Rhagovelia leilae Paiva, Rodrigues & Moreira, 2023

Paiva, Nathália De Oliveira, Rodrigues, Juliana Mourão Dos Santos, Franco, Cleilton Lima & Moreira, Felipe Ferraz Figueiredo, 2023, Description of a new species and new records of Rhagovelia Mayr, 1865 (Hemiptera Heteroptera: Veliidae) from northern and northeastern Brazil, Zootaxa 5296 (2), pp. 250-264 : 251-256

Rhagovelia leilae Paiva, Rodrigues & Moreira , sp. nov.

Figs 1 , 2A , 3−5

Type material. Holotype. BRAZIL — Maranhão • Carolina, Sítio do Antônio, riacho; -07.1270°, -47.3783°; 29.I.2022; C.L. Franco leg.; 1 apterous male, CEIOC 82816 . Paratypes. BRAZIL — Maranhão • same data as holotype; 1 apterous male, 2 apterous females, CEIOC 82817 . — Alagoas • Murici, Estaç ã o Ecológica de Murici , Vale Socorró , Cachoeira do Socorró [photograph provided by Rodrigues et al. (2021): fig. 20]; -09.2360°, -35.8609°; 361 m a.s.l.; 22.V.2019; J.M.S. Rodrigues, W. Sousa & F.F.F. Moreira leg.; 1 macropterous male, CEIOC 82269 • Murici, Estaç ã o Ecológica de Murici [photograph provided by Rodrigues et al. (2021): fig. 19]; -09.2379°, - 35.8641°; 320 m a.s.l.; 28.IV.2018, C.F.B. Floriano, J.M.S. Rodrigues & O.M. Magalh ã es leg.; 1 apterous female, CEIOC 82268 .

Description. Apterous male ( Figs 1 , 2A ). Holotype (Paratype). BL 3.08 (3.08); HL 0.32 (0.32); HW 0.80 (0.72); ANT I 0.65 (0.72); ANT II 0.35 (0.35); ANT III 0.37 (0.37); ANT IV 0.42 (0.42); EYE 0.24 (0.24); PL 0.20 (0.20); PW 0.80 (0.80); FORELEG, FEM 0.76 (0.84); TIB 0.80 (0.84); TAR I 0.02 (0.02); TAR II 0.02 (0.02); TAR III 0.20 (0.20); MIDLEG, FEM 1.36 (1.40); TIB 0.96 (0.96); TAR I 0.04 (0.04); TAR II 0.44 (0.44); TAR III 0.66 (0.66); HINDLEG, FEM 1.12 (1.12); TIB 1.28 (1.32); TAR I 0.04 (0.04); TAR II 0.12 (0.10); TAR III 0.28 (0.28); ABDT I 0.12 (0.12); ABDT II 0.16 (0.16); ABDT III 0.16 (0.16); ABDT IV 0.16 (0.16); ABDT V 0.20 (0.20); ABDT VI 0.20 (0.20); ABDT VII 0.36 (0.36).

General color black, covered by golden pubescence. Head dorsally black, covered by short setae, longitudinal midline and a pair of oblique indentations at base impressed and shiny. Eyes grayish-red. Antenniferous tubercle shiny dark-brown. Antennomeres covered by short and medium-sized setae; antennomere I shiny yellow at the base, turning brown then black towards apex, with few thick long black setae; antennomeres II–IV black; II with few thick long black setae. Buccula black; labium dark-brown. Venter of head black. Pronotum mostly black, whitish behind head, with small orange mark behind vertex, covered by medium-sized dark setae. Meso- and metanota, and pro-, meso- and metapleura grayish-black, covered by short golden pubescence and medium-sized black setae. Proacetabulum yellow, with a light-brown spot medially; mesoacetabulum grayish at base, yellowish laterally and mesally, with dark-brown mark medially; metacetabulum yellow. Pro-, meso- and metasterna grayish-blue, covered by short golden setae. Fore and hind coxae yellow; middle coxa light-brown close to acetabulum, then yellow. Fore and hind trochanters yellow, with medium-sized golden setae; middle trochanter dark-brown to black. Fore femur mostly black, dorsum yellow at basal tip, venter yellow at basal 1/3; middle and hind femora, and all tibiae black, covered by short golden setae and several medium-sized black setae. Fore and hind tarsus dark brown, covered by medium-sized brown setae; middle tarsus dark-brown to black, densely covered by medium and long brown setae, with some longer brown setae on anterior surface. Abdominal medio- and laterotergites black, covered by golden pubescence; mediotergites II−VII with shiny black marks increasing in size towards posterior segments, covering almost entire mediotergite VII. Abdominal sterna II−VII grayish-blue, covered by short golden setae; VII with wide orange-brown subquadrate area medially. Abdominal segment VIII shiny black dorsally, orange-brown ventrally.

