Adetus validus ( Thomson, 1868 ) Santos-Silva & Nascimento & Wappes, 2019

Santos-Silva, Antonio, Nascimento, Francisco E. de L. & Wappes, James E., 2019, Nomenclatural changes in American Apomecynini including description of new genera and species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), Insecta Mundi 716 (716), pp. 1-35 : 13-14

Adetus validus ( Thomson, 1868) , comb. nov.

( Fig. 37–38 )

Parmenonta valida Thomson 1868: 158 ; Lacordaire 1869: 274; Gemminger 1873: 2997 (cat.); Thomson 1878: 8 (type); Bates 1880: 104; 1885: 340 (distr.); Aurivillius 1922: 288 (cat.); Blackwelder 1946: 596 (checklist); Breuning 1960: 181 (cat.); 1971: 318; Chemsak et al. 1980: 35 (distr.); Chemsak et al. 1992: 116 (checklist); Maes et al. 1994: 50 (distr.); Monné and Giesbert 1994: 189 (checklist); Monné 1994: 33 (cat.); Noguera and Chemsak 1996: 404 (checklist); Maes 1998: 914 (distr.); Turnbow et al. 2003: 21 (distr.); Monné 2005: 305 (cat.); Hovore 2006: 375 (distr.); Maes et al. 2010: 111; Monné 2018: 413 (cat.).

Adetus validus ; Bates 1872: 200 (distr.); 1880: pl. 8, fig. 3.

Parmenonta valida ; Perkins and Swezey 1924: 51.

Linsley and Chemsak (1985) reported: “The species of Parmenonta , with the exception of valida , have reduced or absent wings and a greatly retracted metasternum… the numerous species of Adetus LeConte vary considerably and species exist with intermediate characters which link Adetus and Parmenonta together. Although valida is better assignable to Adetus , we are retaining the name Parmenonta .” Exami- nation of specimens of Parmenonta valida shows that Linsley and Chemsak (1985) were correct because the metaventrite is not noticeably reduced, and the membranous wings are present and well-developed. As Breuning (1971) designated P. valida as type species of Parmenonta , and there are no viable features to separate this species from those of Adetus (especially the type species, Polyopsia analis Haldeman, 1847 ), the case is made to synonymize Parmenonta with Adetus . However, other species examined, currently placed in Parmenonta , are apterous (or, according to Linsley and Chemsak (1985) could be brachypterous), making it necessary to create a new genus for those species. Although the metaventrite in Adetus species can be variable in length, it is always noticeably longer than the mesoventrite, while Bates (1880) observed that the metaventrite is particularly short in Parmenonta . Bates (1880) also commented “the under wings are present.” This is not true in Parmenonta albisetosa ( Fig. 41–45 ) described by him in the same work but now placed in Adetaptera ( A. albisetosa ( Bates, 1880) comb. nov.).

Adetus validus was originally described from Mexico (without exact locality), it was incorrectly reported by Lacordaire (1869) for Brazil. It is not possible to recognize the species confused with P. valida by Lacordaire (1869) but, it is not of this species. Still, according to Lacordaire (1869) (translated): “This insect, native of Brazil, is known in the collections of Paris under the unpublished name of Agennopsis valida Chevrol. ” This information, probably, was originally based in Thomson (1868): “ P. valida (Chevrt., mss., Agennopsis ).” Thus, the citation of Agennopsis valida by Thomson (1868) as being equal to Parmenonta valida is incorrect. According to Monné (2018), the species is known from Mexico (Veracruz), Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, and Nicaragua. However, Brazil has not been formally excluded as a country where Adetus validus occurs. Hence, we formally exclude it from the Brazilian fauna here. The specimen in Maes et al. (2010: 112), from Nicaragua (Matagalpa, Selva Negra) is not Adetus validus either and likely belongs to Adetaptera gen. nov.

Figures

Figures 37–40. Apomecynini spp. 37–38) Adetus validus, female: 37) Dorsal habitus. 38) Ventral habitus. 39–40) Adetaptera punctigera, female: 39) Dorsal habitus. 40) Ventral habitus.

Figures 41–45. Adetaptera albisetosa, male. 41) Dorsal habitus. 42) Dorsal habitus, left elytra removed. 43) Ventral habitus. 44) Lateral habitus. 45) Head, frontal view.