Prionacalus iphis White, 1850

Santos-Silva, Antonio, Komiya, Ziro & Nearns, Eugenio H., 2013, Revision of the Genus Prionacalus White, 1845 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Prioninae: Prionini), The Coleopterists Bulletin 67 (3), pp. 201-240 : 226-231

Prionacalus iphis White, 1850

( Figs. 4, 5, 15 , 76–87 , 112–120 )

Prionacalus Iphis White 1850: 11, 1851: 71 ; Gemminger and Harold 1872: 2755 (catalogue).

Prionacalus iphis ; Monné and Giesbert 1994: 15 (checklist); Monné 1995: 60 (catalogue), 2006: 83 (catalogue); Komiya 2001: 30 (fig. 5), 32 (key); Di Iorio 2003: 3 (distribution); Monné and Hovore 2005: 19 (checklist), 2006: 18 (checklist); Jeniš 2010: 16 (holotype male), 123 (male).

Prionocalus Iphis; Lacordaire 1868: 42 (note); Waterhouse 1872: 261 (key); Thomson 1877: 260.

Psalidognathus (Prionocalus) Iphis ; Lameere 1910: 375, 1913: 65 (catalogue), 1919: 121.

Psalidognathus (Prionocalus) iphis ; Blackwelder 1946: 555 (checklist).

Prionocalus iphis ; Quentin and Villiers 1983: 225 (key); Hüdepohl 1985: 121 (key).

Prionus (Prionacalus) Cacicus White 1845: 110 , pl. 8, fig. 2 (female, not male), 1850: 11 (synonymy).

Prionocalus Buckleyi Waterhouse 1872: 261 ; Thomson 1877: 260; Whymper 1892: 10; Nonfried 1892: 17; Lameere 1883: 6 (catalogue); Bates 1892: 37; Wood 1892: 233, fig. 10; Campos 1921: 87. New synonymy.

Prionacalus Buckleyi ; Waterhouse 1880: 485.

Prionacalus buckleyi ; Monné and Giesbert 1994: 15 (checklist); Monné 1995: 60 (catalogue), 2006: 82 (catalogue); Komiya 2001: 32 (key); Di Iorio 2003: 3 (distribution); Monné and Hovore 2005: 19 (checklist), 2006: 18 (checklist); Jeniš 2010: 19 (syntypes male and female), 116 (male), 117 (female).

Psalidognathus (Prionocalus) Buckleyi ; Lameere 1910: 376 (part), 1913: 65 (catalogue, part), 1919: 121 (part).

Psalidognathus (Prionocalus) buckleyi ; Blackwelder 1946: 555 (checklist).

Prionocalus buckleyi ; Quentin and Villiers 1983: 224; Hüdepohl 1985: 121.

Prionocalus Whitei Waterhouse 1900: 505 , 1 fig.; Lameere 1910: 376 (synonymy).

Psalidognathus (Prionocalus) Buckelyi var. Whitei; Lameere 1910: 65 (revalidation).

Prionacalus Emmae Kolbe 1902: 480 , pl. 7, figs. 4, 4a; Lameere 1910: 376 (synonymy).

Redescription. Male ( Fig. 76 ). Integument black; maxillary and labial palpi brown (somewhat dark) to reddish brown; femora black to dark brown; tibiae entirely black, or black on base and gradually reddish brown towards apex, or entirely reddish brown; tarsi dark brown to reddish brown (at least distal 1/3 of claws always black); antennae entirely black, or scape black and remaining antennomeres brown, or black with distal portion of some antennomeres brownish; distal 1/3 of elytra frequently dark brown (sometimes lighter), but the distal 1/2 sometimes distinctly reddish. Head: Coarsely punctate-rugose, mainly between cephalic carinae on region of eyes and antennal tubercles; area between cephalic carinae distinctly depressed, centrally with distinct sulcus from clypeus to area of middle of eyes. Antennal tubercle coarsely, confluently punctate on base, almost smooth towards apex; bases far from each other (distance between them equal to about 1.4 times width). Cephalic carinae ( Fig. 78 ) distinctly convergent from antennal tubercle to after eyes, divergent at its distal 1/3, usually moderately elevated at apex, becoming tuberclelike, with a transverse carina connecting the cephalic carinae near apex (always distinctly lower and narrower than the cephalic carina; frequently interrupted at middle; sometimes almost absent). Area behind lower ocular lobes with abundant, small asperities. Lateral tubercle of head large to moderately small, rounded to almost acute at apex, narrow to wide. Subhorizontal area of clypeus coarsely, shallowly punctate to almost smooth, usually with distal margin elevated. Distal area of clypeus distinctly concave, smooth. Labrum distinctly concave, apex centrally emarginate or not. Distance between upper ocular lobes 2.2–3.0 times longest width of 1 lobe. Gena acute at apex ( Fig. 78 ), downwardly projected (sometimes rounded, not projected). Submentum depressed, coarsely, shallowly, confluently punctate (sometimes moderately coarsely, transversely vermiculate or distinctly finer punctate). Mandibles ( Fig. 79 ) 0.75–0.95 times head length; subcylindrical on basal 1/2 (large males), or more distinctly laminar (small males); surface coarsely, abundantly punctate on basal 1/3, gradually finer, sparser towards apex (smooth closer to inner margin); left mandible in large males with small denticulation between base and distal plate, with a moderately large tooth close to distal plate, rounded at apex, or with distinct teeth between base and distal plate, variable in number, position, and size; left mandible in medium sized and small males with 3–4 distinct teeth (usually part of them jointly protracted) between base and distal plate; inner margin of right of large, medium, and small males as left mandible, but occasionally only with a large, apically rounded tooth or with a large, triangular tooth close to distal plate; distal plate of left mandible wider than that of right mandible. Longest width of last maxillary and labial palpomeres 0.35 times ( Fig. 4 ) to 0.55 times ( Fig. 5 ) length. Antennae reaching only distal 1/5 of elytra, or distinctly surpassing elytral apex; scape slightly enlarged from base to apex (sometimes more distinctly enlarged), coarsely, confluently punctate, except on distal 1/5, which is very sparsely, finely punctate; antennomere III 1.4–1.5 times longer than scape; antennomeres III-X with small projection on both sides of apex (sometimes with distinct spines). Thorax: Lateroanterior angles of prothorax slightly projected forward, rounded; latero-posterior angles of prothorax distinctly projected sideward (toothlike), acute at apex; lateral margin with 3 distinct teeth (anterior tooth smallest). Pronotum with distinct depression on center of disc, longitudinally divided by carina; coarsely punctate-vermiculate (less so laterally), sometimes with distinct, impunctate, shiny area on each side of base; anterior margin centrally emarginate or not. Prosternal process ( Fig. 15 ) without spiniform projection on underside of apex. Elytra coarsely vermiculate throughout; apices individually or jointly rounded; with or without projection at sutural angle (occasionally, left elytron shorter than right one). Apical tooth of humeral projection very small to large. Abdomen: Not surpassing elytral apex. Ventrite I ( Fig. 77 ) moderately finely, sparsely punctate; ventrites II-IV coarsely, abundantly punctate, except near distal margin which is smooth (occasionally, II-IV moderately finely and sparsely punctate, but always denser and coarser than on I); ventrite V abundantly, coarsely punctate throughout. Legs: Apex of metafemora surpassing elytral apex by about 1/5 (occasionally about 2/5) length. Ventral sulcus of protibiae ( Fig. 83 ) distinct from near base to near apex. Protarsi ( Fig. 80 ) moderately short and wide; protarsomeres I-III with small, apical denticle. Mesotarsi ( Fig. 81 ) slender; apex of mesotarsomeres I-III with distinct spine at apex. Metatarsi ( Fig. 82 ) distinctly slender; apex of metatarsomeres I-III spiny.

Female ( Fig. 84 ). Head and prothorax blackish brown; mandibles blackish; abdomen entirely dark brown; antennae blackish (pedicel partially reddish). Inner margin of mandibles ( Fig. 86 ) laminar; inner margin similar to those in males, but with only 1 tooth between base and distal plate. Antennae reaching distal 1/3 of elytra. Longest width of last maxillary and labial palpomeres about 0.25 times length. Cephalic carinae as in males. Distance between upper ocular lobes equal to 2.5 times longest width of 1 lobe. Lateral tubercle of head somewhat small, narrow. Prothorax as in males. Abdomen distinctly surpassing elytral apex. Ventrite I ( Fig. 85 ) finely, sparsely punctate; ventrites II-V coarser, more distinctly, abundantly punctate. Meso- and metatarsi slightly shorter than in male; tarsomeres slender and elongate.

