S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 46/2. (Budapest, 1985)

FOLIA ENTOMOLOGICA HUNGARICA ROVARTANI KÖZLEMÉNYEK XLVI. 2 1985 p. 173-177 On Chinessa furcella and the genus Melvertes (Heteroptera : Aradidae) By T. VÁSÁRHELYI (Received 31 July, 1985) Abstract: Chinessa furcella Vásárhelyi, 1976 is revalidated. Notoplocaptera dollingi Kormilev, 1983 is transferred to Zoroaptera, Zoroaptera malaisei Drake, 1956 to Notoplocaptera. Notoplocaptera malaisei Kormilev, 1963 is a junior synonym of N.malaisei (Drake, 1956). Keys are given to the species of the genera Zoroaptera and Notoplocaptera. With 14 figures. Aradid bugs are well known of their sometimes bizarre appearance, further, aptery leads to unexpected fusion of different sclerites and these are not always subject of observation or description. Since not much is known about the role or, on the other hand, the genetic determination of the different structures responsible for the strange habitus, there is lack of consensus about their taxonomic value. In the followings two taxa synonymized by KORMILEV (1983) will be treated, in the hope that with new information their suggested status is more acceptable. On Chinessa furcella Vásárhelyi, 1976 In the original description (VÁSÁRHELYI, 1976a) I treated its relation to Chinessa forfex Kormilev, 1971 mentioning a few distinguishing characters. According to KORMILEV (1983) the species in his key (1971:117) runs to Ch. bispiniceps Usinger et Matsuda, 1959, with which he put it into synonymy. The key in the third step separates species having a ventral spiracle VII, invisible from above, and those having a lateral one, visible from above. According to the original description Ch. furcella has ventrolateral spiracles on segment VII, "slightly visible" from above. This description means uncertainty considering the position, and also indicates that the species cannot be included into this key. If we consider, as KORMILEV did, the position of the spiracle lateral (though from above only the low tubercle carrying the spiracle is visible) we may identify furcella as bispiniceps

. To clear their status I asked for the type from the British Museum. Dr. DOLLING informed me that the type was not found there, not in accordance with USINGER and MATSUDA (1959) who described and figured the species on the basis of Walker

1 s specimen in the British Museum. I had the opportunity to study a male, identified by Dr. MONTEITH. On the basis of both, the original description and the specimen the following obvious differences between the two species were found: Chinessa furcella is distinctly longer, with much more prolonged head (Figs 1-3). Length of gena (taken from tip of clypeus) 56 % of midline length of head while it is 31-32 % in bispiniceps

. Antennae very similar (Figs 4-5 made with the same magnification). Pronotum is 1.86 times as wide as long in furcella while 2.24 times as wide as long in bi spiniceps

. Several other differences are figured (Figs 1-7) as relative length of antennái joint I, shape of postocular tubercles, posterolateral angles of connexiva VI-VII, shape of paratergites, etc. I do not consider the two taxa to be conspecific.