Head short, compact. Antennomere I thickest, curved laterally; II–III cylindrical; IV fusiform. Labium robust, reaching mesosternum, slightly surpassing fore coxae. Pronotum shorter medially than dorsal eye length, with posterior margin slightly concave. Mesonotum slightly elevated centrally, posterior margin widely rounded. Metanotum short at midline, posterior margin slightly concave centrally. Fore trochanter unarmed. Fore femur thicker at middle than fore tibia; fore tibia thicker at apex, with grasping comb evident. Middle femur without flattening or constriction, thicker basally. Hind femur not surpassing apex of terminalia, thinner at base than middle femur, armed with two medium-sized spines followed by 4−5 smaller spines towards apex ( Fig. 1C ). Hind tibia straight, unarmed.

Abdominal laterotergites slightly elevated; lateral margin slightly sinuous; abdomen wider between segments IV and V. Lengths of abdominal sterna on midline decreasing from II–IV; IV–V subequal, shorter than VI; VII longest, II−III weakly compressed laterally. Abdominal segment VIII cylindrical; posterodorsal margin almost straight ( Figs 1 D−E). Proctiger with lateral angles and apex rounded ( Fig. 1G ). Paramere short, suboval, depressed at the median portion ( Figs 1H , 2A ).

Macropterous male ( Fig. 3 ). Paratype. BL 3.20; HL 0.32; HW 0.80; ANT I 0.72; ANT II 0.32; ANT III 0.32; ANT IV 0.45; EYE 0.28; PL 1.28 ; PW 1.32 ; FORELEG, FEM 0.68; TIB 0.72; TAR I -; TAR II -; TAR III - [lost before they could be measured]; MIDLEG, FEM 1.36 ; TIB 0.96; TAR I 0.04; TAR II 0.50; TAR III 0.70; HINDLEG, FEM 1.08 ; TIB 1.28; TAR I 0.04; TAR II 0.16; TAR III 0.30.

Similar to apterous male in general color, pilosity and structure, with some exceptions. Middle coxa dark-brown to black. Dorsum of fore femur entirely black; venter black, with yellow mark at basal tip. Abdominal segment VIII shiny black dorsally, orange-brown to dark-brown ventrally. Pronotum long, subpentagonal; posterior lobe with several punctures; posterior margin slightly pointed. Wings present, but autotomized above abdominal segment VI. Forewing covered by short black setae along anterior margin, with two long basal cells; base of one apical cell visible despite autotomy. Hind femur armed with two medium-sized spines followed by 3 smaller spines towards apex ( Fig. 3C ).

Apterous female ( Fig. 4 ). Paratypes. BL 3.20−3.36; HL 0.32−0.36; HW 0.80; ANT I 0.62−0.67; ANT II 0.32−0.35; ANT III 0.35; ANT IV 0.42; EYE 0.24−0.28; PL 0.20−0.24; PW 0.80; FORE LEG, FEM 0.84; TIB 0.84; TAR I 0.02; TAR II 0.02−0.04; TAR III 0.22−0.24; MID LEG, FEM 1.40 − 1.44 ; TIB 0.96−1.00; TAR I 0.04−0.06; TAR II 0.44−0.48; TAR III 0.66−0.68; HIND LEG, FEM 1.08 ; TIB 1.24−1.28; TAR I 0.04; TAR II 0.10−0.12; TAR III 0.28; ABDT I 0.12; ABDT II 0.16; ABDT III 0.20; ABDT IV 0.20; ABDT V 0.24; ABDT VI 0.24; ABDT VII 0.32.

Similar to apterous male in general color, pilosity and structure, with following exceptions. Middle coxa light-brown close to acetabulum, then dark-brown, or more uniformly dark-brown to black. Dorsum of fore femur black, with yellow mark at basal tip; venter black, with yellow mark on basal 1/3 to almost 1/2. Hind femur armed with 4−5 spines, the first one longer than the others. Posterolateral angle of abdominal laterotergite VII with tuft of black setae. Abdominal laterotergites horizontal to slightly elevated. Contrasting subquadrate area of abdominal sternum VII mostly dark-brown to black, orange-brown only posteriorly.

Etymology. The new species is named in honor of Leila de Oliveira Paiva, mother of the first author.

Comments. Rhagovelia leilae Paiva, Rodrigues & Moreira , sp. nov. belongs to the angustipes complex, based on the pronotum of the apterous form shorter than the dorsal length of the eye, with the posterior margin slightly concave. Because of the tarsal formula 3-3-3 and the occurrence in freshwater, it is certainly not part of the salina group. However, it cannot be assigned to either the bisignata or hambletoni groups because the wings of the only macropterous specimen available are autotomized, making it impossible to know for certain if there are three or four closed cells on the forewing. Although species with unknown condition of the forewings were previously treated tentatively as part of the bisignata group ( Polhemus 1997; Padilla-Gil & Moreira 2013), we consider it more prudent to treat them (including the new species) as incertae sedis within the angustipes complex.