Dimensions. Male/female. Total length (including mandibles) = 43.0–66.3 /50.0 mm; prothoracic length = 6.0–9.6/7.0 mm; prothoracic width between apices of anterior angles = 9.8–14.6/ 10.4 mm; prothoracic width between apices of posterior angles = 10.3–14.6/12.0 mm; humeral width = 15.3–22.7/ 17.3 mm; elytral length = 21.3–32.6/ 28.8 mm.

Geographical Distribution. E c u a d o r (Waterhouse 1872) and Peru (new country record).

Material Examined. ECUADOR: Male, ex Deyrolle Collection (no other data) ( ZMHB) ; male, ex Deyrolle Collection (no other data) ( IRSN) ; male, ex Candèze Collection (no other data) ( IRSN) ; route between Loja and Cuenca , km 20 (2,500 m), male, II.25.1993, [no collector indicated] ( ZKCO) . Manabí: Portoviejo, male, ex Nonfried Collection (no other data) ( IRSN) . Loja: Cordillera del Cóndor (peak above Loja; 3000 m), male, 19.IX.1905, F. Ohaus col. ( ZMHB) . PERU: Male, ex Moffarts Collection (no other data) ( IRSN) . Bolivar : 1 male, 1, female, III.2007, [no collector indicated] ( ZKCO) . Cañar: 11 km N Zhud (2850, on the Road to Canton Guamote ), 1 male, 1 female, 28.I.1987, N. Krable col. ( ZMUC) .

Types and Type Localities. Of Prionacalus iphis ( Figs. 115–117 ): See “Types and Type Locality” for P. cacicus . The website of the BMNH (2013) records only one type of Prinocalus [sic] iphis deposited there (sex not indicated): “ holotype.” As mentioned above, it is not possible to know if the third specimen mentioned by White (1845) corresponds to P. cacicus or P. iphis . Thus, the “ holotype ” of P. iphis deposited in the BMNH is considered here the lectotype of the species [designation by Waterhouse (1872)].

Of Prionocalus [sic] buckleyi ( Figs. 112–114 ): Described based on two males and a single female, all from Ecuador (“Yerba buena”). All syntypes should be deposited in the BMNH, because Waterhouse (1872) indicated this (“Brit. Mus.”). There are currently two syntypes deposited at BMNH. According to the Directory of Cities and Towns in World (1996–2010), there are two places with names equal or similar to “Yerba buena” in Ecuador. These places are in different provinces: Yerbas Buenas in Cañar, and Yerbabuena in Azuay. Therefore , the exact type locality is not known. The website of the BMNH (2013) records two syntypes deposited in the institution (unknown sexes). However , there is no doubt that Waterhouse had, at least, two males. He described a male with 28 lines length (about 59.36 mm) but also another male with 18 lines length (about 38.16 mm) .

We designate as the lectotype of P. buckleyi the specimen ( Figs. 112, 113 ) with the following labels ( Fig. 114 ):

1. White [Handwritten]: yerba buena 2. White with greenish circle [Printed]: Syntype 3. White [Handwritten]: Prionocalus [sic]

Buckleyi, / ♂. C. Waterh. / (Type.) 4. Red and yellow [Printed; added by us]:

LECTOTYPE / Prionacalus buckleyi

Of Prionacalus emmae: Described based on a single male from Ecuador (between Las Palmas and Chapacoto), deposited in the ZMHB. Chapacoto is in the Province of Bolívar. According to Directory of Cities and Towns in World (1996–2010), there are six places named “Las Palmas” in five Ecuadorian provinces, none of them in Bolívar. Kolbe (1902) recorded (translation): “was on the crest of the Western Cordillera of Ecuador …” Auguste (1902) referred to the locality in connection with an undescribed species of Palicourea Aubl., 1775 (Rubiaceae) (translation): “Between Las Palmas and the top of the pass toward Chapacoto, on the way to Guaranda; forested slope of the Western Cordillera ( Ecuador).” Thus, it is possible to affirm that the province where the specimen was collected is Bolívar.

Of Prionocalus [sic] whitei ( Figs. 118–120 ): Described based on a single male from Ecuador (Porvenir), deposited in the BMNH. According to Directory of Cities and Towns in World (1996–2010), there are many places named “Porvenir” in Ecuador. These places are in different provinces: Francisco de Orellana, Manabí, Pastaza, Guayas, Esmeraldas, and Pichincha. Thus, it is not possible to know exactly where the type locality of P. whitei is. The holotype has two labels added after Waterhouse (1900): “Type” and “ Syntype.” Without a doubt, the addition of the “ Syntype.” label was in error, because Waterhouse (1900) gave a single measure: “Long. 50 mm.”

Remarks. Waterhouse (1880) stated for Prionacalus buckleyi (the name of the genus was correctly spelled by the author, and not as Prionocalus as was misspelled in the original description of this species): “In the Prionidae, the specimens of Prionacalus Buckleyi, W. , taken by Mr. Buckley differ immensely in size and development, in the same way as is seen in P. cacicus and P. atys ; and the sculpture of the thorax varies also somewhat in all the species. I have seen one small example of P. Buckleyi .” This reference is not mentioned in Monné’ s (1995, 2006) catalogues.

Lameere (1910) synonymized four species with P. buckleyi (translation): “I have not seen the type of P. Whymperi Bates ; the species is constituted of a male slightly differing of P. Buckleyi , according to Bates himself, but also on a female in which the elytra substantially exceed the apex of abdomen. I have before me one male of P. Buckleyi which also offers this feature, but I cannot see more than an individual variation.”; “ P. Whitei C. O. Waterh. also was based on a single male closely resembling the type of P. Gunteri , also having the elytra separately rounded at apex, but the abdomen is quite rough and the sculpture of elytra is uniform; the tubercle behind eyes is exceptionally thick and obtuse.”; “ P. Emmae Kolbe was described on a single male that seems to be just a P. Buckleyi with reddish appendices.” Afterwards, Lameere (1913, 1919), without explanation, recorded P. whitei as a variety of P. buckleyi , but kept P. whymperi and P. emmae as its synonyms. Thus, Lameere (1913) revalidated the former species (not in 1910 as pointed out by Monné and Giesbert 1994 and, Monné 1995, Monné 2006). According to the ICZN (1999: 45.6.4), Lameere (1913) is not the author of the species ( P. whitei ), but since he considered it a variety of P. buckleyi , it should be considered a subspecies. It is important to note that Quentin and Villiers (1983) and Hüdepohl (1985) mentioned only P. buckleyi , without a subspecies. Quentin and Villiers (1983) revalidated P. w hymperi. Hüdepohl (1985), in his keys to the species, did not mention P. whymperi (probably following the synonymy by Lameere (1910)), and suggested a synonymy between P. trigonodes and P. woytkowskii (he did not formalize the synonymy).

We agree with the synonymy of P. emmae with P. buckleyi (and thus, with P. iphis ). Although Kolbe (1902) had pointed out that P. emmae differs in many aspects from P. buckleyi , all characters mentioned by him are variable in all species of Prionacalus (e.g., mandibular shape, color, punctation). Based on the original description and drawing, we can affirm that Lameere (1910) was correct in proposing the synonymy. Since Lameere (1910), P. emmae has been mentioned as having been published in 1901. However, although “Sechsundvierzigster Band (1901)” [forty-sixth volume (1901)] is recorded on the book cover of the magazine, it is also recorded as below: “Viertes Heft: (IV), 383–558 / Mit 3 Tafeln und 4 Textfiguren / Ausgegeben Mitte Februar 1902 ” [Fourth Issue: (IV), 383–558 / With 3 plates and 4 text figures/ Issued mid February 1902]. Thus, the record of “Kolbe, 1901” is an error that needs to be corrected (see, for example, in Monné 2006).

We believe that Lameere (1913) considered Prionacalus whitei a variety of P. buckleyi because the holotype has a different elytral apex (more or less jointly rounded in P. buckleyi , and individually rounded in P. whitei ). However, the elytral apex is variable in species of Prionacalus . The same variation occurs with the holotype of P. emmae , also considered by Lameere (1913) as a variety of P. buckleyi .

