Tulcus picticornis (Bates, 1865)

(Figs 19–20)

Hypselomus picticornis Bates, 1865: 111 .

Remarks. Bates (1865) described Hypselomus picticornis (= Tulcus picticornis) based on a single female (Fig. 20) from Brazil (Amazonas, Ega, a locality now known as Tefé).Later, Bates (1872) reported it from Nicaragua (Chontales) and Bates (1880) incorrectly considered Hypsioma signaticornis Thomson, 1868 (= Tulcus signaticornis —not Tulcus signaticorne as incorrectly indicated by Martins & Galileo (2009) and followed by Tavakilian & Chevillotte (2025)), and reported H. picticornis also from Guatemala (Vera Paz) and Panama (Chiriquí); Bates (1885) recorded it from Mexico (Toxpam and Cordova), Guatemala (Mirandilla and Pantaleon [both in Escuintla Department]), and Nicaragua (San Juan del Sur). According to Selander & Vaurie (1962) on Toxpam: “Not located. The locality is given once in the “Biologia” as “Toxpam near Cordova” and elsewhere is cited frequently with Veracruz localities. It is possibly an error for Tuxpan, Veracruz.”

Dillon & Dillon (1945) described Charoides lycimnia (Fig 21) from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Venezuela, and Trinidad and Tobago and reported: “ Hypsioma picticornis Bates Biol. Centr.-Amer., Col. v, 1880, p. 123, pl. IX, fig. 7. [not Bates, 1865.].” In fact, figure 8 on plate IX in Bates (1880) (Fig. 25) was also identified as Hypsioma picticornis, although the pattern of elytral pubescence in the two figures is very different. About figure 8 in Bates (1880), Dillon & Dillon (1945) reported: “ Hypsioma picticornis Bates, loc. cit., p. 170; Biol. Centr.-Amer., Col. V, 1880, pl IX, fig. 8 [not p. 123 nor fig. 7, for which see C. lycimnia].” However, figure 7 in Bates (1880) (Fig. 24) does not agree to either the holotype of Charoides lycimnia (Fig. 21), to figure 10, plate IV, by Dillon & Dillon (1946) (Fig. 22), or to the holotype of Hypselomus picticornis (Fig. 20). Similarly, figure 14 by Dillon & Dillon (1946) (Fig. 23) does not match the holotype of Hypselomus picticornis (Fig. 20). As we were unable to identify any reliable differences between the specimen from Honduras and the holotype of Tulcus picticornis, we believe that it indeed belongs to this species. Therefore, it is not possible to determine to which species the specimens identified as Tulcus picticornis by Bates (1872, 1880, 1885), Lameere (1893), Leng & Mutchler (1914), and Dillon & Dillon (1945, 1946) actually belong—or even whether they belong to more than one species. Dillon & Dillon (1945) separated T. picticornis from T. lycimnius in the alternative of couplet “2:” “Antennae with third segment pale pubescent at base, but surface is uniformly piceous,” leading to T. picticornis; “Antennae with third segment having at last basal quarter of surface pale,” leading to T. lycimnius . However, the difference pointed out by them is not true since the holotype of both species have the basal region of the antennomere III distinctly pale. In fact, Bates (1865) reported on Tulcus picticornis: “antennis brunneus, articulo 2 do toto et caeteris basi rufescentibus [antennae brown, the second segment entirely and the bases of the others reddish—“rufescentibus" does not accurately match the true color of these segments, which is distinctly more pale yellow].” Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that T. picticornis sensu Dillon & Dillon (1945) does not correspond to Bates’ species. Consequently, it is highly probable that T. lycimnius is a junior synonym of T. picticornis . However, we prefer not to formally establish this synonymy at this time. This is because it will be necessary to study additional specimens, preferably including part of the type series of T. lycimnius as well as more specimens of T. picticornis, to determine whether there are any distinguishing morphological features.

Material examined. HONDURAS (new country record), Olancho: R. Plátano Biosph. [Reserva Biosfera Río Plátano], 15.284°N 85.905°W, 1 male, E. van den Berghe leg. (DHCO) .