Pannychis sericea Thomson, 1864

Santos-Silva, Antonio & Androw, Robert A., 2022, New species, new synonymies, a new rank, and new records in Desmiphorini, Saperdini, and Hemilophini (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Lamiinae), Insecta Mundi 2022 (938), pp. 1-14 : 9-11

Pannychis sericea Thomson, 1864 , new combination

( Fig. 26–27, 31–32 )

Pannychis sericeus Thomson 1864: 127 ; Lacordaire 1872: 890; Thomson 1878: 15 (type); Bates 1881: 205 (distr.); Gilmour 1962: 137; Lane 1974: 363.

Hemilophus sericeus ; Gemminger 1873: 3210 (cat.).

Mecas (Pannychis) sericea ; Chemsak and Linsley 1973: 151; Chemsak et al. 1992: 153 (cat.); Monné and Giesbert 1994: 276 (checklist); Noguera and Chemsak 1996: 407 (cat.); Monné 2005: 618 (cat.); Monné 2022: 1060 (cat.).

Mecas (Pannychis) sericeus ; Monné 1995: 40 (cat.); Monné and Hovore 2006: 289 (checklist); Noguera et al. 2012: 622 (distr.).

Pannychis ducalis Bates 1881: 205 ; Gilmour 1962: 137; Lane 1974: 364.

Hemilophus ducalis ; Lameere 1883: 77 (cat.).

Remarks. Chemsak and Linsley (1973) considered Pannychis Thomson, 1864 as a subgenus of Mecas LeConte, 1852 . However, they did not explain their reasons to change the status of Pannychis . Comparing the species currently included in Mecas with Pannychis sericea , we think that this change is unwarranted. The features pointed out by them in the alternative of couplet “1” are more than enough to keep Mecas and Pannychis as distinct genera: “Pronotum with sides rounded or subparallel; elytra not expanded apically behind middle; appearance not lyciform,” leading to Mecas ; “Pronotum with sides obtusely produced at middle; elytra expanding slightly toward apices; integument yellow and black [not useful to separate the genera]; appearance lycid-like,” leading to Pannychis . Therefore, we consider Pannychis as a distinct genus. Comparing the photograph of the holotype of Pannychis sericea ( Fig. 26 ), which is seriously damaged, with a type specimen of Pannychis ducalis ( Fig. 27 ), the proportions between the prothorax and elytra appear to be different (prothorax missing from the holotype of the former, but it is possible to use the photograph of another specimen next to it in the same photograph). Therefore, we are not sure if the synonymy proposed by Chemsak and Linsley (1973), was correct. It will be necessary to study a large number of specimens to check for eventual morphological differences other than the color.

Pannychis is a goddess of Greek mythology. Therefore, Pannychis is feminine gender and thus, the correct spelling is Pannychis sericea and not Pannychis sericeus as used by Thomson (1864). Although it is more probable that this genus belongs to Hemilophini, it is provisionally kept in Saperdini until further studies are carried out.

Hemilophini Thomson, 1868

Figures

Figures 25–32. Pannychis and Pannychina spp. 25) Pannychis callicera Bates, 1881, holotype female. 26) Pannychis sericea Thomson, 1864, left side, not type, identified as male, right side, holotype. 27) Pannychis ducalis Bates, 1881, type. 28) Pannychina atripennis (Bates, 1885), holotype. 29–32) Elytral apex: 29) Pannychis atripennis, holotype; 30) Pannychis callicera, holotype female; 31) Pannychis ducalis, type; 32) Pannychis sericea, holotype. All by Jesus Santiago Moure.