullaway male (identification label reads “ Colophotia sp. (perhaps Luciola infuscata Er. ) perhaps Pyrophanes bimaculata E O 1886 HSB 1940) ( USNM). Luzon Batangas Province Matabunkay (as Matabunskai) I Polunin 20 males 2 females ( ANIC). Palawan Ursula Is 29.xii.1980 R. de Keyzer 3 males ( ANIC). INDONESIA. Sulawesi (as Celebes) Macassar (sic) N Lepong Nov, 1949 Y Haneda male ( USNM).

Diagnosis. With yellowish pronotum and elytra, elytra with black area at apex (dorsal colouration like that of Py. similissima sp. nov.); one of three Pyrophanes with straight, non curved, non swollen hind femora, and relatively straight tibiae, differing from the similarly coloured Py. elongata sp. nov. by the short MPP (that of Py. elongata is considerably longer than the PLP) and the short laterally produced FS1 (that of Py. elongata is elongate and not laterally produced), and from Py. semilimbata in the elytral colour (that of Py. semilimbata is brown with paler lateral margins).

Male. 5.9–8.8 mm long (syntype 7. 6 mm). Colour ( Figs. 54−64 View FIGURES 54-64 ): pronotum, MS and MN orange yellow semitransparent; elytra pale light brownish, dark brown in apical 2/5–1/2, slightly more than in one Alabang male ( Fig. 57 View FIGURES 54-64 ); head antennae and palpi dark brown; ventral surface yellow except for white LOs in V6, 7; legs yellow except for brown tibiae and tarsi 1, brown apices of tibiae 2, 3 and brown tarsi 2, 3; basal ventrites semitransparent yellow with fat body visible beneath; V7 yellow in median area and across posterior margin; dorsal abdomen yellow. Pronotum: W/L 1.5–1.6; L/EL 0.2; L/BL 0.17–0.18; W/GHW 1.2–1.4. Head: GHW/SIW 4.3–4.5; ASD slightly <ASW. Antennae: elongate clavate scape, FS 1 subequal in length to short pedicel and slightly produced at outer apex; remaining FS not laterally produced. Legs ( Figs. 56, 58, 60, 61 View FIGURES 54-64 ): MFC with maximum of 11 teeth (7 strong and 4 fine in Alabang; 3–4 fine hairs only in Bacoor); femora 3 not strongly swollen or curved, tibiae 3 slightly curved, not strongly expanded at their apices (see Remarks). Abdomen ( Figs. 55, 56, 58, 60 View FIGURES 54-64 , 66): ventral surface of T8 as figured (Fig. 66); posterior margin with rounded posterolateral corners, shallow and wide median emargination; PLP elongate slender; incurving lobes not expanded at base, curving inwards just behind tips of PLP and inner apex reaching beyond pointed projection; MPP short about as wide as long with truncate apex. Aedeagus (Figs. 68, 69): L/W approximately 4–5; b/a = 0.9.

Remarks. Olivier (1885) described Py. similis as very similar to Luciola chinensis (presumably because of the similarity of the dorsal colouration) but distinguished by the appendages of the last ventral abdominal segment in the male. His figure 12, Plate VI is an inaccurate representation of the terminal abdomen (see previous discussion). Olivier (1902, 1907, 1910) erroneously listed a variety crassicrus . There is no variety of Py. similis listed on the page mentioned ( Olivier 1885: 370) and the name crassicrus does not appear.

Blair (1927) described an aquatic lampyrid larva from the southern Celebes, indicating that distributional records indicated the possibility it could be an immature stage of Py. similis . Bertrand (1972, 1973) repeated this record but with no new information. We were unable to identify this larva.

Interpretation of the nature of the hind legs in this species has been made from a single type specimen which was glued ventral surface to a card and subsequently removed ( Fig. 56 View FIGURES 54-64 ). The femora in this specimen are slightly more robust than those of the remaining specimens assigned here, but other characters like the nature of T8 are consistent throughout the group. Differences between similis and Py. similissima sp. nov. are most obvious when comparing Figs. 56, 58 View FIGURES 54-64 , and 60 with 74 where the characters of the hind legs are most pronounced.

Ballantyne & Lambkin (2009 Fig. 509) misrepresented the basal antennal segments of Py similissima sp. nov. as Py similis , and in 2013 (p. 111) these authors incorrectly keyed Py similis using the character of hind femora swollen.

A single male was taken by Haneda in Sulawesi at Macassar in November 1949 along with specimens of Py. similissima sp. nov.