Ctenopeuca romani Bernhauer, 1928
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5497.2.5 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0CEE9EA2-AD3E-4145-874A-B91B3D56EB2B |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13618496 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/650A87BD-CA55-FFAC-FF72-0557FE01F870 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Ctenopeuca romani Bernhauer, 1928 |
status |
|
Ctenopeuca romani Bernhauer, 1928 View in CoL
( Figs. 4–20 View FIGURES 1–6 View FIGURES 7–16 View FIGURES 17–20 , 28–33 View FIGURES 28–33 )
Type material. Lectotype here designated ( Figs. 4–6 View FIGURES 1–6 ). Labels : 1) “ Bahia /Iguassú/Roman” [white label, printed in black]; 2) “ Sv. Amaz. /Exp. Roman” [white label, printed in black]; 3) “Chicago NHMus/ M.Bernhauer /Collection” [white label, printed in black]; 4) “10 juli” [white label, numbers manuscript and letters printed in black]; 5) “ Ctenopeuca /Romani./Bernh. Cotypus” [white old label, manuscript]; 6) [male simbol, white label, manuscript]; 7) “Lectotype/ Ctenopeuca /romani [male simbol]/des. K. T.Eldredge 2013” [red label, the first and last line (except 2013) printed in black, the rest manuscript]; 8) “ FMNH ” [white label, printed in black]; 9) “QR Code/FMNHINS/3982449/ FIELD MUSEUM /Pinned” [white label, printed in black]; 10) “PHOTOGRAPHED/ S. Ware 2021” [white label, prinited in black]. Note: Bernahuer (1928) did not specify how many specimens were studied.
Paralectotype ( FMNH), female .
Additional material. 105 specimens deposited in CESP from Brazil, Bahia, Rio das Contas, Umbuzeiro, Chapada Diamantina, S13°31’38.5” W41°43’57.9”, 21/xi/2010, collected in Aristolochia gigantea Mart. & Zucc., J.Hipolito, I. Manimann & I. Abreu , col GoogleMaps .
Diagnosis. Ctenopeuca romani differs from C. heynei by having head darker than pronotum and abdominal segments III–IV conspicuously lighter than V–VII ( Fig. 5 View FIGURES 1–6 ); antennomere 4 wider than long ( Fig. 7 View FIGURES 7–16 ); posterior margin of abdominal tergum VIII of male without a prominent tooth on each side of serrate region ( Fig. 28 View FIGURES 28–33 ); posterior margin of abdominal tergum VIII of female without tooth on each side of emarginate region ( Fig. 32 View FIGURES 28–33 ).
Redescription. Male. Body length, mean 5.57 mm, standard deviation 0.86 mm. Humeral width 1.0 mm. Head, antennomeres 4–11, posterolateral angle region of elytra and abdominal segments V–VII brown to dark brown, the rest of body yellowish to light brown ( Fig. 2 View FIGURES 1–6 ). Antennomere 4 wider than long ( Fig. 7 View FIGURES 7–16 ). Abdominal spine of tergum IV triangular in lateral view ( Fig. 16 View FIGURES 7–16 , ST4); spine of sternum III slightly longer than the spine of sternum IV ( Fig. 16 View FIGURES 7–16 , SS3 and SS4); tergum VIII with posterior margin emarginate and serrate ( Fig. 28 View FIGURES 28–33 ); sternum VIII with posterior margin projected medially ( Fig. 29 View FIGURES 28–33 ); median lobe of aedeagus curved paramerally in lateral view, apical half with ventral face straight at basal two-third and curved at the apical third ( Fig. 30 View FIGURES 28–33 ). Female. Similar to male, except tergum VIII with posterior margin not serrate ( Fig. 32 View FIGURES 28–33 ); sternum VIII with posterior margin curved ( Fig. 33 View FIGURES 28–33 ); spermatheca L-shaped, capsule globose and without coiled duct ( Fig. 31 View FIGURES 28–33 ).
Distribution. Brazil: Bahia (Iguaçú) ( Fig. 34 View FIGURE 34 )
Biological notes. Ctenopeuca romani is associated to the flower of Aristolochia L. ( Aristolochiaceae ) ( Bernhauer 1928) and in 2015 all specimens were collected in A. gigantea Mart. & Zucc. The host is an endemic liana that occurs in the East and South of Brazil, such as Bahia, Minas Gerais, Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Paraná ( Reflora 2023).
T |
Tavera, Department of Geology and Geophysics |
FMNH |
Field Museum of Natural History |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |