Saica apicalis Osborn & Drake, 1915

María, Valentina Castro-Huertas & Melo, María Cecilia, 2024, Saica Amyot & Serville, 1843 (Reduviidae, Emesinae, Saicini): taxonomic revision and phylogenetic analysis with morphological characters, Zoosystema 46 (32), pp. 813-845 : 822-824

Saica apicalis Osborn & Drake, 1915

( Figs 2 A-D; 5A, K; 6A, H; 7).

Saica apicalis Osborn & Drake, 1915: 530 . — McAtee & Malloch 1923: 250 [key], 251 [cit.]. — Villiers 1943a: 199 [cit.]; 1943b: 322 [cat.]. — Wygodzinsky 1949: 63 [cat.]. — Elkins 1951: 411 [cit.]. — Froeschner 1988: 644 [cat.]. — Maldonado Capriles 1990: 478 [cat.]. — Blinn 1994: 65 [key], 66 [cit.]. — Gil-Santana & Marques 2005: 406 [taxonomy]. — Swanson 2020: 978 [cit.]. — Castro-Huertas & Melo 2023: 6 [phylogenetic analyses].

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Lectotype (here designated). Guatemala • 1 ♂; Los Amates ; 18-28.II.1905; OSUC 0179304 (high-resolution images).

Paralectotypes. Guatemala • 2 ♀; Los Amates ; 18-28.II.1905; OSUC 0179305 , OSUC 0179306 ; specimen with abdomen missing; OSUC 0179302 (high-resolution images) .

OTHER MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Panama • 1 ♂; Chiriqui: Pto. Limones ; 21.XI.1963; Duret; MACN • 1♀; Chiriqui, Pto. Armuelles ; XI.1963; Duret; MACN • 1 ♂; Chorrera : PNAC, CII A Chileno; 29.V.2018; J. A. Ramirez; Netting; STRI / [ BCI167421 ]. Colombia • 1 ♂; Choco: Riosucio, Zarabanda ; 7°N, 77°E; 18 m; 1.I.1993; L.F. Mendoza; UNAB • 1 ♀; Cundinamarca, Guayabetal ; 4°N, 73°E; 1200 m; 10.III.1996; F. Munevar; UNAB • 1 ♂; Tocaima ; 3°N, 74°E; 400 m; 21.VI.1989; J.B.; UNAB • 1 ♂; Nariño: Tumaco, CI El Mira ; 1°N, 78°E; 16 m; 1.IV.2017; E. Vergara; manual; UNAB • 1 ♂; Norte de Santander: La Silla; 10.III.1961; Duret; MACN • 1 ♂; Putumayo: Mocoa, Vda. Pueblo Viejo, Fca. Villa Locha ; 1°N, 76°E; 690 m; 28.II.2016; AD Meneses; manual; UNAB / [ Reduviidae _049] • 1 ♂; Santander: Barbosa Cite ; 5°N, 73°E; 1700 m; 28.VIII.2004; E. Villarraga, jama; UNAB. French Guiana [Guyane] • 1 ♂; Piste Mt des singes: Kourou ; 1.XI.1989; G. F.; JMB. Brazil • 1 ♂; Minas Gerais: Caratinga ; 1.XII.1980; Martínez; MACN. Ecuador • 1 ♀; Los Ríos: Quevedo, Pichilingue ; 1.V.1976; Martínez; MACN. Argentina • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; Corrientes: Ituzaingó; Res. Santa María ; 26.IV.2003; M. Chayle; MLP .

DIAGNOSIS. — Forewing with three closed cells ( Fig. 1D ); coxae and trochanters reddish, femora dark brown with apex reddish, tibiae dark brown with base reddish ( Fig. 2 A-D); humeral angle spines of variable length, divergent, and apically acute ( Fig. 2B, D ); mesonotal spine short and acute; posteromedial process of pygophore concave medially, ramus long, angulated, and dorsally projected ( Fig. 5A ).

DISTRIBUTION. — Guatemala, Panama, French Guiana, Bolivia, Brazil (Bahia, Mato Grosso do Sul and Minas Geraes), and Argentina ( McAtee & Malloch 1923; Villiers 1943b; Froeschner 1988; Maldonado Capriles 1990; Melo & Coscarón 2004; Gil-Santana & Marques 2005; Gil-Santana 2008; Melo et al. 2017). The record from Texas, United States by Elkins (1951) is based on one single specimen collected at light. Blinn (1994) suggested that this record could be an exotic species accidentally introduced or a mislabeling. Considering that it is a doubtful record, it is not included here. First records from Colombia and Ecuador ( Fig. 7 ).

REDESCRIPTION

Male

Macropterous. Measurements in Table 2 .

Coloration ( Fig. 2A, B). Head: Reddish. Scape and pedicel dark brown, reddish on basal and apical portions; basi- and distiflagellomeres brown. First visible labial segment reddish, second and third visible labial segments yellowish. Thorax: Reddish, spines slightly yellowish at apex. Procoxal cavity, procoxa and protrochanter reddish, profemur dark brown with basal and apical portions reddish, protibia dark brown with basal portion reddish and apical part pale brown, protarsus yellowish; meso- and metalegs similar to proleg except for meso- and metatibiae dark brown with the base reddish. Forewing yellowish with veins and pterostigma reddish to yellowish. Abdomen: Reddish.

