Costanana obtusa sp. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 6C9FE23A-E57D-440D-8C41-93B9E2934678

Figs 7, 12A–B

Diagnosis

Coloration (Fig. 12A) of head and pronotum brown with black maculae, forewing costal margin with broad light yellow macula on anterior third and large depigmented (white) macula on apical third. Style (Fig. 7K) with ventral dentiform process near base of blade; apex truncated. Aedeagus (Fig. 7L–M) without processes near base; shaft slender with pair of long filiform subapical processes directed basally, with one or two spurs near base; apex of shaft spatulate and rounded.

Etymology

The species epithet ‘ obtusa ’ refers to the unusual apex of the style being truncated.

Material examined

Holotype BRAZIL • ♂; “Brasil, Bahia, \ Encruzilhada \ XII.1980 \ M. Alvarenga ”; DZUP 215492.

Description

Male

MEASUREMENTS. Holotype male: total length 6.8 mm.

COLORATION. Dorsal portion of head and thorax brown (Figs 7A, C, 12A); ventral portion yellow (Figs 7B–C, 12B). Crown (Fig. 7A) almost completely black, except median line and posterior margin brown; pair of rounded black spots behind ocelli, near posterior margin; eyes and ocelli red. Pronotum (Fig. 7A) with black irregular maculae near anterior margin; lateral margins yellow. Face (Fig. 7B) with frons brownish. Forewing (Fig. 7D) with large triangular light yellow macula on anterior half of costal margin and a large rounded depigmented (white) macula at level of outer anteapical cell, remaining portion of costal cell, apical cells, apex of clavus and appendix dark brown; apical margin yellow-brown.

STRUCTURE. Head in dorsal view (Fig. 7A): median length of crown as long as interocular width; transocular width of head 8.2 tenths humeral width of pronotum; in lateral view (Fig. 7C), with anterior margin thick, with 7–8 well developed carinae. Forewing (Fig. 7D) inner discal cell open, m-cu 2 crossvein absent; apex broadly rounded. Other characteristics as in the generic description.

MALE TERMINALIA. Sternite VIII (Fig. 7E) 1.1× as long as wide; lateral margins excavated at base, forming a triangular projection; apex rounded. Valve (Fig. 7F) 2.2× as wide as long; posterior margin almost straight and weakly emarginated medially. Pygofer (Fig. 7G), in lateral view, 1.8× as long as maximum height; basodorsal process present but weakly developed; ventral margin with rounded protrusion near midlength; posterodorsal and ventral margins rounded; external surface near ventral margin with short filiform setae; macrosetae distributed on posterior half; apex broadly rounded. Subgenital plate (Fig. 7G), in lateral view, slightly surpassing half length of pygofer; in ventral view (Fig. 7H), 3.5× as long as wide; inner margin straight; external margin slightly rounded on basal half; ventral surface and external margin with long filiform setae; apex tapered and weakly sclerotized. Connective (Fig. 7I) approximately linear; arms not produced laterally; stalk longer than maximum width of arms, widened apically; median keel weakly developed. Style (Fig. 7J), in dorsal view, with outer lobe reduced and subtruncated; in lateral view (Fig. 7K), blade broadened medially; ventral margin not serrated, with dentiform process near base of blade; apex truncated. Aedeagus (Fig. 7L–M) preatrium not developed; dorsal apodeme strongly elongated laterally, forming divergent and truncated apices; shaft slender, curved dorsally; pair of long filiform subapical processes directed basally, with one or two spurs near base; apex spatulate and rounded.

Female

Unknown.

Remarks

Costanana obtusa sp. nov. is most similar to C. piraquarensis sp. nov. in having a similar color pattern (Fig.12A–D), especially the pair of large maculae on the costal margin of the forewing (Figs 7D, 8D) and the general shape of the pygofer, style, connective and aedeagus (Figs 7G–M, 8G–M). Costanana obtusa is separated from C. piraquarensis in having the following differences: (1) apex of pygofer rounded (Fig. 7G); (2) connective longer (Fig. 7I); (3) style with apex truncated (Fig. 7K); (4) aedeagal shaft slenderer (Fig. 7L–M); and (5) subapical pair of processes having one or two spurs near the base (Fig. 7M). Unfortunately the legs of the holotype are missing but, due to the distinctly different genitalia and the lack of importance for species delimitation of the morphology of the legs, we suppose this does not prejudge the description or future recognition of this species.