Aphelonema brevata Caldwell, 1945

Figs 1–2, 26A

Aphelonema brevata Caldwell, 1945: 94, pl. I: fig. 6.

Aphelonema (Protrocha) brevata – Emeljanov 1996: 835 (proposed new subgenus for Aphelonema). Protrocha brevata – Gnezdilov 2013: 212.

Diagnosis

Body mainly light brown with some regions dark brown (Fig. 1); central plate dark brown with pair of swirl-shaped light brown maculae (Fig. 1A); sides of frons with two rows of sensory pits on each side (Fig. 1C); clypeus not swollen (Fig. 1A, C), with median carina (Fig. 1A); lateral lobe of pronotum with approximately three sensory pits arranged in group (Fig. 1C); abdominal tergites (Fig. 1C, 26A) with row of sensory pits followed by single isolated ventral sensory pit (tergite IV) or by isolated pair of diagonally aligned ventral sensory pits (tergites V to VII).

Material examined

Holotype

MEXICO • ♂; Toluca Rd.; 24 Nov. 1938; J.S. Caldwell leg.; NMNH USNMENT 01513543 (based on photographs).

Other material

MEXICO • 1 ♂; “MICH” [Michoacán], E Morelia, route 15, Km 18; 19.68392º N, 101.00981º W; 2050 m a.s.l.; Oct. 2005; R. Rakitov leg.; sweep; DNA voucher ENT4920; INHS .

Description

BODY LENGTH. Male = 2.4 mm.

COLORATION. Body mainly light brown with some regions dark brown (Fig. 1 A–C). Vertex (Fig. 1B) with pair of dark brown maculae. Central plate (Fig. 1A) dark brown with pair of swirl-shaped light brown maculae; median carina dark brown. Gena and lateral lobe of pronotum (Fig. 1C) dark brown. Clypeus dark brown with pair of light brown triangular maculae (Fig. 1A). Pronotum (Fig. 1B) dark brown with three median light brown stripes connected to stripes on mesonotum. Mesonotum (Fig. 1B) with additional pair of lateral light brown stripes. Forewing (Fig. 1B) brown. Legs (Fig. 1A, C) light brown with several dark brown maculae. Abdomen (Fig. 1 B–C) dark brown with three median light brown interrupted stripes in dorsal view.

HEAD AND THORAX. Vertex (Fig. 1B) hexagonal, shorter than half its width, almost as long as pronotum; posterior margin slightly elevated. Frons (Fig. 1A) with median carina and pair of sublateral carinae; sublateral carinae convergent and almost fused to each other ventrally (Fig. 1A); central plate (Fig. 1A) as long as wide at widest portion, not visible in dorsal view (Fig. 1B), not extending anteriorly beyond sublateral carinae in lateral view (Fig. 1C); sides of frons partially visible in frontal view (Fig. 1A) and almost fused above clypeus, with two rows of sensory pits on each side in lateral view (Fig. 1C): anterior row with eight sensory pits, ventral pair slightly displaced; posterior row with four sensory pits, most ventral one slightly isolated. Clypeus (Fig. 1C) not swollen, with median carina. Ocelli absent. Eye oblong. Antenna short, with several small circular structures visible on pedicel. Pronotum (Fig. 1B) semicircular, shorter than half its width, with median carina; median portion of disc without sensory pits; lateral portion of disc with 14 to 15 sensory pits; lateral lobe of pronotum (Fig. 1C) with three sensory pits arranged in group. Mesonotum (Fig. 1B) with median carina and pair of lateral carinae; region between lateral carinae depressed and without sensory pits; region laterad of lateral carinae with nine to 11 sensory pits. Brachypterous, with reduced venation. Legs simple, with carinae, setose; tibia III with single median spine.

ABDOMEN. Terga with longitudinal carina. Tergite III (Figs 1C, 26A) without sensory pits. Tergite IV (Figs 1C, 26A) with row of two sensory pits followed by single isolated ventral one. Tergites V and VI (Figs 1C, 26A) with row of four sensory pits followed by isolated ventral pair aligned diagonally. Tergite VII (Figs 1C, 26A) with row of three sensory pits followed by isolated ventral pair aligned diagonally. Tergite VIII with one sensory pit (Fig. 26A).

MALE TERMINALIA. Pygofer (Fig. 2A) with anterior margin deeply concave; posterior margin with dorsal third rounded, middle third concave, ventral third wide and rounded. Connective (Fig. 2B) inverted Y-shaped, with support bridge with dorsal flap. Style (Fig. 2 C–D) hook-like; anterior portion pointed; dorsal margin with slight protuberance on median third (Fig. 2D); caudal portion strongly curved anterodorsally in lateral view (Fig. 2D) and mesad in dorsal view (Fig. 2C); ventral margin (Fig. 2D) truncate between anterior and middle portion, irregularly rounded posteriorly; middle portion longer than high, setose; apex serrated (Fig. 2D). Phallobase (Fig. 2 E–H) sclerotized, symmetrical, with two defined lobes; apex with pair of lobes fused in dorsal view (Fig. 2 E–F) and rounded in lateral view (Fig. 2 G–H); sides expanded and rounded at half-length of aedeagus in dorsal view (Fig. 2 E–F); with dorsal process near to apex in lateral view (Fig. 2 G–H), surrounding almost all aedeagus length. Aedeagus (Fig. 2 E–F) apex narrow and open dorsally, with pair of aedeagal hooks, one curved to side of aedeagus and visible in dorsal view (Fig. 2 E–F), another visible in lateral view (Fig. 2 G–H) and curved ventrally to other side of aedeagus. Suspensorium V-shaped.

Remarks

This species was originally placed in Aphelonema but later transferred to Protrocha by Emeljanov (1996). However, the species treated herein shares more characteristics of Aphelonema, according to the diagnostic features given by Emeljanov (1996, see Discussion), such as (1) lateral lobe of pronotum with no fewer than two, but usually with three or more sensory pits (Fig. 1C); (2) sides of frons in upper half with two parallel rows of sensory pits (Fig. 1C); and (3) abdomen with sensory pits aligned in one row and with an isolated pair of ventral sensory pits (Fig. 26A). Based on this combination of characters we propose that this species returns to its original combination. Its original description is short, includes only a superficial illustration of the male terminalia, and does not include information about abdominal sensory pits or female terminalia. The single male specimen at hand was identified based on the original description, illustrations of male terminalia made by Caldwell (1945), and photographs of the head, thorax and male terminalia of the holotype. However, the abdomen of the holotype was lost so redescription of the distribution of sensory pits on this structure was based on the specimen at hand. Unfortunately, the anal tube of the studied specimen was damaged during dissection.