Structure. Thorax ( Fig. 2B ): Humeral angle spines of variable length but usually short, nearly one time longer than the width of their base. Mesonotal spine straight, nearly twice as long as its base. Protuberance of scutellum with apex slightly concave posteriorly, lateral margins slightly expanded in caudal view. Metanotal spine sinuous, 0.2 times the length of mesonotal spine. Forewing with three closed cells, apex of outer discal cell extending as far as apex of pterostigma. Abdomen: Abdominal segment 2 not conspicuously narrower than posterior segments. Genitalia ( Figs 5A, K ; 6A ): Anterior region of the genital opening (go) narrow in dorsal view, posterior margin of pygophore flat. Posteromedial process of pygophore (mpp) not elevated basally and concaved medially. Ramus vertical and angulated, apical region narrowed with an apical acute projected process, nearly five or more times longer than its base. Phallus with dorsal phallothecal sclerite (dps) nearly triangular, apex truncated, subapical lateral margin slightly projected laterally, lateral projection shorter than dps apex ( Fig. 6A ).

Female ( Fig. 2C, D )

Macropterous. Similar to males in most respects, but humeral angles spines usually longer.

Structure. Abdomen: Posterolateral angles of tergite 7 flat. Genitalia:Tergite 9 nearly quadrangular. Gonoplac apex entire with external margins angulated ( Fig. 6H ).

REMARKS

Saica apicalis shares with S. meridionalis the presence of three closed cells on the forewing; however, besides the body coloration differences, the females of S. apicalis lack the protruding processes on the lateral angle of the abdominal segment 7 that is present in S. meridionalis . Saica apicalis and S. subinermis share the comparatively shorter spines of the humeral angles of pronotum, but the general coloration pattern and the posteromedial process of pygophore are conspicuously different between them.

Osborn & Drake (1915) described S. apicalis on the basis of one male and four females, that are deposited in OSUC. However, they did not provide a designation of the holotype in their original description. High-resolution images were examined of four syntype specimens: one specimen with an absent abdomen labelled as “type,” and one male and two female specimens labelled as “paratype’. We suspect that these labels were added posteriorly, probably by a curator, giving this, we designate the male as lectotype.

Figures

FIG. 2. — Saica Amyot & Serville, 1843 species, habitus: A‒D, S. apicalis Osborn & Drake, 1915, male dorsal (A); male, lateral (B); female, dorsal (C); female, lateral (D); E‒F, S. carayoni Villiers, 1943,male holotype,MNHN;dorsal (E); lateral (F); G, H, S. elkinsi Blinn, 1994,female paratype, USNM:dorsal (G); lateral (H); I‒L, S. erubescens Champion, 1898; male dorsal (I); male, lateral (J); female, dorsal (K); female, lateral (L). Scale bars: 2 mm.

FIG. 1. — A, Saica sp. mating couple; B‒I, Saica Amyot & Serville,1843 character details:B, head,lateral view;C, S. rubripes Champion,1898,forewing;D, S. apicalis Osborn & Drake, 1915: forewing;E, S. tibialis Stål, 1862 head and thorax, lateral view; F, G, S. apicalis Osborn & Drake,1915 proleg, lateral view (F); scopula detail, mesotarsus (G); H, S. rubripes, scutellum process detail; I, S. erubescens Champion, 1898, scutellum process detail. Scale bars: B, F, 1 mm; C, D, E, 2 mm; H, I, 0.5 mm; G, 50 μm. Credits: A, ©NickyBay from https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/126475988

FIG. 5. — Saica Amyot & Serville,1843,male genitalia,pygophore:caudal view (A‒J): A, S. apicalis Osborn & Drake,1915;B, S. carayoni Villiers,1943;C, S. erubescens Champion, 1898; D, S. lativentris Villiers, 1943; E, S. ochracea Distant, 1902; F, S. recurvata (Fabricius, 1803); G, S. rubripes Champion, 1898;H, S. subinermis Hussey,1953; I, S. tibialis Stål, 1862; J, S. tupackatari n. sp.; lateral view (K‒Q): K, S. apicalis; L, S. erubescens; M, S. lativentris; N, S. recurvata (Fabricius, 1803); O, S. rubripes Champion,1898; P, S. tibialis Stål, 1862; Q, S. tupackatari n. sp. Abbreviations: ao, anterior opening of pygophore; br, transverse bridge of pygophore; go, genital opening; mpp, medial process of pygophore; pa, paramere; pmr, posterior margin of ramus; ps, paramere socket. Scale bars: 0.5 mm.

FIG. 7. — Distributional map of Saica Amyot & Serville,1843 species. Saica apicalis Osborn & Drake, 1915, S. carayoni Villiers, 1943, S. cruentata Bergroth, 1913, S. elkinsi Blinn, 1994, S. erubescens Champion, 1898, S. fuscipes Stål, 1862, and S. lativentris Villiers, 1943. Empty circles, distributional information from examined material,circles with a dot,distributional information from the literature.

FIG. 6. — Saica Amyot & Serville, 1843, male and female genitalia, phallus, dorsal view (A‒G): A, S. apicalis Osborn & Drake, 1915; B, S. erubescens Champion, 1898; C, S. lativentris Villiers,1943; D, S. recurvata (Fabricius, 1803); E, S. rubripes Champion, 1898; F, S. tibialis Stål, 1862; G, S. tupackatari n. sp.; bursa copulatrix ventral view (H‒M); H, S. apicalis; I, S. erubescens Champion, 1898; J, S. meridionalis Fracker & Bruner, 1924; K, S. recurvata; L, S. rubripes Champion, 1898; M, S. tibialis Stål, 1862. Abbreviations: apt, arms of articulatory apparatus; bc, bursa copulatrix; bpb, basal plate bridge; dps, dorsal phallotecal sclerite; ese, elongate sclerites of endosome; gap8, gonapophysis 8; gcx8, gonocoxa 8; gpl, gonoplac.