Hemipeplinae

Key to the Austro-Oriental Hemipeplinae (Adults)

Note: Owing to large number of species in this region with only subtle differences, examination of male genitalia might be necessary in some cases, particularly if the specimen has lost anatomical structures necessary for identification.

1. Temples absent (Figs 34–40)............................................................................ 2

- Temples present, although very indistinct in some specimens (Figs 41–60)........................................ 8

2. Antennomeres 5–11 subcylindrical (Fig. 34B) (Solomon Is.)...................... H. antennatus KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Antennomeres 5–11 submoniliform to subtriangular (Figs 35–40)............................................... 3

3. Hypomeral edges widely separated; body short, pale (Fig. 35) ( Australia)............. H. monteithi KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Hypomeral edges fused or very narrowly separated; body long, dark brown to pale (Figs 36–40)...................... 4

4. Eyes very large (as long as antennal scape + pedicel + antennomere III or even longer) (Figs 36B, 37B)................. 5

- Eyes not as large but still longer than scape + pedicel (Figs 38–40).............................................. 6

5. Eyes longer than scape + pedicel + antennomere III; scape more elongate (Fig. 36B) (New Guinea, Indonesia).................................................................................... H. gressitti KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Eyes about as long as scape + pedicel + antennomere III; scape distinctly less elongate (Fig. 37B) (New Guinea)............................................................................. H. neoguineensis KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

6. Body color dark brown with piceous shade on head and pronotum (Figs 38A–B) (New Guinea).............................................................................................. H. manusicus KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Body color uniformly pale to light brown (Figs 39.1–40.3).................................................... 7

7. Pale, shiny body (Figs 39.1A, 39.2A); pronotal pad wide and densely setose (Figs 39.1C, 39.2C), distinctly visible from dorsal view (Fig. 39.1B, 39.2B) ( Australia)................................................. H. australicus Arrow, 1930

- Pale to darker brown, dull body (Figs 40.1A, 40.2A, 40.3A); pronotal pad not nearly as wide or densely setose (Figs 40.1C, 40.2C, 40.3C), only slightly visible from dorsal view (Figs 40.1B, 40.2B, 40.3B) ( Philippines, Malaysia)...................................................................................... H. harkoneni KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

8. Temples at least 1/4 length of eye, easily distinguishable (Figs 41–43)........................................... 9

- Temples shorter than 1/4 length of eye, difficult to distinguish in some species (Figs 44–60)......................... 11

9. Pronotal pad absent (Fig. 41C); anterolateral pronotal margin produced slightly below the anterior axis (Fig. 41B) ( Laos)......................................................................... H. bucculentus KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Pronotal pad present (Figs 42C, 43C); anterolateral pronotal margin produced along the anterior axis (Figs 42B, 43B).... 10

10. Anterolateral pronotal margin smooth, broadly rounded, less produced (Fig. 42B); pronotum dark and very coarse, rugose; eyes moderate, subequal to scape + pedicel (Fig. 42B) ( Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia: Sumatra)................................................................................................. H. rugosus KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Anterolateral pronotal margin almost angulate, narrowly rounded, prominently produced (Figs 43.1B, 43.2B); pronotum dark in some specimens but less coarse; eyes small, only slightly longer than the scape (Figs 43.1B, 43.2B) ( Japan, Taiwan).................................................................................. H. miyamotoi Kamiya, 1961

11. Eyes large (distinctly longer than scape + pedicel) (Figs 44–52)................................................ 12

- Eyes moderately large to small (subequal or shorter than scape + pedicel) (Figs 53–60)............................. 20

12. Temples extremely indistinct, only as slight angles below the eyes (Figs 44B, 45B)................................ 13

- Temples distinct (Figs 46B–52B)........................................................................ 14

13. Pronotum narrower (GPW/PL: 1.11–1.20), convex disc (Fig. 44B); eyes very large (subequal to scape + pedicel + antennomere III) (Fig. 44B) ( Philippines)............................................... H. joerebeccae KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Pronotum wider (GPW/PL: 1.24), flatter disc (Fig. 45B); eyes smaller (slightly longer than scape + pedicel) (Fig. 45B) ( Philippines: Luzon)...................................................... H. luzonensis KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

14. Posterior pronotal angles angulate (Figs 46B, 47B, 48B)..................................................... 15

- Posterior pronotal angles rounded (Figs 49–52)............................................................ 17

