Pothea frontalis ( Lepeletier & Serville, 1825 )

Gil-Santana, Hélcio R., 2020, A new species of Pothea, with new records and taxonomic notes on other species of the genus (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Reduviidae), Zootaxa 4778 (3), pp. 439-470 : 457-462

Pothea frontalis ( Lepeletier & Serville, 1825)

( Figs. 56–68 )

Reduvius frontalis Lepeletier & Serville (1825: 280) (description).

Pothea frontalis: Amyot & Serville (1843: 345) (redescription), Stål (1859: 184) (checklist), Stål (1872: 104) (checklist), Walker (1873: 63) (key, description), Lethierry & Severin (1896: 131) (catalog), Wygodzinsky (1949: 23) (catalog), Carpintero (1978: 204) (checklist), Maldonado (1990: 66) (catalog), Dougherty (1995: 212) (citation, geographical distribution), Sehnal (2000: 49–50) (catalog of types deposited in NHM), Gil-Santana (2014: 498) (citation).

Distribution. Costa Rica, Venezuela, Guyana, Surinam, French Guiana, Brazil.

Discussion. Pothea frontalis was described from Cayenne ( Lepeletier & Serville 1825). Stål (1859) had recorded the species from [British] Guyana (now Guyana), based on specimen(s) deposited in the Museum of Berlin, but subsequently he cited only Cayenne as the “Patria” of the species Stål (1872). The additional countries in the above distribution list were taken from the work of Dougherty (1995).

The short description by Lepeletier & Serville (1825) matches well the male deposited in NHM recognized as a potential syntype of P. frontalis by Sehnal (2000) ( Figs. 56–58 ). It is noteworthy that subsequent authors who mentioned the sex of specimens of P. frontalis examined or described ( Amyot & Serville 1843, Stål 1859) only referred to the male; these accounts were probably based on type material.

Two males from French Guiana examined in course of present study ( Figs. 59–62 ) agree well with the brief description and redescription ( Lepeletier & Serville 1825, Amyot & Serville 1843) of the species; the general length (measured to the tip of abdomen) of both of them measured 14.5 mm ( Table 1), which is also approximate to the value attributed to P. frontalis by Amyot & Serville (1843) (15 mm). Their overall strong similarity makes it evident that they are conspecific with the syntype in NHM.

The coloration of the abdominal sternites of the two females examined ( Figs. 63–66 ), however, differ from the condition found in the males. In males, the general coloration of the sternites is bright yellow to orange yellowish or gray yellow; there is a pair of lateral undulating black bands, which run from the distal fourth or distal margin of sternite III to the last sternite; the latter is almost completely blackish on its median portion, above the genital capsule, continuously with the lateral bands, except by a pair of submedian anterior spots with the same general coloration of the sternites, variably in size and shape ( Figs. 57 , 61–62 ); sternite II with a pair of submedian dark to blackish spots, just below the hind coxa and trochanters ( Fig. 62 ); median small dark transverse and/or suboval spots on anterior margins of sternites V and VI, the former smaller than the latter ( Fig. 57 ) or absent ( Figs. 61–62 ); exposed portion of capsule genital and parameres completely black ( Figs. 61–62 ). In females, the general coloration of the sternites is red or yellowish red ( Figs. 64, 66 ); the lateral blackish bands are larger and run along all sternites, beginning at the anterior margin of the first visible sternite; the latter is mostly dark to blackish on median portion, between and continuously with the bands ( Figs. 64, 66 ); on one female, dark to blackish stripes on anterior margins of sternites IV–VI, continuous with the lateral bands; narrow and interrupted medially on sternite IV, complete and progressively larger on sternites V–VI ( Fig. 66 ); on another female, anterior margin of sternite V faintly darkened transversely on median portion, but not forming a stripe; a blackish stripe on anterior margin of sternite VI, comparatively narrower than the stripe of the same sternite in the other female ( Fig. 64 ); sternite VII completely black on median portion, continuously with the lateral bands ( Figs. 64, 66 ). Genital segments dark to blackish too ( Figs. 64, 66 ).

Additional differences between males and females of P. frontalis are regarded as sexually dimorphic features, most importantly the vestiture of the antennae (cf. Forthman & Weirauch 2017): in males they are covered by long setae, particularly numerous on the first four segments, while in the female the first and the base of the second segment are almost glabrous, remaining portion of the second segment is covered by numerous short setae, the remain- ing segments by sparse, somewhat longer setae besides the short pubescence formed by numerous short setae. Only small differences were found among the examined males and females in respect of a number of measures which are frequently sexually dimorphic in members of the family ( Table 1). While subtle differences in total length, maximum width of the abdomen and general dimensions of the head (total length, maximum width across eyes and synthlipsis) were recorded ( Table 1), the size of eyes, ocellar tubercle and ocelli ( Figs. 67–68 ) were within a close range of variation or were the same, respectively ( Table 1). The length of the hemelytra (not reaching the posterior margin of the abdomen, ending shortly before it; Figs. 59–60 , 63, 65 ), relative proportions of thoracic portions, and thickness of the femora also seemed similar between male and female ( Figs. 59–61 , 63–66 ). Additionally, the clypeus was not pointed in lateral view in the male ( Fig. 67 ).

It is possible that the differences in the coloration of the sternites are due to not sex-related intraspecific variation. Gil-Santana (2014), for example, recorded substantial variation in color among specimens of Pothea jaguaris ( Carpintero, 1980) , regardless of their sex. Therefore, only future examination of more specimens of P. frontalis will make it possible to ascertain to what extent these features vary among individuals and whether there is any additional sexual dimorphism.

Material examined. Male [probable] syntype: frontalis [handwritten] / det. Signoret. [printed] // Cayenne [handwritten] / Coll. Signoret. [printed] // [printed red label]: Typus? / etik. Hecher 1996 ( NHM) . Additional specimens: FRENCH GUIANA, Bélizon , vii, ix.2001, leg. H. Gaspard (2 males, 2 females; MNRJ) .

Figures

FIGURES 56–58. Pothea frontalis (Lepeletier & Serville, 1825), male, probable syntype deposited in NHM. 56, dorsal view; 57, abdomen, ventral view; 58, labels.

FIGURES 59–62. Pothea frontalis (Lepeletier & Serville, 1825), non-type males from French Guiana. 59–61, scale bar 5.0 mm; 59–60, dorsal view; 61, ventral view; 62, abdomen, ventral view, scale bar 2.0 mm.

FIGURES 63–66. Pothea frontalis (Lepeletier & Serville, 1825), non-type females from French Guiana, scale bar 5.0 mm. 63, 65, dorsal view; 64, 66, ventral view; 64, thorax and abdomen.

FIGURES 67–68. Pothea frontalis (Lepeletier & Serville, 1825), specimens from French Guiana, head, lateral view, scale bar 1.0 mm. 67, male; 68, female.