Among South American species of the bisignata and hambletoni groups, Rhagovelia leilae Paiva, Rodrigues & Moreira , sp. nov. can be diagnosed by the following combination of characteristics: 1) body length 3.08−3.20 mm in the males and 3.20−3.36 mm in the females; 2) fore and hind coxae and trochanters yellow; 3) fore femur mostly black, with variable basal yellow marks; 4) middle trochanter dark-brown to black; 5) abdominal mediotergites II−VII with shiny black areas increasing towards the posterior segments; 6) abdominal sterna grayish-blue, with a large contrasting area medially on segment VII; 7) all trochanters and tibiae unarmed in both sexes; 8) hind femur not reaching apex of the terminalia, with a row of 6−7 spines in the males and 4−5 spines in the females; 9) abdominal laterotergites horizontal to slightly elevated, with a tuft of black setae at the posterolateral angle of the last segment in females; and 10) paramere short, suboval, and depressed at the median portion.

Although the fore femur and middle coxa vary between our material from Maranh ã o (lighter pattern) and that from Alagoas (darker pattern), we consider this to be of intraspecific nature only, because there are many similarities in other aspects of color and structure shared by them. Variations on the color of leg segments or on the pattern of shiny abdominal areas are already known for other species of the angustipes complex, such as R. angustipes Uhler, 1894 ( De Kort-Gommers & Nieser 1969; Galindo-Malagón et al. 2021) and R. tenuipes Champion, 1898 ( Bacon 1956; Nieser and Polhemus 1999; Galindo-Malagón et al. 2021).

Running our specimens through the keys to the angustipes complex from southeastern and southern Brazil ( Nieser & Polhemus 1999) and from Colombia ( Galindo-Malagón et al. 2021) ends in no logical results. However, they key to R. fontanalis Bacon, 1948 when using the key provided by Bacon (1956) for his angustipes group, which is indeed a species similar to the material at hand. The new species and R. fontanalis share the following features: 1) base of antennomere I, and fore and hind trochanters yellow; 2) presence of broad, shiny black spots on the dorsum of abdominal mediotergites II−VII; 3) abdominal sternum VII partially orange-brown in males; and 4) all trochanters and tibiae unarmed in both sexes. Nonetheless, there are several differences between them, including: 1) body length considerably different (3.08 mm [apterous male], 3.20 mm [macropterous male], 3.20−3.36 mm [apterous female] in the new species, vs. 3.45 mm [apterous male], 4.33 mm [macropterous male], 3.86 [apterous female] in R. fontanalis ); 2) antennomeres II−III subequal in length in the new species, vs. II shorter than III in R. fontanalis ; and 3) paramere longer and more acute at apex in R. fontanalis (compare Figs. 2A and 2B ). Furthermore, Bacon (1948) did not mention the presence of a tuft of black setae on the posterolateral angle of female abdominal laterotergite VII, which is a distinctive feature in our specimens. Finally, R. fontanalis is endemic to Peru, where it occurs between about 450 and 900 m a.s.l. ( Bacon 1948, 1956; Cordeiro & Moreira 2015); whereas, the new species has been collected exclusively in Cerrado and Atlantic Forest areas of northeastern Brazil, between about 300 and 350 m a.s.l.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Rhagovelia leilae Paiva, Rodrigues & Moreira, sp. nov., male holotype. A. Habitus, dorsal view. B. Habitus, ventral view. C. Hind femur; ventrolateral view. D−F. Abdominal segment VIII. D. Dorsal view. E. Lateral view. F. Ventral view. G. Proctiger, dorsal view. H. Genital capsule, lateral view. Scale bars: 2.0 mm (A, B), 0.2 mm (C−H).

FIGURE 2. Parameres. A. Rhagovelia leilae Paiva, Rodrigues & Moreira, sp. nov., male holotype. B. Rhagovelia fontanalis Bacon, 1948 [modified from Bacon (1956)].

FIGURE 3. Rhagovelia leilae Paiva, Rodrigues & Moreira, sp. nov., macropterous male paratype. A. Habitus, dorsal view. B. Habitus, ventral view. C. Hind femur; ventrolateral view. D. Proctiger, dorsal view. E. Genital capsule, lateral view. Scale bars: 2.0 mm (A, B), 0.5 mm (C), 0.1 mm (D, E).

FIGURE 4. Rhagovelia leilae Paiva, Rodrigues & Moreira, sp. nov., apterous female paratypes, habitus. A, B. Specimen from the state of Maranhão. A. Dorsal view. B. Ventral view. C, D. Specimen from the state of Alagoas. C. Dorsal view. D. Ventral view. Scale bars: 2.0 mm.

FIGURE 5. Geographic distribution of Rhagovelia leilae Paiva, Rodrigues & Moreira, sp. nov. Red star shows the type locality in Carolina municipality, Maranhão state (highlighted in pink). Green stars show the records from Estação Ecológica de Murici (highlighted in dark green), Murici municipality, Alagoas state (highlighted in light green).