Methia carioca ( Martins, 1981 ), 2019

Bezark, Larry G. & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2019, Notes, synonymy and description in American Methiini (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Cerambycinae), Zootaxa 4565 (1), pp. 71-79 : 73-74

Methia carioca ( Martins, 1981)

( Figs 1–4 )

Tessaropa carioca Martins, 1981: 13 ; Monné, 1993: 31 (cat.); Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 31 (checklist); Martins & Galileo, 1997: 176; Julio et al., 2000: 28 (holotype); Monné, 2005: 400 (cat.); Monné et al., 2010: 241 (distr.); Monné & Monné, 2016: 20 (holotype); Monné, 2018: 484 (cat.).

Martins (1981) described Tessaropa carioca based on two males and one female ( Figs 1–4 ) from Brazil (Rio de Janeiro). Among the features pointed out by him for this species we found: in male, head (except for reddish frons), prothorax, elytra, abdomen and ventral surface of thorax black; in female, head, prothorax, mesothorax and scutellum orangish; in male, eyes divided; prothorax slightly wider than long in both sexes; elytra in male from 2.0 to 2.1 times prothorax length; elytra in female 2.8 times prothorax length.

Martins & Galileo (1997) repeated part of the original description and added the following information (translated): “With small portion of the apex of the prosternal process visible between procoxae in Tessaropa carioca and this feature allows it to be distinguished from the other species.” We believe that this information was based only on the paratype female because there are no males of this species in MZSP collection, and the male types are deposited at the MNRJ collection (the second author knows that Ubirajara R. Martins did not examine the male types after the original description). Additionally, they provided a drawing of a female. However, this drawing based on the paratype female, shows the eyes not divided. Actually, the eyes in the paratype female are imperfectly divided (the same in the holotype male), because there is a narrow, but very distinct carina between the upper and lower eye lobes (with a few ommatidia in the paratype female). Thus, it would be possible to consider the eyes as divided or not. Here we are assuming that the eyes are divided, since there are no evident ommatidia between the lobes.

Comparing the photograph of the holotype male (See Bezark 2018) with the paratype female ( Figs 1–4 ), it is possible to see that there are strong differences between them. In the male holotype: body wider; antennomeres slender; prothorax distinctly rounded laterally; elytra notably shorter; metatibiae tumid at middle. In the paratype female: body slender; antennomeres somewhat thicker; prothorax mostly parallel-sided; elytra notably longer; and the metatibiae linear. Apparently, this kind of extreme sexual dimorphism does not occur in the other species of the genus. However, for the time being, it is not possible to be sure if the paratype female belongs to T. carioca or not. It will be necessary to study more specimens to allow confirmation.

Martins (1981) separated T. guanabarina from T. carioca and T. mineira in the alternative of couplet “1” (translated): “Head black, sometimes with reddish frons; elytra with single color, black; hind tarsi with color not contrasting with apex of tibiae; pronotum regularly convex, slightly or not transversely depressed close to anterior and basal margins; elytral setae not contrasting….2” [leading to T. carioca and T. mineira ] / Head reddish, with black macula on vertex; elytra yellowish on basal third and black on remaining surface; hind tarsi yellowish, contrasting with apex of tibiae that are black; pronotum globose at center, transversely depressed close to anterior and basal margins; elytral setae contrasting well with dark area. Brazil (Rio de Janeiro)…. guanabarina , sp. n. ” This alternative of couplet encompasses a mistake: the head in the female of T. carioca is orange, not black. Thus, the color of the head in both species (at least in females) can be the same.

