Pentacomia (Mesochila) proceroides, Moravec, Jiří, 2016

Moravec, Jiří, 2016, Taxonomic and nomenclatorial revision within the Neotropical genera of the subtribe Odontocheilina W. Horn in a new sense — 16. Pentacomia (Mesochila) procera (Chaudoir), P. (M.) conformis (Dejean), and P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), Zootaxa 4127 (2), pp. 276-300 : 292-298

Pentacomia (Mesochila) proceroides sp. nov.

Type locality. Brazil: “Fazenda Jerusalem” near Alegre, state of Espirito Santo.

Misinterpretation. Odontochila procera sensu Horn (1929: 157 fig. 20, 158) , and sensu Zikán (1929) partim. Non Odontochila procera Chaudoir, 1860 (= Pentacomia (Mesochila) procera ( Chaudoir, 1860) .

Type material. Holotype ♂ in SDEI, labelled: “ Brazil / Espirito Santo / Faz. Jerusalem / 8.-11.-1912 ” / J. F. Zikan” [printed, the date handwritten] // “♂” [handwritten] // “Coll. W. Horn / DEI Eberswalde” [printed]. Allotype. 1 ♀ in SDEI with same labels as holotype except for: “ 3.-11.-1911 ” // “♀” //. Paratypes. 2 ♂♂ in SDEI, with same labels except for: “ 4.-11.-1912 ”. 1 ♂ in SDEI: “Zikan[leg.], Castello / bei Palmital / Espir. Sant.” [handwritten] // “ 11/5 / 1905 ” [handwritten] // “Coll. W. Horn / DEI Eberswalde” [printed]. 2 ♂♂ in SDEI: “ Brazil / Villa de Alegre, Espi / rito Santo / J. F. Zikán” [with black border, handwritten/printed] // “ 30./11. / 1911 ”. 1 ♀ in MNHN: “ Brazil / Espirito Santo / Faz Jerusalem / J. F. Zikan” [printed] // “Muséum Paris, Coll. Chaudoir, 1874” [green, printed]. All type specimens labelled: “ Holotype (or Allotype or Paratype respectively) / Pentacomia (Mesochila) / proceroides sp. nov. / det. Jiří Moravec 2016 ” [red, printed].

Following paratypes examined only from photos of the habitus, labrum and aedeagi, taken and sent by André Silva Roza (Federal University, Rio de Janeiro): 4 ♂♂ in CEIOC with the same locality labels and collector as in the holotype, except for: “ 30.II.1911, 3.XI.1911, 3.XII.1911, 11.XI.1914 ”. 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in CEIOC: “ Brazil / Palmital / Espirito Santo / Faz. Castello / J. Zikan 11.I.1905.”

Other material examined. 1 ♂ in CMNH: “Minas ( Brazil)” // “J. F. Zikán” // “Field Mus. / (F. Psota Coll.)” / / “Robert D. Ward / Collection” // “ Pentacomia / ( Mesochila ) / conformis Dejean / Det. R. Ward 1977” // “ Mesochila / proceroides Moravec, 2016 / det. Jiří Moravec 2016 ”.

Differential diagnosis. P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. superficially resembles P. (M.) procera because of its similar, but generally much smaller body, similar shape of the pronotum and elongate, almost parallel-side elytra with fine elytral punctation; its labrum ( Figs 84–90 ) in both sexes also has the same rounded and prominent anterolateral teeth, but the median lobe of the male labrum ( Figs 84–88 ) is truncate to subtruncate, never distinctly arcuate or semicircular as in most males of P. (M.) procera ; males of this new species are reliably distinguished from those of P. (M.) procera by the very different shape of their aedeagi ( Figs 98–103 ) which have their apical portion directed ventrally, and with rounded, sometimes dorsally emarginated apex (never distinctly hooked as in the almost straight aedeagi of P. (M.) procera ).

P. (M.) conformis clearly differs in having its labrum in both sexes with flattened anterolateral teeth (never prolonged anteriad), and different shape of its aedeagus with characteristic, unique structure of the internal sac (see under that species above).

Description. Body ( Fig. 76–79 ) medium-sized to large, length 10.2–12.90 (HT 10.3, AT 12.8) mm, width 2.90–3.50 (HT 3.00, AT 3.50) mm, females mostly larger than males; body shape similar to that in P. (M.) procera , notably elongate, particularly so in female, but iridescent-green coloration mostly prevailing.

Head ( Figs 80–82 ) conspicuously large with wide eyes, as wide as the body, width 2.90–3.45 mm; shape, surface sculpture and coloration of frons, vertex, genae and clypeus as in P. (M.) procera , but with prevailing iridescent-green lustre.

Labrum primarily 4-setose, usually one or two lateral setae absent (either broken or rarely not developed), shape sexually dimorphic; male labrum ( Figs 84–88 ) ochre-yellow to brownish-testaceous with indistinctly blackbrown darkened basal or also basolateral areas, sometimes with brown patches, length 0.85–1.00 mm, width 1.30– 1.45 mm, shape basically similar to that in P. (M.) procera , in having prominent anteriad-prolonged anterolateral teeth, but the teeth are usually in the same level as the median lobe, or slightly surpassing its anterior margin which is mostly truncate or subtruncate, very rarely indistinctly anteriad-prolonged; female labrum ( Figs 90–91 ) almost as long as wide, in AT 1.55 mm long, 1.50 mm wide, similar to that in P. (M.) procera , but in examined specimens never blackened.

Mandibles (( Figs 82–83 ), closed ones ( Figs 80–81, 89 ), shape and coloration as in P. (M.) procera , but the inner teeth gradually smaller towards the basal molar (the fourth tooth in examined specimens well developed).

Palpi ( Figs 80–83, 90 ), shape as in P. (M.) procera , but coloration darker, often also penultimate palpomeres of maxillary palpi black (apart from the black terminal palpomeres).

Antennae as in P. (M.) procera .

Thorax. Pronotum ( Figs 91–92 ), glabrous, iridescent-green with mostly indistinct reddish-cupreous median area, notably longer than wide, length 2.05–2.45 mm (HT, AT), width 1.65–2.00 mm (HT, AT), sulci well pronounced; anterior lobe slightly wide that the posterior, almost as wide as the disc, with anterior margin only moderately prolonged anteriad; surface very irregularly rugulose; disc with parallel to subparallel, or only slightly convex lateral margins (including those of clearly visible proepisterna), notopleural sutures rather distinct, clearly visible from above and distant from the lateral margins of the dorsally visible proepisterna and slightly narrowed in middle; medial line distinct; discal surface finely but striate-rugulose, transverse-striate in middle, striae converging towards the median line, sublateral areas covered with finer and irregularly wavy rugae; lateral juxtanotopleural areas covered with shorter and shallower rugae which do not surpass notopleural sutures; posterior lobe notably high, surface very finely and irregularly rugulose, large dorsolateral bulges smooth and shiny; all lateral and ventral thoracic sterna generally as in P. (M.) conformis and P. (M.) procera , but with stronger green lustre; female mesepisternal coupling sulci indistinct, in form of the longitudinal furrow which is only slightly deeper than in male, somewhat sinuous and with indistinct median impression (lacking any deep pit).

Elytra ( Figs 93-97 ) in both sexes notably elongate, length 6.30–8.00 mm, in both sexes with rounded humeri; elytral margins as in P. (M.) procera , but even more subparallel in both sexes; shape of anteapical angles and apices as in P. (M.) conformis and P. (M.) procera ; elytral dorsal surface as in P. (M.) procera almost even; elytral coloration as in P. (M.) procera but prevailingly iridescent green, rarely reddish-cupreous, but usually changing to green depending on angle of illumination; whole elytral surface densely and almost regularly punctate, the pattern of the punctation even finer than in P. (M.) procera , notably finer and almost uniform punctures particularly on female elytra; elytral surface glabrous except for the usual, a few and often very indistinct hairlike sensory setae (as in other species); whitish elytral maculation consisting in male of three maculae as in P. (M.) conformis and P. (M.) procera , but the humeral macula is absent in female, and sublateral-median macula is generally smaller, particularly so in female, mostly rounded, or only very indistinctly longitudinal, or mesad prolonged.

Legs as in P. (M.) procera , but trochanters in female much darker, particularly metatrochanters black, and femora with more intense mahogany lustre.

Abdomen generally as in P. (M.) conformis and P. (M.) procera , but ventrites with prevailing deep blue coloration.

Aedeagus ( Figs 98–103 , anomalous one Fig. 104 ) widest in middle, with notably ventrally bent apical half which is conically (or rarely more abruptly) attenuated towards rounded apex which is only indistinctly dorsally emarginated; internal sac ( Figs 105–110 ) structured as in P. (M.) procera , with similar ventral spur with wing-like dilated base and rather short filiform projection and other sclerites, of which the dorsal tooth partly penetrates the dorsal orifice, but the upper-central, partly membranous large piece is wide, compacter and with more sclerotized hooks.

Variability. Despite the almost constant external characters and consistent structure of the internal sac, the aedeagi somewhat vary in the shape of the ventrally bent apical half. Nevertheless, the rounded apex is almost consistent in shape with only more or less distinct dorsal emargination. The differences are obviously caused by the state of the membrane of the dorsoapical orifice, which is usually collapsed and may change the shape. Moreover, the aedeagi, cleared and mounted in order to show their internal sacs, become usually widened and straightened by the clearing procedure. The aedeagus ( Fig. 90 ) was inappropriately treated (probably using acetic acid) when mounted by Horn in his collection (SDEI).

Teratology. The anomalously developed aedeagus ( Fig. 104 ) is with forked apical half, thus showing an additional apical portion of the penis, while the primary portion of the penis, including its apex, is normally developed.

Distribution, ecology and biology. The type locality of this new species, Fazenda Jerusalem, one of the farms of the collector J. F. Zikán, is situated near the municipal area of Alegre in the southeastern Brazilian state Espirito Santo. The paratypes (SDEI and CEIOC), labelled “Villa Alegre” and “Castello del Palmital”, also come from the same area. The only male (CMNH), labelled “Minas”, comes from the state of Minas Gerais, probably from an area adjoining the states Espirito Santo and Rio de Janeiro. The biotopes of the Atlantic Rainforest in the areas of the type locality are now only partially preserved (André Silva Roza, pers. com.)

The behaviour of adults (under “ Odontochila procera ”) was partially described by Zikán (1929) during rearing in captivity, mostly female ovipositing and developing of larva and pupa to metamorphosis; he also illustrated larval tunnels. As Zikán (1929) mentioned an occurrence of “ Odontochila ” procera together with “ Odontochila ” cyaneomarginata (= Pentacomia (Mesochila) cyaneomarginata (W. Horn, 1900)) , also in mountains near Palmital and Fazenda Jerusalem near Alegre (the type locality of P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov.), he evidently treated under the name “ Odontochila procera ”, at least partially, P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. from its type locality. He briefly mentioned the occurrence of these species as “in jungle”, and that adults seldom flew onto ground.

Remarks. As mentioned under P. (M.) procera above, Horn (1929: 157 fig. 20, 158) confused P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. with P. (M.) procera . Zikán (1929) also treated this new species partly under the name P. (M.) procera (see “Biology and distribution” above). The initials of the baptismal names of Joseph Francisco Zikán, the collector of this new species and entomologist who specialized in immature stages of tiger beetles, are often variably and wrongly cited for his publication ( Zikán 1929).

Figures

FIGURES 80 – 90. P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. 80 – 83 — head: 80 — ♂, Faz. Jerusalem, HT (SDEI); 81 — ♂, Palmital PT (SDEI); 82 — ♂, Faz. Jerusalem, PT (SDEI); ♂, Villa de Alegre PT (SDEI); 84 – 89 — labrum: 84 – 85 — Villa de Alegre PT (SDEI); 86 — ♂, Faz. Jerusalem, HT (SDEI); 87 — ♂, ibid., PT (SDEI); 88 — ♂, Palmital PT (SDEI); 89 — ♀, Faz. Jerusalem, AT (SDEI); 90 — ditto, with buccal appendages. Bars = 1 mm.

FIGURES 98 – 110. P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. 99 – 104 — aedeagus: 98 — Faz. Jerusalem, HT (SDEI); 99 — ibid. PT (SDEI); 100 — Villa de Alegre PT (SDEI); 101 — ibid., PT (SDEI); 102 — ditto, apex in ventral view; 103 — Palmital PT (SDEI); 104 — anomalous, Faz. Jerusalem, PT (SDEI); 105 – 110 — internal sac: 105 – 106 — left and right lateral view, Palmital PT (SDEI); 107 — Faz. Jerusalem, HT (SDEI): 108 — ditto, dorsal view; 109 — ditto, ventral view; 110 ditto, right lateral view. Bars = 1 mm.

FIGURES 76 – 79. Habitus of P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. 76 — ♂, 10.3 mm, Faz. Jerusalem, HT (SDEI); 77 — ♂, 11.6 mm, Villa de Alegre, PT (SDEI); 78 — ♂, 11.2 mm, Palmital, PT (SDEI); 79 — ♀, 12.8 mm, Faz. Jerusalem, AT (SDEI).

FIGURES 91 – 97. P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. 91 – 92 — pronotum: 91 — ♂, Faz. Jerusalem, HT (SDEI); 92 — ♀, Faz. Jerusalem, AT (SDEI); 93 – 97 — elytron: 93 — ♂, Faz. Jerusalem, HT (SDEI); 94 – 95 — ♂, Villa de Alegre PT (SDEI); 96 — ♂, Palmital PT (SDEI); 97 — ♀, Faz. Jerusalem, AT (SDEI). Bars = 1 mm.