taxonID	type	description	language	source
03F287DA8112AF31FF45B2BDFA5BFDEC.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. The specialized metathoracic scent gland ostiole (provided with a long and strongly widened, almost semicircular peritreme, evaporatorium strongly reduced) (Fig. 19: arrow; see also Fig. 12) is diagnostic for Scutellera. Other characters useful for recognizing this genus are the elongate oval body (Figs. 1 – 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 – 13, 15, 16, 18 – 23) covered by rather long, dense, erect to semierect pilosity, the presence of a wide and deep transverse furrow in the middle of the pronotum, and the long median furrow on the abdominal venter (extending to about the base of ventrite VII); these character states are also found in the closely related Brachyaulax Stål, 1871, although the median furrow is only distinct on ventrites II – III in the latter.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8112AF31FF45B2BDFA5BFDEC.taxon	description	Redescription. A redescription of the genus by Tsai et al. (2011) was based on S. nepalensis and S. perplexa. The transfer of S. spilogastra into Scutellera necessitates a revised redescription, as provided below. Body medium to large (about 15 – 25 mm), elongate oval, moderately convex dorsally and ventrally; dorsal outline of body distinctly excised between base of scutellum and base of pronotum in lateral view (Figs. 2, 12). Body surface and vestiture. Dorsum with strong metallic lustre, sometimes with dull to subshining black spots; venter dull with large metallic spots; body and legs covered by dense, erect to semierect pubescence, smooth, with very small and fine, densely and evenly distributed, uniform punctures, head, pronotal calli, and base of scutellum usually more finely or indistinctly punctured, calli bordered by large, coarse punctures anteriorly and posteriorly; scape and basipedicellite with very few, scattered hairs, distipedicellite and flagellum with short and dense pilosity. Head stout, 1.1 – 1.15 times as wide as its median length, 1.3 – 1.4 times (♂, ♀) as wide as interocular distance, convex, moderately declivous; lateral margin deeply emarginate anteriad to eyes, obtuse; clypeus slightly surpassing mandibular plates; mandibular plates rounded anteriorly; buccula unarmed; eyes relatively small, moderately protruding laterally; ocelli small, situated slightly posteriad to posterior margin of eye, relatively far from eye. Antenna five-segmented, apex of scape far remote from apex of head, basipedicellite much shorter than distipedicellite; scape and pedicellite cylindrical, basi- and distiflagellum flattened. Labium reaching from about base of abdomen to posterior margin of ventrite IV. Pronotum. Anterior margin with impressed collar; calli distinct, fused medially, demarcated by a wide and deep transverse furrow posteriorly, cicatrices distinct; lateral margin nearly straight or slightly concave, narrowly carinate; humeral angle rounded; posterior margin nearly straight; posterolateral angle angulate. Scutellum wide, usually leaving only extreme margin of abdomen, base of exocorium and extreme base of endocorium exposed; with an indistinct, obscurely demarcated basal tumescence; rather strongly tapering towards apex posteriad of middle; apically broadly truncate. Membrane not or only narrowly exposed beyond apex of scutellum at rest. Thoracic pleura and sterna. Anterior explanate part of proepisternum weakly projecting anteriad; pterothoracic sternum with rather deep median furrow; metathoracic scent gland ostiole provided with a long and strongly widened, almost semicircular peritreme occupying almost all the metepisternum, its anterior margin nearly straight, posterior margin widely convex, with a shallow furrow running along posterior margin (Fig. 19: arrow; see also Fig. 12); evaporatorium reduced, present only as narrow bands anteriad and posteriad of peritreme, not extending to mesopleuron (see also Tsai et al. 2011: 16, fig. 15 and Parveen et al. 2014: 240, fig. 2 G and 254, fig. 19). Legs short; femora thick, unarmed; dorsal surface of tibiae with a wide longitudinal furrow. Pregenital abdomen with a median longitudinal furrow extending to about base of ventrite VII; lateral margin obtuse; posterolateral angles of ventrites II – VI not produced, those of segment VII produced into a pair of conical, apically pointed processes; opening of dorsal abdominal scent glands of segment III far remote from lateral margin of abdominal tergites, situated about halfway between opening of those of segment IV and lateral margin of tergite IV. External male genitalia. Genital capsule (Figs. 30, 34, 38) narrowed posteriad, with a pair of minute submedian denticles on its posterior margin; dorsal setal patches continuous medially, band-like, narrowly bordering dorsal sinus; ventral setal patches extensive, situated on area of ventral infolding surrounding cuplike sclerite. Paramere (Figs. 31 – 33, 35 – 37, 39 – 41) fully sclerotized, lacking desclerotized neck, stem elongate and columnar, crown short and hooked, a lateral, apically blunt flange provided with setae present. Phallus (Figs. 42 – 52) symmetrical; phallotheca with a pair of callose thickenings dorsolaterally; conjunctiva with two pairs of processes (second and third pairs of the groundplan, cf. Tsai et al. 2011), second pair (cp-II) subdivided into cp-II 1 (lobe-like, of lateral position, at least partly sclerotized) and cp-II 2 (of mesal position, enclosed by cp-II 1, greatly membranous, with a sharp, sclerotized process apically), third pair (cp-III) heavily sclerotized, of various length and shape; aedeagus s. str. short, S-shaped, apex truncate; endophallic reservoir elongate oval, with double chamber, endophallic duct of two lumina system; aedeagal conducting tube very short, stout, constricted at middle, closely adhered to ventral angulate concavity of aedeagus s. str. External female genitalia. Ovipositor plates posterior, almost vertical (Figs. 53 – 55, 57 – 59, 61 – 63); laterotergites IX obliquely directed, fused valvifers IX partly exposed, with an obtuse median longitudinal keel. Gynatrium with a pair of long anterolateral pouches; ring sclerite long, far surpassing apex of fecundation canal, approaching apex of anterolateral pouch (frequently thin, inconspicuous, difficult to trace); a pair of small, transverse sclerites, occasionally fused along midline, present posteriad of spermathecal opening; fecundation canal forming a long and narrow, rodlike sclerite broadened or bifurcate distally, provided with a deep median furrow (Figs. 65, 67, 69). Spermatheca with distal duct somewhat shorter and narrower than proximal duct; dilation with wall regularly, obliquely fluted externally, thick, sclerotized, inner surface provided with several thin, lamellate projections projecting into the inner lumen, invaginations of proximal and distal spermathecal ducts simple, apical receptacle (Figs. 66, 68, 70) strongly elongate, with a globose apex.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8112AF31FF45B2BDFA5BFDEC.taxon	distribution	Distribution and diversity. The genus is endemic to Indomalaya, and it occurs all over the region, also entering the Wallacea marginally (Figs. 71, 72). It contains three described species.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8112AF31FF45B2BDFA5BFDEC.taxon	description	Phylogenetic considerations. Scutellera and Brachyaulax share a number of skeletal characters mentioned in the diagnosis. The genitalia of both sexes are also highly similar, including a similar articulatory apparatus (particulary the sclerotized part of the erection pump), the phallotheca being provided with a pair of callose thickenings dorsolaterally, the similar shape of the conjunctival processes (both cp-II and cp-III) and the aedeagal complex in the male, and the presence of a median longitudinal carina on the fused valvifers IX, the elongate fecundation canal with a pair of apical projections, and the similar spermathecal dilation in the female (cf. Tsai et al. 2011). These morphological similarities likely indicate a close phylogenetic relationship, probably a sister relationship, between these two genera. Scutellera (together with Brachyaulax) is a highly specialized genus of Scutellerini, exhibiting several putative apomorphies within the subfamily. Due to its specialized morphology the polarity of several characters within the genus is difficult to determine. The laterally emarginate genital capsules (Figs. 24, 25, 30 vs. 28, 29, 38), similar shape of the conjunctival processes (particularly the lobe-like, externally partly sclerotized cp-II 1) (Figs. 42, 43 vs. 46, 47), enlarged laterotergites VIII (Figs. 53 – 55 vs. 61 – 63), the similar shape of fused valvifers IX (Figs. 56 vs. 64), and the presence of a single transverse sclerite of the gynatrium posteriorad the opening of of spermathecal opening (Figs. 65 vs. 69) are apparently shared characters between S. nepalensis and S. spilogastra, but it is difficult to establish whether they are synapomorphies or symplesiomorphies. The problem cannot be solved without examining a larger sample of Scutellerini with cladistic methods. Remarks. Several authors in the early 19 th century (Latreille [1804 a], [1804 b], 1807, 1810, 1819, Leach 1814, Le Peletier & Serville 1828, Laporte [1833], Burmeister 1835, Blanchard 1840, etc.) used this generic name in a broad sense, in a way highly different from the current usage (sometimes also including various non-scutellerid pentatomoids with enlarged scutellum). Scutellera of Westwood (1837: 3), Germar (1839: 132) and Amyot & Serville (1843: 27) did not contain the type species (whilst all of them listed it under different genera), whilst the definitions of Scutellera provided by Hahn (1833: 172) and Schiødte (1843: 295) conflict with the type species and evidently correspond with Graphosoma Laporte, [1833] (Pentatomidae) and Tectocoris Hahn, 1834, respectively; accordingly they must be considered as misidentifications of the genus.