Bioacoustics of Psechrus tingpingensis

Remarks: Psechrus xinping Chen, Zhang, Song & Kim, 2002 is recognised as synonym of P. tingpingensis because the female copulatory organs of its holotype from Nangong Mountain and the paratype (SB 194) ( holotype of P. tingpingensis was not available on request, but it was collected at exactly the same locality as this paratype , see above) of P. tingpingensis from Tingping match ( Figs 55e–f , 56d,f ). The diagnosis for the female of P. xinping in Chen et al. (2002) is not cogent. The diagnosis for the male, however, is cogent. It is obvious that they relied on the description and illustration of the male P. tingpingensis sensu Wang and Yin (2001 , figs 31–32). They discriminated their male P. xinping from the one in that publication with good reason. However, the male illustrated in Wang and Yin is not at all conspecific with P. tingpingensis . According to their material list, Wang and Yin examined just one male from Shimen (a “real” P. tingpingensis , examined in the present study, too, see Figs 55a–d ). The other males were collected in Guangxi Prov., ca. 550 air km S SW, and in Vietnam , ca. 700 air km S SW of type locality of P. tingpingensis . The males and females from Vietnam were examined in the present study and have been recognised as representatives of a new, different species, P. obtectus sp. nov. (see below). In Wang and Yin (2001) only one male of the specimens they had considered as P. tingpingensis was illustrated, in fact one from Vietnam , as the examination of the respective material for the present study had shown. Hence, Chen et al. (2002) were the first (though unwittingly) to describe the male of P. tingpingensis , namely sub P. xinping . Feng (1990) provided a description of a ♂ and ♀ of Psechrus , which he identified as P. tingpingensis . According to the illustration in his fig. 9.2 the ♀ may be a P. tingpingensis . Wang and Yin (2001) , however, listed this “ P. tingpingensis ”-reference ( Feng 1990 ) in their synonymic list of P. kunmingensis , with the annotation “(female only) (misidentification)”. Maybe they did not recognise that, in fact, the male in Feng (1990 , fig. 9.3–5) was misidentified. According to those illustrations the respective male with its simple, filiform embolus and the simple, distally rounded conductor is definitely a different species. I believe that it belongs to the ancoralis -group. There are some similarities with P. khammouan , but it is more likely that it belongs to a new species. The ♀ illustrated in Feng (1990 , fig. 9.2) is either a P. tingpingensis or a P. kunmingensis , like Wang and Yin (2001) stated. In my opinion, however, P. kunmingensis is less likely, as the two characteristical lobes at posterior margin of median septum are missing in Feng’s illustration. Unfortunately Feng (1990) did not list the material he examined for his study. His illustrations are not informative enough to definitely identify the species he dealt with.