Neurobasis chinensis longipes Hagen (fig.1 c). Full literature: 1887. Hagen , Abh. Zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, 37, p. 648. — ♂ Mindai, Borneo (longipes). 1869. Selys , Bull. Acad. Belg. (2) 27, p. 648-649. — ♂♀ Sarawak, Borneo (florida). M. A. Lieftinck: Descriptions and records of S.E. Asiatic Odonata. 339 1879. Selys, Bull. Acad. Belg. (2) 47, p. 360 (pars: „exemplaires anormaux de Borneo”) (chinensis). 1897. Selys, Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. 41, p. 428 (pars: Sarawak; Labuan) (chinensis florida). 1897. Forster, Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. 41, p. 208-210. — ♀ Borneo (chinensis var.). 1911. Ris, Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. 55, p. 234. — ♂ Sintang, W. Borneo (chinensis). 1920. Laidlaw, P.Z.S. London, p. 325. — Borneo (chinensis). 1930. Hincks, Sar. Mus. Journ. 4, p. 51. — ♂ Sarawak (chinensis). 1931. Laidlaw, J.F.M.S. Mus. 16, p. 241. — Borneo (chinensis). 1936. COOMANS, De Trop. Natuur, 25, p. 72 -73, fig. 1 (♂♀). — W. Borneo (chinensis). Material studied: — Borneo. Brussels Museum: large series of both sexes, “ Labuan ” 1) (yellow label, Selys’s handwriting), “ Neurobasis chinensis race florida Hag. Labuan ” (Selys, yellow). — Michigan Museum: 1 ♀ juv., “ Labuan, Borneo ” (id., ex coll. Selys). — Leiden Museum: 7 ♂ (ad.), C.E. Borneo, Exped. A. W. Nieuwenhuis, Mahakam river, Bloe-oe, IX.1894; 5 ♂, 2 ♀, id., Katoengan Mts., Max Moret (indet.). — Buitenzorg Museum: 1♀ C.E. Borneo Exped. 1925, Koetai, H. C. Siebers, 12 ♂, 5 ♀; W. Borneo, environs of Singkawang, loc. diff. (riverine), II, VI, VII, VIII.1932, I.1933, I.1934, L. COOMANS DE RUITER. In the “ Monographie des Caloptérygines” (1854), Selys and Hagen have commented on the variability of the wings of the ♀. The following quotations may prove that the name florida, first proposed by Hagen, applies to a ♀ from Java lacking a pseudo-pterostigma and with only a vestige of a white spot at the nodus; whereas in typical chinensis, the nodal spot is invariably quite distinct, the pseudo-pterostigma being nearly always present, at least so in the hind wing. “ Nous avons hésité longtemps si nous ne séparerions pas, du moins comme race les exemplaires de Java de ceux du continent asiatique, mais aujourd’hui nous sommes portés a ne pas les décrire séparément” (p. 75); „Ce qui nous avait portés à croire à deux espèces, c’était l’aspect remarquable de la première femelle que nous avions reçue de Java: elle n’a aucun vestige de ptérostigma aux quatres ailes et les secteurs ne sont pas même écartés à la place ou il se trouverait (chez la vraie chinensis, il manque parfois aux ailes supérieures). Les ailes sont presque incolores, mais cela peut tenir à l’âge de même que l’oblitération presque complète du point nodal blanc” (p. 76). “ M. Hagen a examiné depuis un second exemplaire femelle, de Pulopenang.......” (p. 76). „M. Hagen avait d’abord nommé cette variété ou race de Malaisie Neurobasis florida ” (p. 76). — The spacings are mine. 1) Labuan, on the N.W.-coast of Borneo, sec. Hagen, op. cit. 1887, p. 648. See also: H. M. Pendlebury & F. N. Chasen, “ A Zoological Expedition to Mt. Kinabalu, British North Borneo (1929)”: — “ The island of Labuan, classical ground to a naturalist, is now a very poor locality for collecting. The area of original jungle left is extremely small and limited to scanty patches on the tops of the hills and in the ravines. Many of the animals obtained there by early naturalists no longer exist on the island.” (Journal F. M. S. Museums, 17, 1932, p. 8 footnote 8). 340 Treubia Deel 17, 1940, Afl. 4. It is necessary to emphasize this point, as Selys obviously misused the name florida when attributing it definitely, and first, to specimens from Sarawak, collected by Wallace. These Bornean examples, as has been ascertained by Hagen many years later, differ very markedly from true florida, and from typical chinensis as well. Hagen’s description of Neurobasis longipes (loc. cit. 1887) goes well with our series of specimens from different parts of the island, and I content myself with referring all specimens before me to longipes. So far as my material goes, the differences found seem to clearly indicate subspecific kinship between chinensis, florida, and longipes. The following key is based on a rich material of both sexes from various sources, including specimens of typical chinensis from Ceylon, Tonkin, Malaya, Sumatra and Nias.

Published as part of M. A. Lieftinck, 1940, Descriptions and records of South-East Asiatic Odonata (II), pp. 337-392 in Treubia 17 (4) on pages 338-340, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3571116