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8117AF3FFF45B56DFAF2FD80.taxon	description	(Figs. 1 – 3, 11 – 13, 15, 16, 24, 25, 30 – 33, 42, 43, 48, 53 – 56, 65, 66)	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8117AF3FFF45B56DFAF2FD80.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Highly similar to S. perplexa, the morphology of the exoskeleton is virtually identical in the two species. In S. nepalensis the dorsal markings of the scutellum are invariably extensive, the oblique transverse fasciae always join the median vitta (Figs. 1, 2, 11, 12, 15); in S. perplexa the markings are highly variable (Figs. 18, 20, 22) but even in extreme cases the paired spots anteriad and posteriad of the middle of scutellum do not join the median vita (Fig. 20). The two species are most reliably separated by some characters of the terminalia of both sexes which can easily be observed even without dissection: in males of S. nepalensis the lateral margin of the genital capsule is deeply emarginate (Figs. 24, 25, 30: arrow), but simple in S. perplexa (Figs. 26, 27, 34); in females of S. nepalensis the laterotergites VIII are strongly enlarged, lobe-shaped and protruding (Figs. 53 – 55: arrow) whilst in S. perplexa they are much smaller, posteriorly flat (Fig. 57 – 59).	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8117AF3FFF45B56DFAF2FD80.taxon	description	Redescription. Colour. Dorsum deep metallic blue-green (S. nepalensis nepalensis) (Figs. 1, 2) or purple (S. nepalensis amethystina) (Figs. 11 – 13, 15, 16), with complex and extensive black pattern; a median vitta completely occupying clypeus and extending to base of head and a pair of broad, short sublateral vittae on vertex black; mandibular plates bright orange or at least with considerable reddish or orange iridescence; antenna black, scape brownish or red at least basally; labium orange to reddish, apex of segment II darkened, segments III – IV black; pronotum broadly margined with orange or red laterally, a broad median vitta, a pair of large transverse spots on calli, a pair of large sublateral spots and a pair of small humeral spots on posterior lobe of pronotum black; scutellum with a median vitta from its base to about its middle, gradually tapering posteriad, with a pair of rounded spots at posterior part of basal tumescence, a pair of obliquely transverse fasciae anteriad to middle joining median vitta, a pair of small marginal spots at middle, a pair of broad, obliquely transverse fasciae posteriad to middle approaching or joining posterior extremity of median vitta, and a large apical spot black; exposed portion of fore wing black, its base marginally orange; venter of head and thorax metallic green usually with considerable purplish lustre, base of head posteriad to eyes, lateral margin of propleuron, anterior margin of proepisternum, greatest part of pre-, mes- and metepimeroids together with most of pro-, meso- and metathoracic supracoxal lobes orange or reddish, peritreme of metathoracic scent gland ostiole bright red; coxae, trochanters and most of femora red, an apical annulus on each femora as well as tibiae and tarsi bright metallic green; abdominal venter bright orange, ventrite II greatly black except laterally, small patches surrounding spiracles III – VII black, a pair of broad black fasciae at anterior margins of each of ventrites III – VII (medially confluent on ventrite VII) black with extensive metallic blue-green or coppery areas posteriad of them on segments III – VI; genital capsule and female terminalia greatly red, genital capsule often with a large black spot ventrally. Body elongate, 2.3 – 2.4 times as long as greatest width. Body surface and vestiture as in the redescription of the genus. Pronotum relatively long, 1.6 – 1.7 times as broad as its median length, anterior margin broad, lateral margin nearly straight. Scutellum 1.6 – 1.7 times as long as broad. Membrane slightly exposed beyond apex of scutellum at rest. External male genitalia (Figs. 24, 25, 30 – 33, 42, 43, 48) (described in detail by Tsai et al. 2011). Genital capsule (Figs. 24, 25, 30) subrectangular, boadly transversely truncate posteriorly in dorsal view, minute submedian denticles on posterior margin broadly separated, lateral margin (ventral rim) distinctly emarginate (Figs. 24, 25, 30: arrow), with a pair of blunt tubercles immediately anteriad of concavity; infolding of ventral rim weakly protruding laterally, with a longitudinal ridge along meson adjacent to a pair of submedian depressions; dorsal setal patches situated along dorsal rim, ventral setal patches aside median projection of cuplike sclerite. Paramere (Figs. 31 – 33) with a relatively elongate and weakly curved crown with distal portion enclosing an acute angle with axis of stem. Phallus (Figs. 42, 43, 48): second conjunctival processes with a small, externally partly sclerotized lateral lobe (Figs. 42, 43, 48: cp-II 1) and a large mesal lobe (cp-II 2) (Figs. 42, 43, 48: cp-II 2) terminating in a small, denticle-like sclerotized process; third conjunctival processes (Figs. 42, 43, 48: cp-III) short, irregularly rod-like, apex with a sharp longitudinal edge; distal portion of aedeagus s. str. (Figs. 42, 43, 48: aed) and phallotreme broad. External female genitalia (Figs. 53 – 56, 65, 66). Ovipositor. Laterotergites VIII (Figs. 53 – 55: lt 8) enlarged, forming a pair of strongly protruding, rounded, lobe-like projections (Figs. 53 – 55: arrow) laterad of laterotergites IX; laterotergites IX (Figs. 53, 54: lt 9) obliquely directed, leaving sclerotized sternite X and median part of fused valvifers IX broadly exposed. Gynatrium (Fig. 65: gy) with ring sclerites (Fig. 65: rs) approaching apex of anterolateral pouch; small, paired sclerites posteriad of spermathecal opening fused along midline. Spermatheca: proximal duct (Fig. 65: pd) much longer than distal duct (Fig. 65: dd) and conspicuously longer than longitudinal diameter of dilation (Fig. 65: dil). Measurements (in mm). Body length to apex of scutellum 15.5 – 22.0; length of head 3.50 – 4.00, width across eyes 3.75 – 4.40, interocular distance 2.70 – 3.35; lengths of scape 0.95 – 1.05: basipedicellite 0.65 – 0.75: distipedicellite 1.45 – 1.90: basiflagellum 2.25 – 2.60: distiflagellum 2.20 – 2.40; median length of pronotum 4.00 – 5.50, humeral width 6.80 – 8.70; length of scutellum 10.0 – 13.7, greatest width 6.10 – 8.20. Intraspecific variability. The ground colour of the dorsum is strongly different between the populations in Indo-China (Fig. 1, 2) and the Malay Archipelago (Fig. 11, 12, 15), but it is invariable within each population. Accordingly, two geographic subspecies, S. nepalensis nepalensis and S. nepalensis amethystina, are recognized in the present work. The variability of the black markings of the body is insignificant. Preimaginal stages. Photos of egg batches and / or different larval instars were presented by Kanai & Sameshima (2011), Sameshima (2013) and Yiu & Yip (2012). Habitat, bionomics, economic importance. This species was recorded from oil-seed camellia, Camellia oleifera Abel (Theaceae) (Jiang 1985, Zhang et al. 1987) and persimmon, Diospyros kaki Thunb. (Ebenaceae) (Xiong 1995, Lin et al. 1999) in China. In Taiwan it frequently occurs on bishop wood, Bischofia javanica Blume (Phyllanthaceae) (Miyamoto 1965, Liu & Tseng 2005, Tsai et al. 2011); an invasive population occurring in the Ryūkyū Archipelago was observed on the same host plant (Kanai 2010, 2013, Kanai & Sameshima 2011). Adults and larvae mainly feed on the generative parts of the host plant and frequently aggregate (Kanai & Sameshima 2011, Sameshima 2013). Host plant records presented by Ahmad & Moizuddin (1978) and Ahmad et al. (1979) from Pakistan are based on misidentification and pertain to S. perplexa. No published data are available on its bionomics in the Malay Archipelago, but a specimen from Java examined during the present study was collected on fruits of Malay gooseberry, Phyllanthus acidus (L.) Skeels (Phyllanthaceae). The life cycle of the species was described based on observations in the Ryūkyū Archipelago (Kanai & Sameshima 2011, Sameshima 2013). Egg batches are laid on the leaves of the bishop wood, usually on the lower side, composed of 60 – 70 (Kanai & Sameshima 2011, Sameshima 2013) or up to 78 (our observation) eggs arranged in two rows. Eggs hatch 12 – 13 days after oviposition. First instar larvae aggregate around the empty egg shells without feeding. The postembryonic development is completed in about 28 days (Kanai & Sameshima 2011, Sameshima 2013). Although it was recorded as a pest of persimmon in China (Xiong 1995), it is probably of insignificant economic importance.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8117AF3FFF45B56DFAF2FD80.