According to alternative of couplet “2” from Martins (1981) (translated): “Frons reddish; front and middle coxae yellowish; tibiae entirely yellowish or darkened toward apex; lower eye lobes smaller (do not reach the level of insertion of the mandibles on the ventral side of the head); genae distinct; scape short, robust, shorter than half of length of antennomere III and with dense setae on inner side; pronotum practically smooth and very shiny on disc; sides of prothorax with dense setae on anterior half and densely punctate on posterior half; elytra smooth and shiny on basal 2/3; hind tibiae with sculpture of the outer surface slightly regular. Brazil (Rio de Janeiro)… carioca sp. n. ” / Frons black; front and middle coxae black; hind femora yellowish-brown; hind tibiae black; lower eye lobes larger (reaching beyond the insertion of the mandibles on the ventral side of the head); genae very short; scape long and slender, longer than half of length of the antennomere III, with sparse setae on inner side; pronotum opaque, densely punctate on disc; sides of prothorax without dense setae on anterior half and slightly punctate on posterior half; elytra opaque, finely granulated throughout; hind tibiae granulated on entire outer surface. Brazil (Minas Gerais)… mineira sp. n. ” The color differences pointed out in the alternative of couplet “2” separating T. carioca from T. mineira probably are not valid, since it is possible that both species show considerable variation in the color of some parts of the body. We believe that this is evident, when we compare the color of the head and prothorax in the types of T. carioca . Thus, the color of the head cannot be used as differential feature. Another difference that it is not valid is the length of the scape. It is true that the scape in males of T. carioca is distinctly shorter than in males of T. mineira . However, the scape in the female of T. carioca is very similar to that in the male of T. mineira .

In the key to species of Tessaropa from Martins & Galileo (1997), the alternative of couplet “2” is incorrect (translated): “Elytra black, with brownish setae slightly contrasting; metatibiae yellowish; prosternal process invisible between procoxae. Brazil (Rio de Janeiro)….. T. guanabarina Martins, 1981 ;—Elytra yellowish on base and black on remaining surface, with yellowish setae well-contrasting; apical 2/3 of metatibiae black; prosternal process visible between procoxae. Brazil (Rio de Janeiro)…… T. carioca Martins, 1981 .” Actually, the elytra in T. guanabarina are bicolorous, elytral setae are contrasting with integument, and the metatibiae are yellowish only on the base. On the other hand, the elytra in T. carioca are entirely dark, elytral setae are dark and not contrasting with integument, and the metatibiae are gradually dark from basal half. Thus, only the information regarding the prosternal process would, eventually, be correct (we did not examine specimens of M. guanabarina and males of M. carioca ).

In the description of T. boliviana, Martins and Galileo (2006) reported (translated): “ Tessaropa boliviana sp. nov. is similar to T. carioca Martins, 1981 , that is figured in Martins & Galileo (1997:177, fig. 154), especially by the eyes divided, dense fringe of setae on basal antennal segments, mesonotum without sulcus, and apex of the prosternal process visible between procoxae. Tessaropa boliviana differs from T. carioca by the head, anterior side of the scape, mesonotum and scutellum black and by the prothorax striate. In T. carioca these regions are orangish and the prothorax has no roughness. However, despite the different distribution, it is possible that T. boliviana sp. nov. will be an extreme form of T. carioca . ” These comments encompass problems. Firstly, if the holotype of T. boliviana is really a male, as pointed out in the original description, the species are notably different. The holotype of T. boliviana is distinctly more slender than the holotype of T. carioca , the elytra is proportionally longer (about 2.3 times longer than prothorax, while in T. carioca it is about 2.0 times) and, from what we can see comparing photographs of both holotypes, the metafemora is notably longer in P. boliviana . The information of the differences in color of some regions is not true: the holotype male of T. carioca has the head black dorsally (as in the holotype of T. boliviana ), while in female paratype it is orange; and the mesonotum of the holotype of T. carioca is black, as in the holotype of T. boliviana (orange in the paratype female of T. carioca ).

Figures

FIGURES 1–8. 1–4, Methia carioca, paratype female: 1, Dorsal habitus; 2, Ventral habitus; 3, Lateral habitus; 4, Head, lateral view. 5–8, Methia elongata, holotype female: 5, Dorsal habitus; 6, Ventral habitus; 7, Lateral habitus; 8, Head, lateral view.