Estoloides strandiella Breuning, 1940
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4375.4.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:557EA161-F356-4536-A0E0-34AF7A102234 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5976768 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0380274E-FB0E-3E1E-FCD1-2B0F10E2F9F9 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Estoloides strandiella Breuning, 1940 |
status |
|
On Estoloides strandiella Breuning, 1940 View in CoL
Breuning (1940) described E. strandiella based on a single specimen from Costa Rica. Breuning (1974a) redescribed the species as follows (translated): “Near to perforata Bat. , but the head and pronotum coarser punctate, the elytra interspersed with punctures very coarse, the margins of the scutellum, except the base, covered with whitish pubescence, the two last tarsal segments not reddish, the antennae with darker pubescence.” In the key, Breuning (1974a) separated E. strandiella from E. fulvitarsis and E. perforata in the alternative of couplet “1” (translated): “1. Antennomere III distinctly longer than IV [leading to E. strandiella ] / Antennomere III, at most, slightly longer than IV [leading to E. perforata and E. fulvitarsis ].” The difference in the length of the same antennomeres is often variable in the species of Estoloides and typically larger in males than females. Examination of the female holotype photograph of E. strandiella ( Figs 10–12 View FIGURES 1–12. 1 ) does not show any consistent difference(s) when compared with females of E. perforata . Furthermore, although photographs of the holotype of E. strandiella are not exacting, the length of the antennomere III appears to be slightly longer than IV. It is very likely that E. strandiella is actually another synonym of E. perforata . However, as with E. fulvitarsis , it would be necessary to examine all specimens in the type series to prove this.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |