Cobelura peruviana ( Aurivillius, 1920 )

Santos-Silva, Antonio & Devesa, Sergio, 2021, New species and new records in American Acanthocinini (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae), Zootaxa 4942 (4), pp. 569-582 : 571-572

Cobelura peruviana ( Aurivillius, 1920)

( Figs 9–10 )

Sphenopsilus peruvianus Aurivillius, 1920: 388 ; 1923: 422 (cat.); Blackwelder, 1946: 617 (checklist).

Acanthosphenopsilus peruvianus ; Tippmann, 1960: 197; Gilmour, 1965: 597 (cat.).

Cobelura peruviana ; Martins & Monné, 1974: 27; Monné, 1984: 342; Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 243 (checklist); Monné, 1995: 60 (cat.); Corbett, 2004 (key); Monné, 2005: 32 (cat.); Wappes et al., 2006: 34 (distr.); Monné & Hovore, 2006: 179 (checklist); Monné et al., 2012: 25 (distr.); Monné & Chaboo, 2015: 74 (distr.); Monné & Monné, 2017: 257 (key); Monné, 2020: 37 (cat.).

Corbett (2004) separated Cobelura stockwelli from C. peruviana in the key as follows (translated from Portuguese):

“7(6). Scape dark brown on apical fifth; irregular maculae of yellowish-white (two behind upper eye lobes, other on pronotal disc), more or less confluent in two longitudinal bands on pronotum; elytra reddish-brown on basal half and dark brown on apical half. Panama (Canal Zone, Darien)....................................................... C. stockwelli sp. nov.

- Scape black; small yellowish-white pubescent maculae scattered on pronotal disc, not confluent in bands; elytra black. Peru (Junín).................................................................... C. peruviana ( Aurivillius, 1920) .”

However, although Aurivillius (1920) did not indicate the color of the scape, it is possible to see that it is reddish brown with the apex blackish in a syntype male ( Fig. 9 ). It is true that there are no distinct longitudinal pubescent bands on pronotum of the male syntype of C. peruviana , as well as that the elytra are entirely black. Nevertheless, it is possible that these features are variable in C. peruviana , as for example, the color of the femora, which may be dark or entirely reddish ( Aurivillius 1920).

Still according to Corbett (2004) (translated from Portuguese): “ Cobelura stockwelli is similar to C. peruviana and C. vermicularis by the pronotum and elytra with abundant small yellowish-white pubescent maculae, without whitish or brownish pubescent band … However, the maculae in C. stockwelli are larger and irregular, more or less confluent in two longitudinal bands on pronotum, and may be agglomerated or even fused on the lateral of the elytra (on median region or apical third) … In C. peruviana and C. vermicularis : maculae very small, well-distributed on pronotum and elytral surface.” There is no difference between the size of the pubescent maculae in C. peruviana (syntype) and C. stockwelli . As Corbett (2004) affirmed that the pubescent maculae on elytra of C. stockwelli may be agglomerated or even fused on the lateral of the elytra, we can conclude that they may be as in the syntype of C. peruviana . In this case, the differences between C. stockwelli and C. peruviana become questionable. For now, it is not possible to affirm that they are or not the same species without examining a large number of specimens.

According to Monné (1984) (translated from Portuguese): “Antennae just surpass elytral apex.” However, they distinctly surpass the elytral apex in the syntype male, and also in the male specimen illustrated by Monné (1984) ( Fig. 10 ). According to the key from Monné & Monné (2017), C. stockwelli differs from C. peruviana by the scape black only apically in the former, and entirely black in the latter. This information does not agree with the syntype of C. peruviana ( Fig. 9 ) and, apparently, nor with the specimen illustrated by Monné (1984) ( Fig. 10 ).

Figures

FIGURES 9–14. Cobelura spp. 9–10) Cobelura peruviana (Aurivillius, 1920), male: 9) Syntype (by Jesus Santiago Moure); 10) Specimen from Monné (1984). 11–14) Cobelura vermicularis Kirsch, 1889, female holotype: 11) Labels; 12) Dorsal habitus; 13) Ventral habitus; 14) Lateral habitus.