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species has a long and confused nomenclatural history, summarized below. (1) Its oldest name, Cimex amethystinus Lichtenstein, 1796 is unavailable, as it was published in a work suppressed for nomenclatural purposes (Opinion 1820) (ICZN 1995). (2) Cimex fasciatus Panzer, 1798 is a junior secondary homonym of Acanthia fasciata Fabricius, 1787 (junior synonym of Cimex (now Anthocoris) nemorum Linnaeus, 1761, Anthocoridae) subsequently combined with the generic name Cimex Linnaeus, 1758 by Villers (1789: 398) and Gmelin (1790: 2125) (cf. Dolling et al. 1999: 33). In spite of this homonymy this scutellerid species has commonly been referred to in the literature in the combination Scutellera fasciata. The relevant taxa have not been considered congeneric since about 1814. Kirkaldy (1909) explicitly treated C. fasciatus Panzer, 1798 as preoccupied and treated Scutellera amethystina (Germar, 1839) as the valid name of this species. This act is an explicit replacement (ICZN 1999, Art. 60) of the junior secondary homonym with an available and potentially valid synonym, therefore Cimex fasciatus is permanently invalid (ICZN 1999, Art. 59.3). (3) Tectocoris nepalensis Westwood, 1837 was synonymized with S. fasciata by Dallas (1851) and subsequently it has never been cited as valid except of Dolling et al. (1999: 7). (4) Calliphara amethystina Germar, 1839 is a junior secondary homonym and subjective junior synonym of Cimex amethystinus Lichtenstein, 1796, but as the latter is unavailable, it does not take precedence over the junior name. The name was used by Kirkaldy (1909) and several subsequent authors as the valid name of the biological species in concern, but this practice is erroneous, as this name is pre-dated by Tectocoris nepalensis Westwood, 1837. Dallas (1851) recognized all the above species as conspecific; all subsequent authors followed this interpretation. Based on the re-examination of the available types and dissection of several specimens from southeastern Asia (China, Taiwan, and Indonesia: Java) we concur with Dallas (1851) in recognizing them as conspecific. However, as the population in continental Asia and in the Malay Archipelago sharply and constantly differ in colour, and no transitional specimens were seen, we recognize them as two geographic subspecies. The lectotype of Tectocoris nepalensis pertains to the former one, that of Calliphara amethystina to the latter. As T. nepalensis is an available name, following Dolling et al. (1999) we recognize it as the valid name of the species, and downgrade C. amethystina to subspecies rank. Most of the previous authors used Scutellera amethystina as the valid name of this species, without differentiating subspecies. Previous literature records of S. amethystina therefore might pertain either to S. nepalensis nepalensis or S. nepalensis amethystina, or frequently to both of them. Such references are listed under the nominotypical subspecies in the literature reviews below. Tectocoris nepalensis was described based on an unspecified number of specimens (syntypes) (Westwood 1837). The single syntype deposited in OXUM (Figs. 1 – 4) was erroneously listed as the holotype of the unrelated species Poecilocoris nepalensis (Herrich-Schäffer, 1837) by Ahmad & Kamaluddin (1982), thus effectively designating it as the lectotype of the latter (ICZN 1999, Art. 74.6), however, invalidly, because the specimen in concern certainly cannot be considered as a syntype of that species (ICZN 1999, Art. 74.2). The same specimen is hereby designated as the lectotype of Tectocoris nepalensis Westwood, 1837. Göllner-Scheiding (2006) claimed that the syntype (s) of Calliphara amethystina were lost; however, four specimens deposited in the ZMHB were examined during the present study which likely represent syntypes, and one of them is designated as lectotype. The specimen figured by Lin et al. (1999: 47, fig. 15 - 85) identified as S. fasciata is apparently S. perplexa. The specimen in the photograph of Ho (2003: 195) identified as S. amethystina and the painting of Cai & Li (2015: 157) purportedly showing S. fasciata both represent Brachyaulax cyaneovitta (Walker, 1867). The specimen photographed by Parveen & Gaur (2015: 181) as S. fasciata represents Tetrarthria variegata Dallas, 1851. A partial 16 S rRNA gene sequence for S. nepalensis nepalensis (as S. amethystina) was provided by Hsieh et al. (2019) and it is available from GenBank (accession no. HG 810206.1).	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8117AF3FFF45B56DFAF2FD80.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Scutellera nepalensis is widely distributed in the Sub-Himalayan belt, South China, Indo-China, Taiwan, the Ryūkyū Archipelago, and the Malay Archipelago (Fig. 72); see also under its two subspecies.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA811FAF3BFF45B10BFF3EF9B0.taxon	description	(Figs. 1 – 3)	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA811FAF3BFF45B10BFF3EF9B0.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Differs from S. nepalensis amethystina in the blue-green ground colour of the body.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA811FAF3BFF45B10BFF3EF9B0.taxon	distribution	Distribution. This subspecies is distributed in Indo-China and westwards it extends to the southern slopes of the Central Himalaya (Fig. 72), but apparently it does not occur west of the Ghaghara (= Karnali) River. Its mass occurrence was recently observed in the Ryūkyū Archipelago (Okinawa Is.: 2006, Amami-Ōshima Is., Kakeromajima, Tokunoshima, Okinoerabu Is., Takarajima: 2010, Kikai Is.: 2012) (Kanai 2010, 2013, Kanai & Sameshima 2011) where it arrived either via natural spread or human transport. A specimen was seen from Luzon; it probably also represents a migrating individual, the presence of stable populations in the Philippines is unlikely. The records from Pakistan (e. g. Ahmad & Moizuddin 1978, Ahmad et al. 1979) are based on misidentifications and pertain to S. perplexa; specimens of S. perplexa, misidentified by I. Ahmad and A. A. Khan as S. fasciata, have been examined (SDEI, USNM). The record from Belgaum, Karnataka, India (Distant 1902) is apparently based on misidentification too, a female from this locality deposited in BMNH pertains to S. perplexa. The single record from Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) (Hoffmann 1935) is also considered erroneous. The record from Yanyuan, Sichuan, China (Zhang & Lin 1992) is apparently based on misidentification as well, we have seen a voucher specimen (IZAS) from the same locality pertaining to S. perplexa. Hua (2000) listed it from Henan, China, but the source of this information is unclear and occurrence of this species so far north is unlikely.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA811FAF3BFF45B10BFF3EF9B0.taxon	materials_examined	INDIA. West Bengal!; Sikkim!; Assam! — NEPAL! — BURMA (MYANMAR). Shan State!; Mandalay: Zibingyi (Chandra 1953); Bago: Pegu [= Bago] (Distant 1902). — THAILAND. Chiang Mai Prov.!; Mae Hong Son Prov.!; Prachuap Khiri Khan Prov.! — CHINA. Yunnan: Longling!, Ruili, Xishuangbanna: Menglong (Yang 1962, Hsiao & Cheng 1977), Guangnan (Jiang 1985); Guangxi!; Hainan: Jianfengling!, Nodoa [= Nada] (Hoffmann 1932 b); Guangdong!; Fujian: Fuzhou!, Zhangzhou (Chen et al. 1985, Lin et al. 1999); Hong Kong!; Macau (Hoffmann 1935). — JAPAN. Tokara Islands: Takara Is. (introduced?) (Kanai & Sameshima 2011, Sameshima 2013, Ishikawa 2016); Amami Islands: Amami-Ōshima Is.; Kakeromajima Is.; Tokunoshima Is., Okinoerabu Is., Kikai Is. (introduced?) (Kanai & Sameshima 2011, Takai & Ishikawa 2012, Kanai 2013, Sameshima 2013, Ishikawa 2016); Ryūkyū Islands: Okinawa Is.! (introduced?); Yaeyama Islands: Ishigaki Is.! (introduced?). — TAIWAN (several localities were listed by Tsai et al. 2011). — LAOS. Luang Namtha Prov.!; Hua Phan Prov.! — VIETNAM. Lao Cai Prov.!; Hòa Bình Prov.! — PHILIPPINES. Luzon: Los Baños! Type material examined. Tectocoris nepalensis Westwood, 1837. Lectotype (present designation): ♂, “ Type ” [c with red margin], “ Nepal ” [hw], “ nepalensis Hope ” [hw], “ Scutellera \ fasciata \ Panz. ” [hw], “ TYPE. \ = = \ WESTW. (HOPE) \ C. Hemipt. 1837 \ Part I, page [pr] 14. [hw] \ Distant, P. Z. S. \ 1900, p. 807 - 825. ” [with dark red margin], “ TYPE HEM.: No 28 [hw] \ CALLIDEA [hw] \ OBTUSA [hw] \ WESTWOOD [hw] \ HOPE DEPT. OXFORD [pr] ” [with black margin]; pinned, left antenna, right flagellum, segment III of right fore leg, and right hind leg lacking, right side of abdominal ventrites IV – VI badly damaged (OXUM) (Figs. 1 – 4). Additional specimens examined. JAPAN. Ryūkyū Islands: Okinawa Is.: Yaeshima Park, 23. ix. 2008, leg. M. Sugimoto (6 ♂♂ 2 ♀♀ NSMT), On’na-son, 9. ix. 2006, leg. M. Matsuba (1 ♀ NSMT); Yaeyama Islands: Ishigaki Is.: vii. 1923, leg. S. Hirayama (1 ♂ SEHU, labelled as type of “ Lamprocoris honshana n. ” [unpublished name] by S. Matsumura). — INDIA. West Bengal: Dardjiling [= Darjeeling], leg. A. Desgodius, coll. R. Oberthür 1900 (1 ♂ MNHN), Gopaldhara, 4. vii. 1916, H. Stevens, B. M. 1922 - 307 (1 ♀ BMNH), same locality, 4720 ft., [19] 14, H. Stevens, B. M. 1922 - 307 (1 ♀ BMNH), Gopaldhara, Rungbong [= Rangbhang] Valley, H. Stevens, B. M. 1922 - 307 (2 ♂♂ 2 ♀♀ BMNH), Darjeeling, Nurbong, 2050 ft., [19] 14, H. Stevens, B. M. 1922 - 307 (1 ♀ BMNH), Nurbong, leg. W. R. Webb, coll. Stevens, B. M. 1922 - 307 (1 ♂ 2 ♀♀ BMNH); Sikkim: coll. Noualhier (1 ♀ MNHN), coll. Christie (1 ♂ ZSMC); Assam: 5 km N of Umrongso, 25 º 27 ’ N 92 º 43 ’ E, 700 m, 21. v. 1999, leg. L. Dembický & P. Pacholátko (1 ♂ 1 ♀ NHMW), Assam (1 ♀ BMNH). — NEPAL. Gandaki Distr., Gorkha, 600 – 1500 m, 1. vi. 1999, leg. Z. Andrš (1 ♂ MMBC), Bagmati Distr., Tris [h] uli, Bazar-Samri, Bhanjyang, 8. vi. 1993, leg. J. & J. Probst (1 ♀ NHMW), Tamba Kosi Tal [= T ~ K ~ valley], 1000 – 1400 m, 30. iii. 1964, leg. W. Dierl (1 ♀ NMPC). — BURMA (MYANMAR). Shan State: Kalaw (1 ♂ 1 ♀ RMNH). — THAILAND. Chiang Mai Prov.: 56 km NW of Chiang Mai, 7 – 14. vi. 1995, leg. M. Snížek (1 ♀ ZJPC); Mae Hong Son Prov.: Ban Huai Po, 5. v. 1991, leg. J. Horák (1 ♀ NMPC), same locality, 1 – 5. v. 1992, leg. J. Strnad (1 ♀ NMPC), same locality, 1600 m, 8 – 17. v. 1992, leg. S. Bílý (1 ♂ NMPC), same but 15 – 19. v. 1996 (1 ♀ NMPC), same locality, 1600 – 2000 m, 8 – 18. v. 1992, leg. J. Horák (1 ♂ NMPC), Ban Si Lang env., near Mae Hong Son, 1200 m, 23 – 31. v. 1991, leg. J. Horák (1 ♂ ZJPC); Prachuap Khiri Khan Prov.: Hua Hin, 19. v. 2011, leg. S. Ohmomo (1 ♀ NMNS). — CHINA. Yunnan: Longling, 25. v. 1964, leg. Y. H. Chen (1 ♀ SYSU); Guangxi: [Longzhou], Longjin, Mt. Daqing, 1200 m, 18. ix. 1958, leg. D. X. Gu (1 ♀ SYSU), Shang’en, Zhongnan Township, 200 m, 10. xi. 1958 (1 ♀? lacking terminalia SYSU); Hainan: Jianfengling, 1. xii. 1980, leg. M. B. Gu (1 ♀ NKUM); Guangdong: Gaoyao, Dinghu, 12. x. [19] 74, leg. Z. Y. Chen (1 ♀ SYSU), Canton [= Guangzhou], xii. 1924, coll. J. Duchaine 1927 (1 ♂ MNHN), Canton [= Guangzhou], Honam Is., P’an-yu Distr. [now Haizhu Distr.], 19. xii. 1939 (1 ♂ SYSU), same but 1 – 7. ii. 1948 (1 ♀ NKUM), [Guangzhou,] Lingnan Campus [now Sun Yat-Sen University campus], 25. iii. [19] 37, leg. W. Ching (1 ♀ SYSU); Fujian: Foochow [= Fuzhou], 1935 – 1936, leg. M. S. Yang, coll. Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, B. M. 1948 - 548 (3 ♂♂ 5 ♀♀ BMNH); Hong Kong: ii – iv. [18] 94, leg. J. J. Walker (1 ♀ BMNH). — TAIWAN. Pingtung County: Bozan [= Fangshan], 30. vi. 1925, leg. J. Sonan (1 ♂ SEHU, labelled as type of “ Lamprocoris bozanensis n. ” [unpublished name] by S. Matsumura); several additional localities were listed by Tsai et al. (2011). — LAOS. Luang Namtha Prov.: Pou Lan, 13. v. 1918, R. Vitalis de Salvaza, B. M. 1918 - 1 (1 ♂ BMNH); Huaphanh Prov.: Ban Saluei [= B ~ Saleui] → Phou Pane Mt [s]., 20 ° 12 – 13.5 ’ N 103 ° 59.5 ’ – 104 ° 01 ’ E, 1340 – 1870 m, 15. iv. – 15. v. 2008, primary mountain forest, individual collecting, Lao collector (1 ♂ 1 ♀ NMPC), Phu Phan [= Phou Pane] Mts., 20 º 12 ’ N 104 º 01 ’ E, 1500 – 1900 m, 17. v – 3. vi. 2007, leg. V. Kubáň (1 ♀ MMBC). — VIETNAM. Lao Cai Prov.: Sa Pa, Đèo Tr ạm Tôn, 31. v. 1999, leg. S. Nomura (1 ♂ NSMT); Hòa Bình Prov.: Hoa-Binh [= Hòa Bình], viii. [19] 40, coll. A. de Cooman (2 ♂♂ 1 ♀ MNHN> IZAS), same locality, coll. A. de Cooman 1927 (1 ♀ MNHN). — PHILIPPINES. Luzon: Los Baños, leg. Baker (1 ♀ USNM).	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA811DAF3AFF45B19DFBA9F866.taxon	description	(Figs. 11 – 13, 15, 16)	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA811DAF3AFF45B19DFBA9F866.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Differs from the nominotypical subspecies in the purple ground colour of the body.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA811DAF3AFF45B19DFBA9F866.taxon	distribution	Distribution. This subspecies is widely distributed in the Malay Archipelago, and extends to Wallacea (Lombok Is., Sulawesi, Ambon Is.; a specimen from an unspecified locality of the Sunda Islands was seen as well) (Fig. 72). The record from Malacca (Walker 1867) might pertain to this subspecies or it is possibly erroneous.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA811DAF3AFF45B19DFBA9F866.taxon	materials_examined	INDONESIA. Sumatra!; Borneo: Pelaihari!; Java!; Bali Is.!; Lombok Is.!; Sulawesi!; Ambon Is.!; Sunda Islands: unspecified locality! Type material examined. Calliphara amethystina Germar, 1839. Lectotype: ♂, “ 2 ”, “ Java Hag ” [hw, badly darkened], “ Var \ villosa Hagenb ” [hw, badly darkened], “ pilosa De Haan \ Java De Haan ” [hw yellow sq], “ Java \ Hagenb. ” [yellow, hw], “ amethystina \ Stoll. 251 ” [hw], “ Scutellera \ nobilis F. \ var. ” [hw]; pinned, distiflagelli of both antennae and right mid leg lacking (ZMHB) (Figs. 11 – 14). Paralectotypes (1 ♂ 2 ♀♀): “ Cat. No 2 ” [hw], “ Java \ Hagenb. ” [yellow, hw], “ Scutellera \ nobilis F. \ var. ” [hw] (1 ♂ 2 ♀♀ ZMHB). Callidea lanius Stål, 1854. Lectotype (present designation): ♀, “ Java ” [hw], “ lanius \ Stål. ” [hw], “ Type. ”, “ Typus ” [red, with pr black frame], “ NHRS-GULI \ 000044793 ”; pinned, right distiflagellum, right fore tarsus, left mid leg, left hind tarsus lacking (NHRS) (Figs. 15 – 17). Paralectotype: ♀, “ Java ”, “ Stål ”, “ Type. ”, “ Paratypus ” [red, with pr black frame], “ NHRS-GULI \ 000044794 ”; pinned, left distiflagellum, right flagellum, right fore and mid legs, and tibia and tarsus of right hind leg lacking (NHRS). Additional specimens examined. INDONESIA. Sumatra: Deli [Serdang], leg. H. Fruhstorfer (1 ♂ NHMW), same but leg. L. Martin (1 ♀ ZMHB), Tandjong [= Tanjung] Morawa, leg. B. Hagen (1 ♀ RMNH), Sumatra, coll. Noualhier 1898 (1 ♀ MNHN), Kepahiang, v. Lansberg (1 ♂ RMNH); Borneo: Pleihari [= Pelaihari], 1866, leg. Semmelink (1 ♀ RMNH), Borneo (2 ♂♂ NHMW), same, coll. Muller (1 ♀ RMNH); Java: Batavia [= Jakarta], coll. P. Serre 1904 (2 ♂♂ MNHN), same locality, Novara Exp. (1 ♂ 2 ♀♀ NHMW), same locality, 11. v. 1881, leg. Moskowi (1 ♀ NHMW), same locality, Jagor, 7100 (1 ♀ ZMHB), Baai v. Batavia [= Jakarta Bay], 1928, leg. W. C. v. Heurn (2 ♂♂ RMNH), Buitenzorg [= Bogor], leg. A. Ward, B. M. 1901 - 313 (1 ♀ BMNH), same locality, leg. v. d. Hoeven (1 ♂ RMNH), same locality, [18] 98, leg. Fleischer (2 ♂♂ 1 ♀ ZMHB), same locality, 1918, leg. W. Roepke, coll. D. MacGillavry (5 ♂♂ ZMAN> RMNH), same locality, 16. viii. 1926, on fruit of Phyllanthus acidus (1 ♀ RMNH), same locality, 250 m, 17. iv. 1923, No. 612, leg. L. G. E. Kalshoven (1 ♂ RMNH), Boitenzorg [= Buitenzorg, = Bogor] (3 ♀♀ ZMHB) Sukabumi, 2000 ft., 1893, leg. H. Fruhstorfer, coll. Noualhier 1898 (1 ♀ MNHN), Preanger [= Parahyangan], Regentschappen [= Regencies], 1899, coll. M. Bartels (1 ♂ 1 ♀ ZMAN> RMNH), Preanger [= Parahyangan], Ardja-Sari [= Arjasari], coll. D. MacGillavry (1 ♀ ZMAN> RMNH), Pengalengan, 4000 ft., 1893, leg. H. Fruhstorfer (1 ♀ NHMW), Palabuan, coll. Noualhier 1898 (1 ♂ MNHN), Noesa [= Nusa] Kambangan, x. 1917, coll. D. MacGillavry (1 ♀ RMNH), Kediri, coll. W. L. Distant, B. M. 1911 - 383 (1 ♀ BMNH), Malang (1 ♂ HNHM), Java (3 ♀♀ BMNH, 1 ♂ 2 ♀♀ RMNH), same, coll. Muller (1 ♂ 3 ♀♀ RMNH), same but coll. v. Hasselt (1 ♂ RMNH), same but coll. Hagenb [eck] (2 ♂♂ 2 ♀♀ ZMHB), same but coll. Breddin (2 ♀♀ SDEI), same but coll. Noualhier 1898 (1 ♂ 1 ♀ MNHN), same but coll. Signoret (1 ♂ 1 ♀ NHMW), same but coll. W. L. Distant, B. M. 1911 - 383 (2 ♀♀ BMNH), same but leg. Xántus (1 ♂ HNHM), same locality, 1868, leg. Warsberg (1 ♀ NHMW), same locality, ii. 1917, coll. D. MacGillavry (1 ♂ ZMAN> RMNH), same locality, 1924 – 1927, leg. W. C. v. Heurn (3 ♂♂ 6 ♀♀ RMNH), same locality, No. 257, leg. L. G. E. Kalshoven (1 ♀ RMNH); Bali Is.: 24. ii. 1998 (1 ♂ 1 ♀ NSMT); Lombok Is.: i. 1988, native collector (1 ♀ NSMT); Sulawesi: Celebes [= Sulawesi] (1 ♀ BMNH), same but leg. Wallace, coll. Saunders, 65 - 13 (1 ♀ BMNH); Ambon Is.: Amb [oina] [= Ambon Is.], leg. Wallace, coll. Saunders, 65 - 13 (1 ♂ BMNH); Sunda Islands: coll. Gedult [18] 88 (1 ♀ NHMW).	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8103AF2CFF45B026FE34FD2C.taxon	description	(Figs. 18 – 23, 34 – 37, 44, 45, 49 – 51, 57 – 60, 67, 68)	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8103AF2CFF45B026FE34FD2C.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Highly similar to S. nepalensis, the morphology of the exoskeleton is virtually identical in the two species. The dorsal markings of S. perplexa are highly variable (Figs. 18, 20, 22) but even in extreme cases the paired, obliquely transverse fasciae anteriad and posteriad of the middle of scutellum do not join the median vitta to form an extensive, confluent pattern as in S. nepalensis (Figs. 1, 2, 11, 12, 15). The two species are most reliably separated by the genitalia as it is explained under the Diagnosis of S. nepalensis.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8103AF2CFF45B026FE34FD2C.taxon	description	Redescription. Colour. Dorsum bright metallic blue-green, with complex black markings (Figs. 18, 20) which might be reduced or completely lacking (Fig. 22); head uniformly metallic blue-green, without black markings except of a pair of narrow, linear, parallel vittae margining clypeus and extending to base of head; scape orange to red with a narrow black annulus apically, pedicel and flagellum black; labium orange to reddish, segment III darkened, segment IV black; pronotum broadly margined with orange or red laterally, cicatrices narrowly bordered by black, a broad median vitta, a pair of small, oval submedian spots and a pair of small humeral spots on posterior lobe black; scutellum with a median vitta from its base to about its basal half, gradually tapering posteriad, with a pair of rounded spots at posterior part of basal tumescence, a pair of oval submedian spots anteriad and another pair posteriad to middle, invariably separated from median vitta, a pair of small marginal spots at middle, and a large subapical spot black; exposed portion of fore wing black, its base marginally orange; venter of head, thorax and abdomen as described in S. nepalensis. Morphology of the exoskeleton as in S. nepalensis. External male genitalia (Figs. 26, 27, 34 – 37, 44, 45, 49 – 51). Genital capsule (Figs. 26, 27, 34) subrectangular, boadly transversely truncate posteriorly in dorsal view, minute submedian denticles on posterior margin broadly separated, lateral margin (ventral rim) not emarginate and lacking distinct tubercles; infolding of ventral rim conspicuously bulging laterally, without distinct ridge along meson. Paramere (Figs. 35 – 37) similar to that of S. nepalensis but crown more strongly curved, its distal portion almost perpendicular to axis of stem. Phallus (repose: Figs. 44, 45, 51; inflated: Figs. 49, 50): second conjunctival processes with a large, flap-like lateral lobe (cp-II 1) with its ventral portion provided with several minute denticles, and with a mesal lobe (cp-II 2) terminating in a relatively long, claw-shaped sclerotized process; third conjunctival processes (cp-III) long, gradually tapering towards apex but distalmost portion again broadened; distal portion of aedeagus s. str. and phallotreme narrow. External female genitalia (Figs. 57 – 60, 67, 68). Ovipositor (Figs. 57 – 60). Laterotergites VIII flat, not protruding posteriad; laterotergites IX rather broadly rounded distally, closely approaching each other or adjacent along midline, greatly covering sternite X and median part of fused valvifers IX. Gynatrium (Fig. 67) with ring sclerites rather broadly separated from apex of anterolateral pouch proximally; a pair of small sclerites posteriad of spermathecal opening. Spermatheca: proximal duct slightly longer than distal duct and longitudinal diameter of dilation. Measurements (in mm). Body length to apex of scutellum 16.0 – 20.5; length of head 3.50 – 3.75, width across eyes 3.75 – 4.30, interocular distance 2.60 – 3.05; lengths of scape 1.00 – 1.13: basipedicellite 0.73 – 0.88: distipedicellite 1.85 – 1.90: basiflagellum 2.30 – 2.60: distiflagellum 2.25 – 2.55; median length of pronotum 3.95 – 5.20, humeral width 6.80 – 8.65; length of scutellum 10.0 – 13.2, greatest width 5.95 – 7.70. Intraspecific variability. The black markings of the dorsum are strongly variable, individuals lacking any markings (Figs. 22, 23), others with extensive markings (Fig. 18 – 21), and various transitional forms exist. Individuals with strongly reduced or absent black markings are most common in the Malabar Subregion and Sri Lanka. Preimaginal stages. Descriptions, figures or photos of the egg batch and different larval instars were presented by Nicéville (1903), Ahmad & Moizuddin (1978) (misidentified as S. fasciata), Parveen et al. (2010), J. P. Singh et al. (2014), K. Singh et al. (2014), Onkar & Nerlekar (2015), Singh & Kaur (2015) and Jamwal et al. (2020). Karyotype. 10 + XY (Manna 1951, Jande 1959). Detailed description and figures were presented by Manna (1951). Bionomics, economic importance. The species was recorded (partly as S. nobilis) from the jujube species Ziziphus nummularia (Burm. f.) Wight & Arn. (as S. fasciata, misidentification) and Z. jujuba (Burm. f.) Wight & Arn. (both Rhamnaceae), neem, Azadirachta indica A. Juss. (Meliaceae) (Ahmad et al. 1979, as S. nobilis and S. fasciata, misidentification), and on Xanthium strumarium L. (Asteraceae) (Baloch et al. 1968, as both S. nobilis and S. perplexa) in Pakistan. In India it is common in sandal wood plantations on Santalum album L. (Santalaceae), Phyllanthus emblica L. and Ph. acidus (L.) Skeels (= Ph. distichus Müll. Arg.) (both Phyllanthaceae) (Bainbrigge Fletcher 1920, Chatterjee 1934, Beeson 1941, Kavadia et al. 1971, Datta et al. 1985, Ghosh et al. 1994, Ghosh 2008, Aland 2014). It is a well-known pest of physic nut, Jatropha curcas L. (Manoharan et al. 2006, Ambika et al. 2007, Prabhakar et al. 2008, Divakara et al. 2010, Parveen et al. 2010, Ranga Rao et al. 2010, Sharma & Srivastava 2010, Tara & Sharma 2010 a, Sahai et al. 2011, Singh et al. 2013, K. Singh et al. 2014, Jamwal et al. 2020 etc.); it probably also feeds on J. nana Dalzell & A. Gibson (Kulkarni et al. 2009) (both Euphorbiaceae). Further plants recorded as its host plants in India include Antidesma ghaesembilla Gaertn. (Manna 1951) (Phyllanthaceae), Emblica officinalis Gaertn. (Meshram & Garg 1999, Pathan et al. 2019), ricinus (castor), Ricinus communis L. (Nair 1975, 1986, Panwar 1995) (all Euphorbiaceae), the jujube species Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. (Rhamnaceae) (J. P. Singh et al. 2014), citrus plants (Ebeling 1950) and the curry tree, Murraya koenigii (L.) Spreng. (Tara & Sharma 2010 a, 2010 b) (both Rutaceae), Casearia tomentosa Roxb. (Flacourtiaceae) (Cotes 1896, Chatterjee 1934), Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. (Sapindaceae) (Chatterjee 1934, Beeson 1941), Buchanania cochinchinensis (Lour.) M. R. Almeida (Anacardiaceae) (Onkar & Nerlekar 2015), grape vine, Vitis vinifera L. (Vitaceae) (Nicéville 1903, Mathur et al. 1958, Nair 1975, 1986, Singh & Kaur 2015), cotton, Gossypium sp. (Malvaceae) (Bainbrigge Fletcher 1920, Nair 1975, 1986, Khokhar & Khokhar 2004) and “ wild melon ” (unspecified species of Cucurbitaceae) (Chatterjee 1934). It was reported to damage “ gooseberry ” (probably Indian gooseberry, Phyllanthus emblica L., Phyllanthaceae) (Ranga Rao et al. 2010) as well, but the nature and extent of the damage it caused was not stated and is probably insignificant; a specimen collected on this plant in Andra Pradesh, India, was seen during the present study. FIGURES 65 – 70. Scutellera spp., ectodermal genital tract of female. Figs. 65, 66, S. nepalensis (Westwood, 1837); Figs. 67, 68, S. perplexa (Westwood, 1837); Figs. 69, 70, S. spilogastra (Walker, 1867). Gynatrium and spermatheca, dorsal view (Figs. 65, 67, 69); apical receptacle (Figs. 66, 68, 70). Abbreviations: dil = dilation of spermatheca; dd = distal duct of spermatheca; fec = fecundation sclerite; gy = gynatrium; pd = proximal duct of spermatheca; rs = ring sclerite; v 8 = ventrite VIII; va 8, va 9 = valvulae VIII, IX. Scales in mm. Host plants reported from China include Indian gooseberry (Zhang et al. 1994); “ mandarin orange ”, probably referring to Citrus ponki (Hayata) hort. ex Tanaka and / or other hybrids and cultivars based on C. reticulata Blanco, and other unspecified citrus species (Rutaceae) (Hsiao & Cheng 1977, Yang 1988, Shen 1993, Hua 2000); oilseed camellia, Camellia oleifera Abel (Theaceae) (Chen et al. 1985, Yang 1988, Shen 1993, Yu & Sun 1993, Lin et al. 1999, Zhang & Chen 2003); tung tree, Vernicia fordii (Hemsl.) Airy Shaw (all Euphorbiaceae) (Zhang et al. 1987); olive, Olea europaea L. (Oleaceae) (Zhang et al. 1987, Yang 2007); Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh. (Zhang et al. 1987), E. urophylla S. T. Blake and its hybrid species with E. grandis W. Hill (all Myrtaceae) (Huang & Song 2008); and Alnus cremastogyne Burkill (Betulaceae) (Zhang et al. 1987). Records from Yunnan pine, Pinus yunnanensis Franch., and unspecified pine trees (Pinaceae) (Chen et al. 1985, Zhang et al. 1987, Yang 1988, Shen 1993, Yu & Sun 1993, Shi & Xu 2006) are considered as questionable. Detailed studies on the life history of this species were presented by Ambika et al. (2007), Parveen et al. (2010), Sahai et al. (2011) based on observations made on populations developing on physic nut in northern India and by Sharma & Srivastava (2012) and Jamwal et al. (2020) based on laboratory colonies. Their data are partly unclear and contradictory but apparently suggest that the species is bivoltine and follows the phenology of the plant that exhibits fruit production from midsummer to late autumn. Individuals are active all year round, with a peak in the monsoon season (June to August), but with reduced activity during the hottest and coldest months; they migrate to surrounding plants or weeds when the plants defoliate (Parveen et al. 2010, Jamwal et al. 2020). Copulating pairs can be found from April to late November, but most abundantly from June to August. Oviposition apparently takes place mostly in late March (Sahai et al. 2011) and in August (Sahai et al. 2011) or September – October (Parveen et al. 2010). Eggs are laid usually on the undersides of young leaves, more rarely on the stems, petioles or fruits of the host plant in a single batch forming two rows, containing about 26 – 52 (laboratory) or 37 – 71 (field) eggs. The fecundity is 76 – 84 eggs / female (Ambika et al. 2007, Jamwal et al. 2020). Eggs hatch after 5 – 7 days; first instars remain aggregated around the empty shells for about three days, then disperse, but the subsequent instars frequently exhibit aggregating behaviour too. The postembryonic development takes about 27 days (Ambika et al. 2007, Parveen et al. 2010, Sahai et al. 2011, Sharma & Srivastava 2012, Jamwal et al. 2020). No published information is available about its life history in China. It is a major pests of the physic nut in India. Adults and larvae mainly attack the flowers, young green fruits and fruit pedicels. Feeding on the inflorescence causes premature flower fall (Prabhakar et al. 2008). Feeding on fruits cause punctures on the pericarp; strongly injured fruits will deform, dark necrotic spots appear around the place of the feeding, the pericarp will frequently rupture; the damage was studied in detailed and damaged fruits were illustrated by Sahai et al. (2011) and Jamwal et al. (2020). It causes deformed or hollowed seeds, decreases seed production (Sahai et al. 2011, Jamwal et al. 2020) and reduces the weight of the pod (Ambika et al. 2007) and the quality and quantity of the oil (Parveen et al. 2010). Fruits on the periphery of the bunch are affected more severely. An indirect damage is inflicted by fungi attacking the fruits through the feeding punctures (Parveen et al. 2010). Feeding on the leaf causes chlorotic or necrotic spots and premature leaf fall (Jamwal et al. 2020). The species inflicts serious damage on Murraya koenigii in northern India by feeding on the fruits, seeds and leaves (Tara & Sharma 2010 a, 2010 b). It causes significant harm to citrus trees as well (Ebeling 1950). Mass occurrence on the jujube species Ziziphus mauritiana, with individuals present on more than 75 % of the trees in the plantation, resulting in serious damage was reported from Jharkhand, India (K. Singh et al. 2014). It is a minor pest of Ziziphus nummularia in Pakistan (Ahmad & Moizuddin 1978), and of the grape vine (Mathur et al. 1958, Singh & Kaur 2015), Phyllanthus acidus (Kavadia et al. 1971) and Emblica officinalis (Meshram & Garg 1999, Pathan et al. 2019) in India. Yang (1962) claimed that it is a forestry pest in China but without providing any details. Slight damage caused by this species in plantations of Eucalyptus spp. was reported (Huang & Song 2008) and it was listed among pests of mandarin orange (Chen & Yang 1989), olive (Yang 2007) and Yunnan pine (Shi & Xu 2006) in southern China without further details. Li et al. (1997) listed it as minor pest of citrus crops in southern China. The record of an unidentified Scutellera sp. inflicting damage in physic nut plantations in Sichuan (Zhou et al. 2008) probably pertains to this species. Kavadia et al. (1971) found that carbaryl, malathione, lindane, and “ BHC ” (= hexachlorobenzene) are effective against the species in descending order; the latter two are now banned under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Ambika et al. (2007) and Sharma & Srivastava (2010) found that the species can effectively be controlled in physic nut plantations using lambda-cyhalothrin, imidacloprid, carbosulfan, monocrotophos or dichlorvos. Patel & Borad (2010) compared the efficacy of several plant-derived insecticides. Biological control might be perspectivic as the entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana (Bals. - Criv.) Vuill. and Metarhizium anisopliae (Metchnikoff) Sorokin (both Clavicipitaceae) were found to be effective in reducing the population under laboratory conditions (Ambika et al. 2007). The hymenopteran egg parasitoids Anastatus bangalorensis Mani & Kurian, 1953 (Eupelmidae), Trissolcus jatrophae Rajmohana, Narendran & Manoharan, 2011 (Scelionidae), and unidentified species of Eurytomidae and Pteromalidae, as well as tachinids also have role in controlling the populations of S. perplexa in India (Manoharan et al. 2006, Rajmohana et al. 2011).	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8103AF2CFF45B026FE34FD2C.