We think that P. whymperi is distinct from P. buckleyi (and so, from P. iphis ) and therefore agree with the revalidation by Quentin and Villiers (1983). Lameere (1910) pointed out the following variations in P. buckleyi (translation): “1° on the coloring of its appendages that are distinctly dark or reddish; 2° on the development more or less pronounced of its cephalic carinae and tubercle behind eyes; 3° on the extending more or less large of the roughness of pronotum that sometimes has smooth spaces; 4° on the sculpture of elytra a little more or a little less rough; 5° on the projection of elytral humeri; 6° on the shape of sutural angle, the elytra are sometimes together rounded at apex, sometimes individually rounded; 7° on the length and shape of elytra that surpass more or less the abdomen; 8° on the punctation on abdomen which is more or less rough.” Lameere (1910) used the expression “more or less” in the sense of “slighter” or “stronger” and not as “about.” We infer this because he also stated: “I have not seen the type of P. Whymperi Bates ; the species is constituted on a male slightly different from P. Buckleyi according to Bates himself, but also on a female with elytra notably surpassing the apex of abdomen.” All those variations occur in P. buckleyi (= P. iphis ), and also they were observed by us in nearly all other species of the genus. Lameere (1910) wrote on P. iphis (translation): “the punctation of abdomen is fine.” However, the punctation on the abdomen of P. iphis is somewhat variable; this was also recorded by Lameere (1910) when he wrote on P. buckleyi (translation): “from abundant to moderately sparse; from moderately fine to distinctly coarse.” Thus, this difference does not allow for separation of the species. The same is true with other characters pointed out by Lameere (1910) to define P. iphis (translation): “…the antennae slightly surpass elytral apex; …the humerus is slightly dentate and little projected…” In his key to species, Lameere (1910) recorded that in P. iphis (translation): “Elytra dentate at suture.” He also noted that in P. buckleyi (translation): “This species differs from P. iphis by its elytra not angled at the suture; its humerus is very spinose and very projected; its antennae surpass the apex of the body in male, and reach the posterior third of elytra in female.” All these differences are quite variable in P. iphis . However, the most important character here is the shape of the elytral apex (angled). Lameere affirmed that this is a character seen in P. buckleyi . This character was later used by other authors to separate P. iphis in their keys (translations): “Elytra dentate at suture” (Quentin and Villiers 1983); “Tips of elytra dentate at suture” ( Hüdepohl 1985). Although the elytral apex of P. iphis can be dentate (a variation that also occurs in all other known species of the genus), the holotype does not have the elytral apex dentate, it is angled. Apparently, Quentin and Villiers (1983) and Hüdepohl (1985) incorrectly interpreted Lameere (1910). Lameere stated that the elytral apex is angled at the suture, not dentate.

We examined specimens of P. iphis in which the humeral spines were almost absent and with ventrites coarsely and abundantly punctate, and others with a very distinct and long humeral spine and ventrites distinctly finer punctate. These variations found in the specimens lead us to conclude that P. buckleyi is only a variation of P. iphis . Furthermore, the length of the antennae is affected by the length of the elytra. Comparing the lectotype of P. iphis and a syntype male of P. buckleyi , it is evident that the former has longer elytra and, therefore, its antennae are proportionally shorter.

Figures

Figs. 1–15. Prionacalus species. 1) P. cacicus, male, maxillary palpus; 2) P. cacicus, male, maxillary palpus; 3) P. woytkowskii, male, maxillary palpus; 4–5) P. iphis, male, maxillary palpus; 6) P. whymperi, male, maxillary palpus; 7) P. demelti, male, maxillary palpus; 8) P. atys, male, maxillary palpus; 9–10) P. woytkowskii, male, antenna; 11–12) P. cacicus, male, antenna; 13) P. demelti, male, antenna; 14) P. whymperi, female, prosternal process, lateral view; 15) P. iphis, female, prosternal process, lateral view.

Figs. 76–87. Prionacalus iphis. 76) Male, dorsal view; 77) Male, ventral view; 78) Male, head, dorso-lateral view; 79) Male, mandibles; 80) Male, protarsus; 81) Male, mesotarsus; 82) Male, metatarsus; 83) Male, protibia; 84) Female, dorsal view; 85) Female, ventral view; 86) Female, mandibles; 87) Female, metatarsus.

Figs. 109–114. Prionacalus species. 109) P. gunteri, holotype male, dorsal view; 110) P. gunteri, holotype, ventral view; 111) P. gunteri, holotype, labels; 112) P. buckleyi, lectotype male, dorsal view; 113) P. buckleyi, lectotype, ventral view; 114) P. buckleyi, lectotype, labels.

Figs. 115–120. Prionacalus species. 115) P. iphis, lectotype male, dorsal view; 116) P. iphis, lectotype, ventral view; 117) P. iphis, lectotype, labels; 118) P. whitei, holotype male, dorsal view; 119) P. whitei, holotype, ventral view; 120) P. whitei, holotype, labels.