Monochamus mexicanus ( Breuning, 1950 ) Breuning, 1950

Botero, Juan Pablo & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2017, Four new species, taxonomic, and nomenclatural notes in Hammatoderus Gemminger & Harold, 1873 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae), Zootaxa 4231 (3), pp. 377-397 : 394-396

Monochamus mexicanus ( Breuning, 1950) comb. nov.

( Figs. 29–31 )

Plagiohammus mexicanus Breuning, 1950: 514 ; Breuning, 1961: 333 (cat.); Chemsak et al., 1992: 111 (checklist); Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 35 (Checklist); Monné, 1994: 35 (cat.); Noguera & Chemsak, 1996: 404 (checklist); Monné, 2005: 514 (cat.); Monné & Hovore, 2006: 270 (checklist); Constantino et. al., 2014: 11 ; Monné, 2016: 822 (cat.).

According to Breuning (1950): “Cette espèce se place dans mon tableau de détermination du genre Hammoderus Thoms. (nom qui a été changé par DILLON et DILLON en Plagiohammus ) près du numéro 17 (1943, Novit. Ent., XIII, Suppl. 3, p. 153), en différant d’ albatus Bates par les taches élytrales tout autrement situées.” However, following Breuning’s (1943) key to the Monochamini genera, H. mexicanus would not be corrected identified as a Hammoderus , because its elytra is 2.5 times as long as head and prothorax together (“Élytres deux fois et demie plus longs que la tête et le pronotum réunis”). The alternative of couplet “97” in Breuning (1943) is: “Les élytres très allongés, trois fois (ou presque) plus longs que la tête et le pronotum réunis, atténués vers le sommet, étroitement arrondis ou étirés en épine au sommet, mais pas échancréss [conducting to Hammoderus ] / Les élytres moins allongés, ou, s’ils sont très allongés, distinctement échancrés au sommet.” Evidently, it is very subjective the difference between 2.5 times and “trois fois (ou presque)”, but the general appearance of Plagiohammus mexicanus is not that of the other species currently placed in the genus. Furthermore, following the concept of Plagiohammus by Dillon & Dillon (1941), P. mexicanus cannot be placed in this genus because the lower eye lobes are about as long as gena. According to Dillon & Dillon (1941), the lower eye lobes in Plagiohammus are, at least, twice the height of gena below it.

Another problem is the type locality. There is only one label indicating the type locality. Apparently , the label states “Mind. Monte”, but it is possible that the second word is not “ Monte ”, but another word, mainly because the “M” seems to be very different from that in “Mind.” Furthermore , it is important to note that apparently there is an apostrophe after “M” in the first word. This could suggest a location in Africa. It is also possible that the specimen is from the Philippines, because “Mind.” could be abbreviation of Mindanao or Mindoro , and “ Monte ” is a common name in this country. Breuning (1950) interpreted as “ Men . D. Monte. ” However, we believe that the second letter is “i” and not “e”, and there is no period between “n” and “d”; apparently it is a single abbreviated word: “ Mind. ” According to Monné (2016): “ Type locality— Mexico, Men . d. Monte [Mineral del Monte, Hidalgo?].” But it is important to note that there is absolutely no evidence that the specimen is from Mexico .

Photographs 32 – 34 by Gabriel Biffi; 35 – 38 by Jason D. Weintraub (ANSP).

We tried to identify the specimen as belonging to a genus from outside of America , but without success. Using the key to genera of American Monochamini from Dillon & Dillon (1941), P. mexicanus would belong to Monochamus Dejean, 1821 . Thus, we are transferring P. mexicanus , at least provisionally, to Monochamus .

Figures

FIGURES 26 – 31. 26 – 38, Hammoderus strandi, holotype female: 26, dorsal view; 27, head, frontal view; 28, labels. 29 – 31, Plagiohammus mexicanus, holotype female: 29, labels, 30, dorsal view; 31, lateral view. Photographs 26 – 28 by Gabriel Biffi; 29 – 31 by Harold Labrique.