Pannychella callicera ( Bates, 1881 )

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

Pannychella callicera ( Bates, 1881)

( Fig. 25, 30 )

Pannychis callicerus Bates 1881: 206 ; Aurivillius 1923: 599 (cat.). Pannychis callicera ; Blackwelder 1946: 626 (checklist). Hemilophus callicerus ; Lameere 1883: 77 (cat.). Pannychella callicera ; Gilmour 1962: 138; 1965: 646 (cat.); Chemsak et al. 1992: 161 (cat.); Monné 1995: 70 (cat.); Noguera and Chemsak 1996: 408 (cat.); Martins and Galileo 1998: 128; Monné and Giesbert 1994: 293 (checklist); Monné 2005:

618 (cat.); Monné and Hovore 2006: 291 (checklist); Monné 2022: 1061 (cat.).

Remarks. Gilmour (1962) described Pannychella to include Pannychis callicerus Bates, 1881 ( Fig. 25 ). Apparently, he did not examine the holotype because his description of the genus and redescription of the species appear to be based on the description by Bates (1881).

Bates (1881) separated Pannychis callicerus from Pannychis ducalis Bates, 1881 (synonymized with Mecas (Pannychis) sericea ( Thomson, 1864) by Chemsak and Linsley (1973)) by the prothorax slightly widened after middle (broadly dilated centrally in P. ducalis ), elytral apex slightly sinuous, the tawny elytral band not reaching scutellum, the presence of yellowish spots on center of abdominal ventrites 3 and 4, and the antennomere yellowish about basal half. Comparing photographs of type specimens of Pannychis ducalis with the holotype of Pannychis callicerus , apparently, the shape and pubescence on the antennomere III in the latter appears to be different from those in former. However, we do not know if this is just due to the angle of the photographs.

As seen above, Gilmour (1962) reported that the antennae in females of Pannychella are slightly shorter than the elytra. However, Bates (1881) reported that they are short, and it is possible to see in the photograph of the holotype that they are distinctly shorter than the body. The elytra are bicarinate in Mecas (Pannychis) sericea and Pannychella callicera . Therefore, the only reliable differences between Pannychis and Pannychella would be the prothoracic and elytral apex shapes (respectively, Fig. 32 and 30 ).

The descriptions, redescriptions, and photographs of the types do not allow us to be sure if Pannychella is a junior synonym of Mecas (Pannychis) . However, without a doubt, it does not belong to Aerenicini as indicated by Martins and Galileo (1998).

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.