15. Posterolateral angles of pronotum strongly acute and pointed (Fig. 46B) ( Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia)........................................................................................... H. klematanicus ( Gestro, 1873)

- Posterolateral angles of pronotum more obtuse and not as strongly pointed (Figs 47B, 48B)......................... 16

16. Pronotum very wide (GPW/PL: 1.32–1.35) with broad flat disc; posterior lobe distinct, rounded; eyes much longer than scape + pedicel (Fig. 47B) ( Australia).......................................... H. neoaustralicus KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Pronotum narrower (GPW/PL: 1.25) with slightly convex disc; posterior lobe truncate, indistinct; eyes only slightly longer than scape + pedicel (Fig. 48B) ( Malaysia: Sarawak)........................ H. pseudoklematanicus KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

17. Pronotum subquadriform, anterior half only slightly wider than posterior (Fig. 49B); eyes shallower or less convex (Fig. 49B) ( Philippines: Palawan)................................................. H. philippinensis KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Pronotum subcordiform, anterior half much wider than posterior (Figs 50B, 51B, 52B); eyes wider and more convex (Figs 50B, 51B, 52B).......................................................................................... 18

18. Eyes very large (as long as scape + pedicel + antennomere III) (Fig. 50B) (New Guinea: Madang)............................................................................................ H. exhaustus KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Eyes smaller (not as long as scape + pedicel + antennomere III, but longer than scape + pedicel) (Figs 51B, 52B)........ 19

19. Anterior pronotal margin barely emarginate, almost straight in most specimens (Fig. 51B); color rufous with somewhat darker hint on elytra (Fig. 51A); ventrally rufopiceous ( Indonesia: Enarotali)............ H. enarotaliensis KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Anterior pronotal margin slightly more emarginate (Fig. 52B); color rufotestaceous (Fig. 52A), with rufopiceous head and pronotum in some specimens, but never rufous; ventrally rufotestaceous ( Indonesia: Sulawesi).... H. nuciferae Arrow, 1930

20. Eyes moderately large (almost as long as scape + pedicel) (Figs 53–58)......................................... 21

- Eyes small (distinctly smaller than scape + pedicel) (Figs 59–60).............................................. 26

21. Pronotum subquadrate, anterior half only slightly wider than posterior (Fig. 53B) ( Philippines: Palawan)..................................................................................... H. palawanensis KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Pronotum subcordiform, anterior half much wider than posterior (Figs 54–58).................................... 22

22. Anterolateral angles produced upward rather than laterally; anterior emargination of pronotum broad and shallow throughout anterior margin (Figs 54–55)........................................................................... 23

- Anterolateral angles produced more laterally; anterior emargination of pronotum deeper and more in the middle portion of anterior margin (Figs 56–58)........................................................................... 24

23. Anterolateral margin of pronotum less raised/curved (Fig. 54B); inner margins of parameres of male genitalia smooth with no expansion (Fig. 54.1E) ( China)............................................... H. sinensis KC & Pollock , sp. nov .

- Anterolateral margin of pronotum more raised/curved (Fig. 55B); inner margins of parameres of male genitalia with broad expansions (Fig. 55E) ( Malaysia: Labuan)................................... H. labuanensis KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

24. Posterolateral angles of pronotum square to slightly obtuse, more angled than round (Fig. 56B); body with strong piceous shade; head and pronotum not rufous (Fig. 56A) ( Philippines)..................... H. nigerrimus KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Posterior angles of pronotum distinctly obtuse, rounded (Figs 57B, 58B); body with light piceous shade in some species (Fig. 58A); head and pronotum rufous (Figs 57B, 58B)........................................................... 25

25. Elytra not suffused in piceous shade; color uniformly rufous (Fig. 57A); male genitalia with parameres much broader, and penis and lobe of basale shorter (Figs 57D–E) (New Guinea)............................. H. craigi KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Elytra with light piceous shade on apical half in most specimens; color may not be uniformly rufous (Fig. 58A); male genitalia with parameres much thinner, and penis and lobe of basale longer (Figs 58D–E) ( Malaysia)................................................................................................ H. saymyname KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

26. Anterior pronotal margin not well-emarginate (Fig. 59B); pronotal pad more prominent (Fig. 59C) ( Indonesia: Papua)............................................................................ H. bromineus KC & Pollock , sp. nov.

- Anterior pronotal margin well-emarginate (Fig. 60B); pronotal pad less prominent (Fig. 60C) (widespread in New Guinea)....................................................................... H. heisenbergi KC & Pollock , sp. nov.