Rosalba cordigera ( Aurivillius, 1920 ) Wappes & Santos-Silva & Galileo, 2019

Wappes, James E., Santos-Silva, Antonio & Galileo, Maria Helena M., 2019, Synonymies, a new combination, and four new species in Amphicnaeia Bates (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Lamiinae), Insecta Mundi 703 (703), pp. 1-18 : 9-10

Rosalba cordigera ( Aurivillius, 1920) , new combination

( Fig. 29–32 )

Amphicnaeia cordigera Aurivillius 1920: 386 ; 1922: 293 (cat.); Melzer 1934: 90; Saalas 1936: 149 (morphol.); Zikán & Zikán 1944: 25 (distr.); Blackwelder 1946: 598 (checklist); Monte 1954: 736; Zajciw 1958: 15 (distr.); Buck 1959: 597 (distr.); Galileo & Martins 2001: 38 (reval.); Monné 2005: 287 (cat.); Monné et al. 2010: 247 (distr.); Monné et al. 2012: 54 (distr.); Monné et al. 2016: 23 (distr.); Monné 2018: 391 (cat.).

Amphicnaeia lineata m. cordigera ; Breuning 1960: 173 (cat.); 1971: 219; Zajciw 1972: 59 (distr.).

Aletretia rufescens Breuning 1940b: 42 ; Blackwelder 1946: 598 (checklist). New synonym.

Rosalba rufescens ; Breuning 1960: 174 (cat.); 1971: 232; Monné & Giesbert 1994: 7 (checklist); Monné 2005: 311 (cat.); Monné & Hovore 2006: 229 (checklist); Monné et al. 2010: 247 (distr.); Bezark 2013: 50 (distr.); Monné 2018: 422 (cat.); Santos-Silva et al. 2018: 234 , 240 .

Aurivillius (1920) described Amphicnaeia cordigera ( Fig. 29 ) from Brazil (Rio de Janeiro), based on multiple specimens (exact number not specified). Although Aurivillius described the general pubescence of the elytra, he did not mention the presence or absence of erect setae. Breuning (1960) considered A. cordigera as a form of A. lineata , but subsequently Galileo & Martins 2001 revalidated the species.

Breuning (1940b) described Aletretia rufescens , based on a single specimen from Brazil (Rio de Janeiro). Later, Breuning (1960) transferred the species to Rosalba Thomson, 1864 . After this, the species was mentioned only in catalogues and checklists, until Santos-Silva et al. (2018), who redescribed, provided new state records, and illustrated the species. According to them: “ Breuning (1971) reported (translated): “Perhaps this is just a poorly preserved specimen of malleri MELZ.” Actually, the description (Breuning 1940[b]) and redescription ( Breuning 1971) of R. rufescens do not allow us to be sure about the differences regarding to R. malleri . However, from what it is possible to see, the holotype of R. rufescens has the elytral apex less narrowed toward apex than in R. malleri . Furthermore, examination of the pubescence that remained on the elytron of the holotype ( Fig. 32 ) suggests that the arrangement is most similar to the specimens studied by us ( Fig. 30–31 ), rather than to R. malleri .”

Validation that the R. rufescens sensu Santos-Silva et al. (2018) corresponds to the true R. rufescens then it is certain this species is a junior synonym of Amphicnaeia cordigera and belongs in the genus Rosalba (the main difference between Rosalba and Amphicnaeia is the absence ( Rosalba ) or presence ( Amphicnaeia ) of erect setae on elytra).

It is not possible to be sure about Amphicnaeia cordigera sensu auctorum, without examination of the specimens studied by them. Accordingly, no changes can be made simply based on the literature pertaining to A. cordigera .

Figures

Figures 29–32. Rosalba cordigera. 29) Syntype of Amphicnaeia cordigera, dorsal habitus. 30–31) Rosalba rufescens, from Santos-Silva et al. (2018). 30) Dorsal habitus. 31) Lateral habitus. 32) Rosalba rufescens, holotype, from Santos-Silva et al. (2018).