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Cimex nobilis Linnaeus, 1763 was listed by Fabricius (1775: 697, 1794: 80) together with two very brief and inadequate redescriptions which nevertheless greatly overlap therefore apparently pertain to the same biological species. In the second work Fabricius (1794) referred to illustrations of scutellerids by Stoll (1780: pl. I fig. 1), Schröter (1776: pl. I fig. 9) (both unnamed) and Sulzer (1776 b: pl. XI fig. c) (as Cimex nobilis) as putatively pertaining to Cimex nobilis. However, none of these illustrations actually show Cimex (now Calliphara) nobilis. Westwood (1837) correctly pointed out the misidentification and proposed the name Tectocoris perplexa for “ Nobilis. Fab. non Linn. ”, presumably referring to Fabricius (1775, 1794). The name is accordingly to be treated as proposed by indication (ICZN 1999, Art. 12.2.1), and its type material consisted of an unspecified number of specimen (s) of the Hope collection (Westwood 1837) plus specimens in the collection of Fabricius (Hemiptera now deposited in ZMUC) and those of Stoll, Sulzer and Schröter (now all lost) (ICZN 1999, Art. 72.4.2). No specimen which could be considered as a syntype could be located during a visit of us to OXUM where F. W. Hope’s collection, including most of O. J. Westwood’s Hemiptera types, are currently deposited; no specimen of this species was listed by Zimsen (1964); and Lars Vilhelmsen informed us that no specimen of this genus is present in Fabricius’s collection at ZMUC either. The species, however, is a distinctive one unquestionably identifiable from the above mentioned three illustrations of early authors, and except of a few evident misidentifications almost all subsequent authors identified the species accordingly. As there is a general agreement among the authors about the identity of this species, currently there is no exceptional need (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3) to designate a neotype. A redescription and illustrations are provided in the present work to facilitate identification of the species. Although the misidentification of Cimex nobilis sensu Fabricius (1775, 1794) was already correctly pointed out by Westwood (1837), still several subsequent authors persisted in referring to the species as Scutellera nobilis, but with the authorship of J. C. Fabricius. This practice is incorrect and should be discontinued. The photos presented by Shanker & Dhyani (2006) and Anitha & Varaprasad (2012) as S. nobilis are based on misidentification and pertain to Chrysocoris purpureus (Westwood, 1837). A partial sequence of the mitochondrial gene of cytochrome oxidase subunit I (mtDNA-COI) of S. perplexa was provided by Babu & Livingstone (2014).	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8103AF2CFF45B026FE34FD2C.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Widely distributed in the Indian Subcontinent, Southern China and Indo-China, restricted to the zone of tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests (Fig. 71). The records of S. fasciata (= S. nepalensis) from Pakistan (Ahmad & Moizuddin 1978, Ahmad et al. 1979) apparently pertain to this species (see discussion under S. nepalensis). We provide first country records for Nepal, Vietnam and Laos. The records from Henan (Hsiao & Cheng 1977, voucher specimen seen) and Shaanxi (Wen & Yang 2007) are perhaps based on mislabelled or migrating specimens, the presence of stable population of this species in these areas seems unlikely. Old specimens were seen from Palawan, the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, and Java (in all cases without precise localities), but these are doubtful, almost certainly representing cases of mislabelling or at best accidental introductions.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA8103AF2CFF45B026FE34FD2C.taxon	materials_examined	PAKISTAN. Swat Distr.!; Islamabad!; Punjab: Lahore!, Gojra (Maxwell-Lefroy 1909 a, as nobilis); Sind: Karachi (Atkinson 1887, Distant 1902, Ahmad et al. 1979, all as nobilis); North-West Frontier Province: Kaghan (Ahmad et al. 1979, as noblis [sic]). — INDIA. Jammu and Kashmir: Ladakh!, Jammu, Kathua and Samba Districts (Tara & Sharma 2010 a, Jamwal et al. 2020); Himachal Pradesh!; Punjab: Panjab [= Punjab] (Atkinson 1887, as nobilis), Ludhiana (Singh & Kaur 2015); Uttarakhand!; Haryana (Khokhar & Khokhar 2004, as nobilis); Delhi (Parveen et al. 2010, 2014); Uttar Pradesh: Barkachha (Sharma & Srivastava 2010, as nobilis), Lucknow (Sahai et al. 2011); Gujarat: Anand (Patel & Borad 2010, as nobilis), Vadodara (Kumar & Naidu 2010, as nobilis), Jagudan (Pathan et al. 2019, as nobilis); Madhya Pradesh: Churikhurd (Meshram & Garg 1999, as nobilis), Jabalpur Distr. (Chandra 2008, as nobilis; Sheikh & Iqbal 2017); Maharashtra: Mumbai!, Matheran!, Ahmednagar!, Pune (Kulkarni et al. 2009, as nobilis; Onkar & Nerlekar 2015), Kolhapur Distr. (Aland et al. 2010, Nikam & More 2016, both as nobilis); Goa!; Karnataka: Belagavi!, Srirangapatna!, Ablathi!, Bangalore [= Bengaluru] (Distant 1902, as nobilis), Fraserpet [= Kushalanagar], Kottur [u] (Chatterjee 1934, as nobilis); Kerala!; Tamil Nadu: several localities!, also Salem: Aiyur, Jawalagiri (Chatterjee 1934, Chandra 1953, both as nobilis); Puducherry!; Andhra Pradesh: Anakapalle!, Visakhapatnam (Biswas & Bal 2007, as nobilis); Chhattisgarh: Barnawapara Wildlife Sanctuary (Chandra & Kushwaha 2012, as nobilis); Odisha (Orissa)!; Bihar: Pusa (Chatterjee 1934, Chandra 1953, both as nobilis); Jharkhand: Konbir!, Ranchi (J. P. Singh et al. 2014); West Bengal: Kolkata!, Gopaldhara!, Asansol (Lethierry 1891, as nobilis), S [h] ibpur (Manna 1951); Sikkim!; Assam: Cachar [= Silchar] (Atkinson 1887, as nobilis); Meghalaya!; Manipur (Distant 1902, as nobilis). — SRI LANKA! — NEPAL! — BURMA (MYANMAR). Mon State!; Tanintharyi Region!: Moulmein (Dallas 1851, Distant 1901, 1902, all as nobilis), Tavoy [= Dawei] (Distant 1902, as nobilis). — THAILAND. Chiang Rai Prov.!; Chiang Mai Prov.! — CHINA. Shaanxi?: Sangyuan National Nature Reserve? (Wen & Yang 2007); Henan?: Xinyang! [in error?], Xuchang?, Shangcheng? (Yu & Sun 1993, Shen et al. 2014); Shanghai!; Sichuan!; Guizhou: Libo (Wu 1984); Yunnan: all over the province!, several additional localities by Yang (1962), Hsiao & Cheng (1977), Jiang (1985), Zhang et al. (1987) etc.; Guangxi!; Hainan!; Guangdong!; Fujian: Fuzhou!, Jianyang!, Sanming (Chen et al. 1985, Lin et al. 1999), Hua’an, Longhai, Changtai (Huang & Song 2008); Macau (Kirkaldy 1910). — VIETNAM. Ho Chi Minh City!, Hanoi [= Hà N ội] (Claybrooke 1903, as nobilis). Specimens examined. PAKISTAN. Swat Distr.: Kalam, 6800 ft., 8. x. 1966, leg. R. Traub (1 ♀ USNM); Islamabad: 20. xi. [19] 75, from Zizyphus jujuba, leg. Mohsin (1 ♂ SDEI, 1 ♂ 1 ♀ USNM, all det. as S. fasciata by A. A. Khan, 1981), same but 17. xi. [19] 75 (1 ♀ SDEI, det. as S. fasciata by A. A. Khan, 1981); Punjab: Lahore, 18. vi. [19] 65, leg. Rahi [?] (1 ♂ USNM, det. as S. fasciata by I. Ahmad, 1975). — INDIA. Jammu and Kashmir: “ Tibet: Ladak ” [= Ladakh], coll. Felder (1 ♂ 2 ♀♀ RMNH), Jammu (Tara & Sharma 2010 a, 2010 b); Himachal Pradesh: Sadhupul, nr. S [h] imla, 1250 m, 27. x. 1978 (1 ♀ SEHU); Uttarakhand: Lansdowne Division, F. W. C. (2 ♀♀ BMNH), Sarda [= Sharda River?], F. W. C. (1 ♂ BMNH), Dehra Dun: Dobhalwalla [= Dobhalwala], 2304 ft., on Jatropha curcas, 4. xi. 1945, leg. J. K. Uniyal, coll. J. C. Lutz 1961 (5 ♂♂ 6 ♀♀ USNM), Kumaon, Almora, H. G. C. (3 ♂♂ BMNH), Kumaon, Gori Valley, 4000 ft., H. G. C. (1 ♂ BMNH); Maharashtra: Bombay [= Mumbai] (1 ♀ HNHM, 1 ♀ ZSMC), same, coll. Bergroth (1 ♀ MZHF), same, coll. Leith> W. L. Distant, B. M. 1911 - 383 (1 ♂ 2 ♀♀ BMNH), Matheran, 800 m, 8. viii. [1] 902, leg. Bíró (1 ♀ HNHM), Achmednagar [= Ahmednagar], coll. Gebauer (2 ♂♂ 2 ♀♀ NHMW), ca. 30 km W of Patan, 17 º 22 ’ N 73 º 54 ’ E, 570 m, near river, 12. vi. 2006, leg. Z. Kejval (1 ♂ MMBC); Goa: Mormugao, vi. 1925, leg. J. C. Bridwell (2 ♂♂ 3 ♀♀ USNM), 30 km S of Margao, env. of Palolem, 0 – 20 m, 15 º 00.47 ’ N 74 º 01.58 ’ E, 14 – 21. viii. 2002, leg. P. Šípek & M. Fikáček (1 ♂ 1 ♀ NMPC); Karnataka: Belgaum [= Belagavi], 88.148 (1 ♀ BMNH), Chikkaballapura, T. V. Campbell, ix. [19] 14, B. M. 1930 - 599 (1 ♂ BMNH), same but iii. 1915 (1 ♀ BMNH), Seringapatam [= Srirangapatna] (1 ♀ HNHM), Ablathi, 800 m, 12.17 ºN 76.06 ºE, x. 1984, leg. W. Lorenz (1 ♀ ZSMC); Kerala: Malabar, coll. W. L. Distant, B. M. 1911 - 383 (1 ♀ BMNH), same, leg. Speyer, coll. G. Breddin (1 ♀ SDEI), S. Travancore, Thekkadi [= Thekkady], leg. Bourdillon, coll. G. Breddin (1 ♀ SDEI), Periyar Dam, Travancore, 6 – 10. v. [19] 37, B. M. – C. M. Expedition to South India 1937 (1 ♀ BMNH), Trivandrum [= Thiruvananthapuram] Distr., Poonmudi [= Ponmudi], 900 m, iv – v. [19] 71, leg. P. Susai Nathan (1 ♀ BPBM); Tamil Nadu: Nilgiri [Hills], leg. Hampson, coll. W. L. Distant, B. M. 1911 - 383 (1 ♀ BMNH), Nilgiri Hills, 20. x. 1983, leg. H. Kitahara (2 ♀♀ NSMT), Kodai Kanal [= Kodaikanal], T. V. Campbell, B. M. 1930 - 599 (2 ♂♂ BMNH), Madura [i]: Shembaganur, coll. H. Rolle (1 ♀ RMNH), Ana [i] mala [i] Hills, Cinchona [= Cinkona], 3500 ft., v. 1960, leg. P. Susai Nathan (1 ♀ RMNH), Anaimalai, Top Slip, 550 – 800 m, 2. xii. 1978 (1 ♂ 3 ♀♀ SEHU), Hasanur, Biligirirangan Hills, 29. iv. [19] 37, B. M. – C. M. Expedition to South India 1937 (1 ♀ BMNH), Coimbatore, vii. [19] 26, leg. P. Susai Nathan, coll. C. J. Drake 1956 (1 ♂ 1 ♀ USNM), same but x. 1937, leg. P. Susai Nathan, coll. H. M. Harris [19] 74 (1 ♂ USNM), same but 11. viii. 1938 (1 ♀ USNM), same locality, vii. [19] 46, leg. P. Susai Nathan (1 ♂ 1 ♀ NMPC), same but vii. [19] 47 (2 ♂♂ 1 ♀ NMPC), same locality and collector, 4. iv. 1963, B. M. 1966 - 407 (1 ♀ BMNH), same locality and collector, 1400 ft. (1 ♀ RMNH), same but iv. 1960 (3 ♀♀ RMNH), same but xi. 1966 (1 ♂ 2 ♀♀ ZMAN> RMNH), same but x. 1968 (1 ♂ 3 ♀♀ ZMAN> RMNH), Coimbatore Distr., Marudamalai Hills, 1800 ft., x. 1969, leg. P. Susai Nathan (2 ♂♂ 2 ♀♀ ZMAN> RMNH), Walayar, 9. ix. 1938, leg. P. Susai Nathan, coll. H. M. Harris [19] 74 (1 ♂ USNM), Walayar Forest, 1000 ft., ix. 1951, leg. P. Susai Nathan, coll. J. C. Lutz 1961 (3 ♀♀ USNM), same but vii. 1952 (2 ♂♂ USNM), same but viii. 1952 (2 ♂♂ 1 ♀ USNM), Shembaganur, leg. A. Heyne (1 ♀ SDEI), Madras (1 ♂ 1 ♀ RMNH, 1 ♂ USNM, 1 ♂ 1 ♀ ZSMC), same, coll. Signoret (1 ♀ NHMW), same, coll. G. Breddin (2 ♂♂ 1 ♀ SDEI), same but coll. Moore (1 ♀ RMNH); Puducherry: Pondichéry [= Pondicherry, Puducherry], coll. E. le Moult (1 ♀ RMNH), same but coll. Signoret (1 ♂ 1 ♀ NHMW), same but 1902, coll. Maindron (1 ♀ MNHN> IZAS), Kar [a] ikal, x. 1968, leg. P. Susai Nathan (1 ♀ BPBM); Andhra Pradesh: Anakapalli [= Anakapalle], breeding on Phyllanthus emblicus [= emblica], ii. 1925, leg. J. R. Rao (1 ♂ 1 ♀ BMNH); Odisha (Orissa): Balasore, 21. vii. 1915, leg. H. Lindsay (2 ♂♂ 1 ♀ BMNH); Jharkhand: Konbir (1 ♀ USNM), Kombir [= Konbir] (1 ♂ USNM); West Bengal: Calcutta [= Kolkata] (1 ♀ HNHM, 1 ♂ 1 ♀ USNM), same but coll. E. T. Atkinson, B. M. 92 - 6 (1 ♀ BMNH), same but vi. 1968, leg. D. W. P., coll. P. Roche (1 ♀ RMNH), Gopaldhara, Rungbong [= Rangbhang] Valley, H. Stevens, B. M. 1922 - 307 (1 ♀ BMNH), Gopaldhara, 1916, H. Stevens (1 ♂ BMNH); Sikkim (1 ♀ HNHM); Meghalaya: Garo Hills, 1500 - 2500 ft., coll. W. L. Distant, B. M. 1911 - 383 (1 ♂ BMNH), W Garo Hills, 25 º 30.7 ’ N 90 º 13.9 ’ E (WGS 84), 600 – 800 m, 29 – 31. v. 1996, leg. E. Jendek & O. Šauša (1 ♀ NHMW). — SRI LANKA. Trincomali [= Trincomalee], ix. 1910 (2 ♀♀ MZHF), xii. 1979, leg. P. J. J. H. Kuijten & F. Bouricius (4 ♀♀ RMNH), Trinconmale [sic, = Trincomalee], coll. Felder (1 ♀ RMNH), Tri [ncomalee] Distr.: China Bay, 0 – 100 ft., 27 – 31. i. 1977, leg. K. V. Krombein, P. Fernando, D. W. Balasooriya & V. Gunawardane (1 ♀ USNM), Anuradhapura, leg. W. Horn (5 ♀♀ SDEI, 1 ♀ USNM), same, 1899 (3 ♂♂ 1 ♀ SDEI, 2 ♀♀ USNM), same locality, 19 – 21. xii. 1910, leg. A. Luther (1 ♂ 1 ♀ MZHF), Kala Wewa, 12. ii. [18] 96, leg. Madarász (2 ♂♂ HNHM), same but 14. ii. [18] 96 (1 ♀ HNHM), same but 17. ii. [18] 96 (1 ♀ HNHM), env. of Dambulla, 300 m, 19. iv – 9. v. 1991, leg. J. Kolibáč (1 ♀ ZSMC), Polonnaruwa, Girit [h] ale, 12. iii. 1981, leg. M. Cofais (22 specimens MNHN), Wilpattu [National Park], Hunuwilagama, Wildlife Soc [iety] Bungalow, 200 ft., 10 – 19. iii. 1970, leg. Davis & Rowe (1 ♂ USNM), Kandy, leg. M. Löbell (1 ♂ NHMW), same but coll. E. T. Atkinson, B. M. 92 - 6 (1 ♀ BMNH); same but xi. [18] 97, coll. G. W. Kirkaldy, B. M. 1912 - 513 (2 ♂♂ BMNH), Marawila, 50 km N of Colombo, 1970, leg. P. Kandulawa (1 ♂ 3 ♀♀ ZSMC), Colombo, coll. Nickerl (1 ♀ NMPC), Colombo Distr., Ratmalana Airport, 27. x. 1973, leg. M. & B. Robinson (2 ♂♂ 2 ♀♀ USNM), Wellawaya, 3. i. [19] 28, Imp. Bur. Ent., B. M. 1930 - 197 (1 ♂ 1 ♀ BMNH), Inginiyagala, 2 – 4. vi. 1975, leg. D. H. Messerschmith, G. L. Williams & P. B. Karunaratne (1 ♀ USNM), same but 1 – 5. vi. 1975 (2 ♂♂ 1 ♀ USNM), Ham [bantota] Distr., Palatupana tank, 10 – 16 m, 6 – 7. x. 1980, leg. K. V. Krombein, P. B. Karunaratne, T. Wijesinhe & V. Gunawardane (1 ♂ 2 ♀♀ USNM), Palatupana, WLNPS [= Wild Life and Nature Protection Society] Bungalow, 0 – 50 ft., 18 – 21. i. 1979, Malaise trap, leg. K. V. Krombein, P. B. Karunaratne, S. Siriwardane & T. Gunawardane (1 ♀ USNM), Ceylon, coll. Green (3 ♂♂ 3 ♀♀ BMNH), same but coll. Staudinger (1 ♀ ZMHB), same but coll. E. A. Böttiker (1 ♀ ZMHB), same but leg. Baker (1 ♂ USNM), same but coll. Xántus (17 ♂♂ 18 ♀♀ HNHM), same but 1929, leg. W. Robinson (4 ♂♂ 7 ♀♀ USNM), same but leg. Xántus, coll. Nickerl (1 ♂ 1 ♀ NMPC), same but Novara Exp. (1 ♂ 2 ♀♀ NHMW), N. Ceylon, vi. 1889, leg. H. Fruhstorfer (1 ♂ 1 ♀ ZMHB), same, coll. G. Breddin (1 ♂ SDEI), S. Ceylon, v. 1889, leg. H. Fruhstorfer (2 ♂♂ 1 ♀ HNHM, 3 ♂♂ 1 ♀ ZMHB). — NEPAL. Gandaki Distr., Gorkha, 600 – 1500 m, 1. vi. 1999, leg. Z. Andrš (1 ♂ MMBC), Gorkha Distr., Sudi-Samri Bazar, 1300 – 1650 m, 19. vi. 1993, leg. J. & J. Probst (1 ♂ NHMW), 10 km NNW of Chehere, 27 º 39.29 ’ N 85 º 42.69 ’ E, 1478 m, 8. v. 2000, dry forest, leg. A. Konstantinov, S. Lingafelter & M. Volkovitsh (1 ♂ USNM), Sun Khosi Tal [= Valley], 2150 m, 2. v. [19] 62, leg. G. Ebert (1 ♂ 1 ♀ NMPC), Arun Valley, Mure, 2050 m, 2. vi. 1992, leg. J. & J. Probst (1 ♂ NHMW). — BURMA (MYANMAR). Mon State: Theinzeik, 1913, leg. P. Lolzeau (1 ♂ RMNH); Tanintharyi Region: Tenasserim [= Tanintharyi Region], B. M. 95 - 188 (1 ♂ BMNH). — THAILAND. Chiang Rai Prov.: Wiang Pa Pao, 30. viii. 1988 (1 ♀ NSMT); Chiang Mai Prov.: Nong Hoi, viii. 1974, leg. P. J. J. H. Kuijten & F. Bouricius (3 ♂♂ 2 ♀♀ RMNH), San Pakia, 19.19 ºN 98.50 ºE, 1400 m, 1 – 15. v. 1998, leg. V. Kubáň (1 ♀ MMBC); Mae Hong Son Prov.: env. of Sappong, 19 ° 27 ’ N 98 ° 20 ’ E, 1500 m, 7 – 12. v. 1996, leg. J. Horák (1 ♂ ZJPC). — CHINA. Henan: Xinyang (1 ♀ NKUM); Shanghai (1 ♀ BMNH); Sichuan: Xichang, 1600 – 1700 m, 8. vii. 1958, leg. S. M. Song (1 ♂ 1 ♀ IZAS), Dechang, vi. [19] 58, from mandarin orange (1 ♀ NKUM), Yanyuan, Jinhe, 1250 m, 28. vi. 1984, leg. C. F. Li (1 ♂ IZAS), Panzhihua, Jinjiang Distr., Madianhe, Mafeng village, 24. vii. 2008, leg. J. H. Zhou (3 ♂♂ 6 ♀♀ NKUM), Yalung Tal [= valley of Yalong River] zur Huili und Yenyüen [= Yanyuan], 1200 m, 26. ix. 1914, leg. H [andel] - Mazzetti (3 ♂♂ 4 ♀♀ NHMW); Yunnan: Lijiang, 26 º 50 ’ N 100 º 24 ’ E, 2524 m, 4. vi. 2006, leg. Kremitovský (1 ♂ MMBC), Yongsheng, vii. 1955 (4 ♂♂ 1 ♀ IZAS), Ta-Li-Fou [= Dali] (1 ♀ RMNH), Ta-Pin-Tze [= N of Dali], leg. R. P. Delavay (1 ♂ 2 ♀♀ RMNH), same, coll R. Oberthür 1899 (2 ♀♀ MNHN), Hang-Kia-Pin [= env. of Dali?], 1400 m (1 ♀ RMNH), Est de Tchin- Kiang [= E of Chengjiang], Lou-Fou-Tsouen (Ing-Ko-Tsoué), confl. Lou-Nan-Ho et Ta-Ken-Ho, 1905, Gervais (1 ♀ MNHN), Djo-Kou-La [= env. of Binchuan?], 1200 m, Coll. E. le Moult (3 ♀♀ RNMH), Yuanmo, viii. [19] 80 (1 ♂ NKUM), Chuxiong, viii. [19] 80 (1 ♂ NKUM), Magai [= Majie], NW of Yunnanfu [= Kunming], 10. ix. [19] 14, leg. H [andel] - Mazzetti (1 ♂ 2 ♀♀ NHMW), Longling, 1060 m, 24. vi. 1956, leg. B. S. Zhou (1 ♂ IZAS), Jingdong, 1200 m, 5. iii. 1957, leg. A. Monchadsky (1 ♂ IZAS), same but 1400 m, 21. v. 1956, leg. B. S. Zhou (1 ♀ IZAS), same but 1250 m, 25. v. 1956, leg. Zagulyaev (1 ♀ IZAS), same but 27. v. 1956, leg. Zagulyaev (1 ♀ IZAS), same but 28. v. 1956, leg. V. Popov (1 ♂ 1 ♀ IZAS), same but leg. T. R. Huang (1 ♂ IZAS), same but leg. X. C. Yang (1 ♀ IZAS), same but 2. vi. 1956, leg. Kryzhanovsky (3 ♂♂ 4 ♀♀ IZAS), same but 21. vi. 1956, leg. Zagulyaev (1 ♂ IZAS), same but 24. vi. 1956, leg. D. Y. Lin (1 ♂ IZAS), same but 1170 m, 23. vi. 1956, leg. W. Zhang (1 ♀ IZAS), same but 29. vi. 1956, leg. Kryzhanovsky (3 ♂♂ IZAS), same but 4. vii. 1956, leg. Zagulyaev (1 ♀ IZAS), N of Jingdong, 28. v. 1956, leg. Y. Zhao (1 ♂ 3 ♀♀ IZAS), same but 30. v. 1956 (1 ♀ IZAS), env. of Jingdong, 1450 m, 23. iii. 1957, leg. D. Panfilov (1 ♂ IZAS), road between Midu and Jingdong, 2. iii. 1957, leg. D. Panfilov (6 ♂♂ 12 ♀♀ IZAS), Yuanjiang, Mt. Mandan, 770 m, 25. vii. 2006, leg. Z. H. Fan (1 ♂ NKUM), Yuanjiang, 500 m, 16. v. 1957, leg. S. Y. Wang (1 ♀ IZAS), 50 km SW of Mojiang, 900 – 1000 m, 30. iii. 1955, leg. Bushchik (1 ♂ IZAS), Yuanyang, Nansha, 8. viii. 1986, leg. H. Tao (1 ♀ SYSU), Pu’er, 1400 m, 19. iv. 1955, leg. Y. F. Xue (1 ♀ IZAS), same but 21. iv. 1955, leg. Y. Zhao (1 ♀ IZAS), same but 1080 m, 8. v. 1956, leg. B. S. Zhou (1 ♂ IZAS), same but 1020 m, 10. v. 1956 (1 ♀ IZAS), Lancang, 1200 m, 30. vii. 1957, leg. L. C. Zang (1 ♀ IZAS), Lancang, Yuantian, 650 – 950 m, 26. xi. 2001 (1 ♀ NKUM), Menghai, Mt. Nannuo, 1400 m, 4. iii. 1957, leg. D. H. Liu (1 ♂ 1 ♀ IZAS), env. of Jinping, 900 m, 27. v. 1956, leg. Panfilov (1 ♀ IZAS), “ Ouest Yunnan, Kouang Si Hien ” [unlocated], 2100 m (1 ♂ RMNH), “ Ouest Yunnan, Ma-Chang ” [unlocated], 1000 m (1 ♂ RMNH), “ Sud-Yunnan, Tche-Ping-Tcheou ” [unlocated] (1 ♀ RMNH), Yunnan, coll. E. le Moult (100 + ♂♂ 100 + ♀♀ RMNH), same but coll. A. David 1899 (1 ♀ MNHN); Guangxi: Tianlin, from niúgānguŏ [= Phyllanthus emblica], leg. L. Z. Ming (1 ♂ NKUM), Ningming, 21. xii. 1958, leg. Y. X. Chen (1 ♂ SYSU); Hainan: coll. W. L. Distant, B. M. 1911 - 383 (1 ♂ BMNH), Lin-kao [= Lingao] Distr., 15 miles SE of Naam-fung [= Nanfeng], Ch’ung-mei [unlocated], 20 – 22. viii. 1932, leg. F. K. To (1 ♂ SYSU), Jianfengling, Institute of Tropical Forestry, 19. xi. 1983, leg. [illegible] Hu (1 ♂ SYSU); Guangdong: Henan [now Haizhu Distr.], 3. ix. 1954, leg. X. R. Lin (1 ex. lacking abdomen SYSU); Fujian: Fuzhou, Xihu, 3. iii. 1960, leg. S. Q. Jiang (1 ♀ IZAS), Jianyang, 21. vi. 1965, leg. L. C. Wang (1 ♂ NKUM). — VIETNAM. Saigon [= Ho Chi Minh City], vi. 1969, leg. R. J. Jae (1 ♂ USNM). — LAOS. Saravan Prov.: Wapikhamthong Prov. [now in Saravan Prov.], Khong Sedone [= Khongxedon], 3. viii. 1965, native collector (1 ♂ BPBM), same locality, Wapi, 17. viii. 1965, native collector (1 ♂ BPBM), same but 30. iv. 1967 (1 ♀ BPBM), same but 15. vi. 1967 (1 ♂ BPBM); Champasak Prov.: Sedone Prov. [now in Champasak Prov.], Paksong, 15. vii. 1967, native collector (1 ♂ BPBM). — PHILIPPINES? Palawan [in error?]: coll. Staudinger (1 ♂ ZMHB). — MALAYSIA? Malacca [in error?], coll. Noualhier 1898 (1 ♂ MNHN> IZAS). — INDONESIA? Sumatra [in error?] (2 ♂♂ NHMW); Java [in error?] (2 ♂♂ 6 ♀♀ RMNH), same, coll. Fitch (1 ♂ USNM).	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA810AAF2EFF45B421FEC4FE4C.taxon	description	(Figs. 5, 6, 8, 9, 28, 29, 38 – 41, 46, 47, 52, 61 – 64, 69, 70)	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA810AAF2EFF45B421FEC4FE4C.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Immediately distinguished from the other two described species of Scutellera by its relatively short and broad body (body length: width 2.1 – 2.15, in S. nepalensis and S. perplexa 2.3 – 2.4) and uniformly metallic bluegreen pronotum, thoracic pleura, and femora (Figs. 5, 6, 8, 9). The male (Figs. 28, 29, 38 – 41, 46, 47, 52) and female (Figs. 61 – 64, 69, 70) genitalia are diagnostic.