Mycotretus pebasensis Crotch, 1876

Pecci-Maddalena, Italo Salvatore de Castro, Lopes-Andrade, Cristiano & Skelley, Paul, 2023, Catalogue of Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842 (Coleoptera: Erotylidae: Tritomini): an annotated, illustrated and historical approach, European Journal of Taxonomy 876 (1), pp. 1-182 : 46-48

44. Mycotretus pebasensis Crotch, 1876

Mycotretus pebasensis Crotch, 1876: 439 . Type locality: “Pebas” [ Peru].

Mycotretus pebasensis – Gemminger & Harold 1876: 3692. — Kuhnt 1909: 76; 1911: 52. — Mader 1942: 175; 1951: 223. — Blackwelder 1945: 467. — Alvarenga 1994: 32. — Skelley 1998b: 15. — McHugh & Chaboo 2015: 278.

Primary type

Lectotype, here designated ( Fig. 9C)

PERU • “TYPE [blue label, printed] \ TYPE. [printed], Pebasensis Pebas [handwritten] \ LECTOTYPE [printed], Mycotretus pebasensis Crotch, 1876 [red label, handwritten]”; UMZC .

Other specimens examined

BRAZIL • 1 ♂ (dissected); “ Coleção M. Alvarenga [printed] \ Homeotipo [red label, printed] \ Comparado com tipo [printed] Mycotretus pebasensis Crotch, 1876 [handwritten] M. Alvarenga det. 1971 [printed] \ TABATINGA [printed], Amazonas Brasil [printed] iv. 1958 [handwritten] E. S. Lima [printed] \ 2029 [printed] \ DZUP 136162 [printed]”; DZUP • 1 ♂ (dissected); “ Coleção M. Alvarenga [printed] \ TABATINGA [printed], Amazonas Brasil [printed] v. 1957 [handwritten] E. Sousa Lima [printed] \ 2030 [printed] \ Mycotretus 033 [handwritten] \ DZUP 136164 [printed]”; DZUP • 1 ♀ (dissected); “ Coleção M. Alvarenga [printed] \ TABATINGA [printed], Amazonas Brasil [printed] v. 1957 [handwritten] E. Sousa Lima [printed] \ 2031 [printed] \ Mycotretus 033 [handwritten] \ DZUP 136163 [printed]”; DZUP .

Distribution

Peru, North Brazil.

Remarks

The dissected female of M. pebasensis has the pronotal black spot slightly “split”, resembling that of M. separandus ( Fig. 10F). In fact, M. pebasensis , M. separandus , M. egae ( Fig. 6C), M. decoratus ( Fig. 13B) and M. hilaris ( Fig. 31B) are morphologically similar, based on their colour pattern, body shape and morphology of male genitalia. However, we noted a few differences in the sclerotization of the penile flagellum and flagellar head morphology. These species may be synonyms, a decision that is not possible to take before examining more specimens and determining whether their variations are diagnostic for keeping species separated or constitute infraspecific variations of a single species.