Phaea rufiventris Bates, 1872

Wappes, James E. & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2021, Three new species of Phaea Newman (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), with discussion of the need for and designation of a lectotype for Phaea rufiventris Bates, Insecta Mundi 2021 (845), pp. 1-13 : 10-12

Phaea rufiventris Bates, 1872

( Fig. 22–29 )

Phaea rufiventris Bates 1872: 228 ; Gemminger 1873: 3205 (cat.); Bates 1881: 196 (distr.); Aurivillius 1923: 574 (cat.); Gilmour 1965: 652 (cat.); Chemsak et al. 1992: 155 (checklist); Chemsak and Noguera 1993: 69; Monné and Giesbert 1994: 278 (checklist); Monné 1995: 29 (cat.); Noguera and Chemsak 1996: 407 (checklist); Chemsak 1999: 77; Toledo et al. 2002: 532 (distr.); Noguera et al. 2002: 626 (distr.); Monné 2005: 656 (cat.); Monné and Hovore 2006: 299 (checklist); Bezark 2020a: 347 (checklist); Monné 2020: 941 (cat.).

According to Bates (1872) (translated): “Elongated, sublinear, black shiny, setose, abdomen coccineus, elytra brownish-black; masculine thorax with transverse median coccineus band, and feminine thorax with large posterolateral coccineus macula; head punctate; umbone three times longer than wide, slightly punctate, shiny; elytra not coarsely, lineate punctate, irregularly punctate toward apex.” Still according to him: “The female is much larger than the male, and the tubercles of the thorax are much more elevated. Besides the sexual difference in colour mentioned above, the female has a red spot on each side of the metasternum.” Actually, the type series of Phaea rufiventris is composed of two different species which are very similar in general appearance. We examined males and females of both species and determined that the difference in color of the prothorax is not variable and thus, is not sexually dimorphic. Two male syntypes and one female syntype of P. rufiventris ( Figs. 19–21 ) belong to the new species described here: P. tavakiliani . Phaea rufiventris differs from P. tavakiliani as follows: Length usually larger (with exceptions); pronotum with umbone black, with the black and transverse anterior band forming a T-shaped macula; vertex lacking dense and bristly pubescence; elytra with dense, oblique pubescent band on anterior third of the dorsal surface. In P. tavakiliani , the length is usually smaller, the pronotum has a transverse black band anteriorly and another posteriorly (posterior black band may be partially absent), vertex with dense and bristly pubescence, and elytra lacking oblique pubescent band anteriorly, contrasting with the pubescence around it. Furthermore, the anterior area of the pronotal umbone is usually narrower in P. rufiventris , but intermediate forms were observed in both species. Bates pointed out that the umbone in females is more elevated, but we find that they are identical, or nearly so, in males and females of both species (intra- and interspecifically). Also, the reddish macula on the metasternum may be absent, or the metasternum may be mostly reddish in P. rufiventris . In summary, two features can be used to separate these species: 1.) vertex with dense pubescence in P. tavakiliani (absent in P. rufiventris ); and 2.) pronotal umbone reddish in P. tavakiliani (black in P. rufiventris ).

Except for the original description, Gemminger (1873) catalog (which mentioned only the original description), and revision by Chemsak (1999) (which mentioned variations of the color), it is not possible to know if the references on P. rufiventris belong to this species, to P. tavakiliani , or to both species. This would only be possible by examining the specimens used to establish the record. However, at least in some cases, since the specimens were not appropriately indicated by the author(s) this is not possible.

To maintain the stability of the species, we designate as lectotype the male ( Fig. 22 ) that has the following original labels ( Fig. 23 ):

1. White, handwritten: Mexico

2. White, handwritten: rufiventris / Bates / Mexico

3. White, printed: MUSEUM PARIS / COLL. H. W. BATES / 1952

Material examined. MEXICO, CHIAPAS: Aguacera [= El Agaucero], 16 km W Ocozocoautla, 2,500′, 2 males, 26–28.VI.1986, J. E. Wappes col. ( ACMT) ; 1 male, 1–7.VII.1986, J. E. Wappes col., ( ACMT) ; 17 km W Tuxtla Gutierrez , 3,300′, 1 male, 1–8.VII.1986, J. E. Wappes col. ( ACMT) . GUERRERO: Iguala , 7500–8000′, 1 female, 21.VII.1962, H. E. Milliron col. ( MZSP) . JALISCO: 7 km N of Malacque. 1 male, 16–19.VII.1990, J. E. Wappes col. ( ACMT) . MORELOS: Cuernavaca , 1 female, VI.1959, G. Halffter col. ( MZSP) ; 1 female, no collector and date indicated ( MZSP) ; Tepoxtlán , 1 female, 02.VI.1952, R. Macgregor and A. Barrera col. ( MZSP) ; Yautepec , 1 female, 30.VI.1956, G. Halffter col. ( MZSP) . SINALOA: 13 mil. E Concordia, 1500′, 1 male, 01.VIII.1964, W.R.M. Mason col. ( MZSP) .

Geographical distribution. According to Chemsak (1999), P. rufiventris occurs in the following Mexican states: Sinaloa, Chiapas, Nayarit, Jalisco, Colima, Guerrero, Morelos, Puebla, and Oaxaca. However, based on the material available we can only confirm Chiapas, Guerrero, Jalisco, and Morelos as valid records.

Figures

Figures 22–29. Phaea rufiventris. 22–23) Lectotype male. 22) Dorsal habitus. 23) Labels. 24–26) Female. 24) Dorsal habitus. 25) Ventral habitus. 26) Head, frontal view. 27–29) Male. 27) Head, frontal view. 28) Dorsal habitus. 29) Ventral habitus.

Figures 16–21. Phaea spp. 16-18) Phaea tavakiliani, 16) Ventral habitus, holotype male. 17) Dorsal habitus, paratype female. 18) Ventral habitus, paratype female. 19–21) Syntypes of Phaea rufiventris, dorsal habitus. 19) Male. 20) Female. 21) Male.