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA810AAF2EFF45B421FEC4FE4C.taxon	description	Redescription. Colour. Ground colour of body deep metallic blue-green, with complex black pattern (Figs. 5, 6, 8, 9); a median vitta between eyes extending most of length of head except for apex of clypeus, frequently also a pair of elongate sublateral vittae immediately anteriad of or surrounding ocelli; antenna black, extreme base of scape brownish; labium dark brown; pronotum with a broad median vitta along whole length except for anterior collar, a pair of large transverse spots on calli, a pair of large sublateral spots reaching to basal margin and a pair of small humeral spots on posterior lobe of pronotum black; scutellum with a median vitta from its base to about its middle, gradually tapering posteriad, with a pair of rounded spots at posterior part of basal tumescence, two pairs of oblique sublateral spots anteriad and posteriad of middle, a pair of small marginal spots at middle, and a large, transverse, subapical spots black, oblique sublateral spots invariably separated from median vitta; exposed portion of fore wing black, its base with blue-green metallic lustre; venter of head and thorax as ground colour of dorsum, pterothoracic sternum and peritreme of metathoracic scent gland ostiole dull black; coxae and trochanters pale yellowish, femora, tibiae and tarsi deep metallic blue-green, base of femora frequently more or less suffused with yellow; abdominal venter bright yellow, lateral margins laterad of spiracles, posterior margin of ventrite VII, genital capsule (♂) and terminalia (♀) metallic blue-green, spiracles III – VII broadly surrounded by black, a pair of broad fasciae at anterior margins of each of ventrites III – VII (medially confluent on ventrite VII) black. Body relatively short and broad, 2.1 – 2.15 times as long as greatest width (Figs. 5, 6, 8, 9). Body surface and vestiture as in the redescription of the genus. Pronotum relatively short, 1.75 – 1.85 times as broad as its median length. Scutellum conspicuously short, about 1.35 – 1.45 times as long as broad. External male genitalia (Figs. 28, 29, 38 – 41, 46, 47, 52). Genital capsule (Figs. 28, 29, 38) subtriangular, strongly narrowed and narrowly transversely truncate posteriorly in dorsal view, minute submedian denticles on posterior margin narrowly separated, lateral margin (ventral rim) weakly emarginate; infolding of ventral rim conspicuously bulging laterally, without distinct ridge along meson. Paramere (Figs. 39 – 41) with a relatively short, strongly curved crown with distal portion nearly perpendicular to axis of stem. Phallus (Figs. 46, 47, 52): second conjunctival processes with an externally strongly sclerotized, bilobed lateral lobe (cp-II 1) with its interior side greatly broadened, wing-like, membranous, and with a mesal lobe (cp-II 2) provided with a small, denticle-like sclerotized process apically; third conjunctival processes (cp-III) short, stout, apex with sharp edges; distal portion of aedeagus s. str. and phallotreme narrow. External female genitalia (Figs. 61 – 64, 67, 68). Ovipositor (Figs. 61 – 64): laterotergites VIII enlarged, forming a pair of strongly protruding, rounded, lobe-like projections laterad of laterotergites IX; laterotergites IX obliquely directed, leaving sclerotized sternite X and median part of fused valvifers IX broadly exposed. Gynatrium (Fig. 69) with ring sclerites rather broadly separated from apex of anterolateral pouch proximally; small, paired sclerites posteriad of spermathecal opening fused along midline. Spermatheca: proximal duct slightly longer than distal duct and than longitudinal diameter of dilation. Measurements (in mm). Body length to apex of scutellum 14.5 – 18.5; length of head 3.70 – 3.75, width across eyes 4.00 – 4.30, interocular distance 2.85 – 3.08; lengths of scape 0.88 – 1.03: basipedicellite 0.75 – 0.88: distipedicellite 1.88 – 1.98: basiflagellum 2.75 – 2.90: distiflagellum 2.63 – 2.80; median length of pronotum 4.16 – 4.91, humeral width 7.69 – 8.73; length of scutellum 9.50 – 10.7, greatest width 6.70 – 7.80. Intraspecific variability. The dorsal markings exhibited an insignificant variability among the few examined specimens. The colour of the abdominal venter is variable: in extreme light individuals the paired black fasciae along anterior margins of ventrites III – VII are reduced, they are present merely as dark suffusion; in other individuals they are well developed, broad, but separated by yellow interspaces; still in other individuals they are connected longitudinally by diffuse metallic blue-green areas between their sublateral portions as in Figs. 6 and 9. Bionomics. Unknown.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA810AAF2EFF45B421FEC4FE4C.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Callidea spilogastra was described based on two specimens from Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) (Walker 1867). Both were found in BMNH, the one in better condition (Figs. 5 – 7) is selected as lectotype. As the species possesses all diagnostic characters of the genus Scutellera, particularly the unique metathoracic scent efferent system, it is hereby transferred into this genus. Scutellera brevirostris was described based on more than one males (syntypes) from Kandy, Ceylon, collected by W. Horn (Breddin 1909). Based on its original description it was synonymized with S. nobilis by Distant (1918). The type material was reported to be deposited in the SDEI, a lectotype was designated and two paralectotypes were listed by Gaedike (1971), but a re-examination of the material in concern in course of the present study concluded that one of the specimens listed as paralectotype and labelled accordingly is in fact a female of Chrysocoris taprobanensis (Westwood, 1837) and is certainly not part of the original syntype series. The lectotype (Figs. 8 – 10) and the male paralectotype are in conflict with the synonymy proposed by Distant (1918), but they are evidently conspecific with the type material of S. spilogastra, resulting in the following proposal of new subjective synonymy: Scutellera spilogastra (Walker, 1867), comb. nov. = Scutellera brevirostris Breddin, 1909, syn. nov.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA810AAF2EFF45B421FEC4FE4C.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Scutellera spilogastra is rare in collections. It is apparently endemic to the Malabar subregion and Sri Lanka (Fig. 72). A male from Karachi (coll. E. T. Atkinson 92 - 6, BMNH) examined during the present study is probably mislabelled.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA810AAF2EFF45B421FEC4FE4C.taxon	materials_examined	INDIA. Goa!; Kerala! — SRI LANKA! Type material examined. Callidea spilogastra Walker, 1867. Lectotype (present designation): ♀, “ Type ” [c with green margin], “ Ceylon \\ 52 \ 16 ” [hw, circle], “ 22. Callidea spilogastra. ” [cut from Walker (1867: 30)], “ BRIT. MUS. \ TYPE No. \ HEM. [pr] 479. [hw] ”; pinned, flagelli of both antennae and tarsus of left hind leg lacking (BMNH) (Figs. 5 – 7). Paralectotype: ♂, “ Para- \ type ” [c with yellow margin], same locality label as lectotype, “ Callidea \ spilogastra, \ Walk. ” [W. L. Distant’s hw]; distiflagellum of left, flagellum of right antenna, both mid legs, both hind tarsi lacking (BMNH). Scutellera brevirostris Breddin, 1909. Lectotype (Gaedike 1971: 81): ♂, “ Ceylon \ Kandy \ Horn ” [hw], “ Scutellera \ brevirostris \ Bredd. ” [G. Breddin’s hw], “ coll. Breddin ”, “ H. Lehmann rev. ”, “ Lectotypus ” [pr, red], “ des. \ H. Gaedike \ 1968 ” [hw]; pinned, left flagellum, tibia and tarsus of left hind leg lacking; SDEI (Figs. 8 – 10). Paralectotype: ♂, with same locality label as lectotype, “ Paralectotypus ” [red]; pinned, right distiflagellum, segment III of tarsus of right mid leg lacking; SDEI. Additional specimens examined. INDIA. India orient [alis] (1 ♂ HNHM); Goa: Mormugao, 19. ix. 1925, leg. J. C. Bridwell (1 ♂ USNM); Kerala: Walayar Forest, 1000 ft., vii. 1952, leg. P. S. Nathan, coll. J. C. Lutz 1961 (1 ♀ USNM). — SRI LANKA. Anu [radhapura] Distr.: Cheddikulam, Malaratu Oya, 15 – 16. vi. 1975, leg. D. H. Messersmith, G. L. Williams & P. B. Karunaratne (1 ♀ USNM), env. of Dambulla, 300 m, 19. iv – 9. v. 1991, leg. J. Kolibáč (1 ♂ 1 ♀ ZSMC), env. of Kandy, 600 m, 1 – 18. iv. 1991, leg. J. Kolibáč (1 ♂ ZSMC), Col [ombo] Distr., Labugama Reservoir, jungle, 25. v. 1975, leg. D. H. Messersmith, G. L. Williams & P. B. Karunaratne (1 ♂ USNM), Ceylon [= Sri Lanka], 3663 (1 ♀ ZMHB), same locality, coll. D. MacGillavry (1 ♀ ZMAN> RMNH), same locality, coll. V. Signoret (1 ♂ NHMW).	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA810FAF28FF45B7E0FD8BFE14.taxon	description	(Figs. 73 – 76)	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA810FAF28FF45B7E0FD8BFE14.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Scutellera holosericea was described based on an unspecified number of specimens from Java (Dohrn 1863). The species was omitted by subsequent authors except for taxonomic catalogues; most subsequent authors (Stål 1873, Lethierry & Severin 1893, Schouteden 1904, Tsai et al. 2011) questioned its generic placement or listed it as a species of doubtful identity. A re-examination of a syntype (Figs. 73 – 78) deposited in ZMPA concluded that the species belongs to the Afrotropical genus Procilia Stål, [1865], therefore the type locality is declared as erroneous, and the combination Procilia holosericea (Dohrn, 1863), comb. nov., is tentatively proposed. The species is likely a junior synonym of P. morgani (White, 1839); however, as we could not examine the type material of the latter species, moreover the genus Procilia is unrevised and currently we are unable to undertake its revision, we leave this problem for a future reviser.	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
03F287DA810FAF28FF45B7E0FD8BFE14.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. Scutellera holosericea Dohrn, 1863. Syntype: ♀ (?), “ Java \ Mus. Leyden ” [hw, with pr black frame], “ Type ” [red, with pr black frame], “ holosericea \ X Dohrn \ Java M. L. ” [hw, with pr double black frame], “ Scutellera type. \ holosinica [sic] Dohrn ” [hw], “ Mus. Zool. Polonicum \ Warszawa \ 12 / 45 ”; pinned, right fore, left mid and hind legs, left fore and right mid tarsus, and tibia and tarsus of right hind leg lacking, terminalia missing, head with right scape glued to card and pinned with the specimen, left scape and pedicel glued to the same card; ZMPA (Figs. 73 – 78).	en	Rédei, Dávid, Tsai, Jing-Fu (2022): A revision of Scutellera (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Scutelleridae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.1
