Tessaropa luctuosa Zayas, 1975

Vlasak, Josef, Philips, T. Keith & Ivie, Michael A., 2018, Notes on the Methiini (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of the West Indies, The Coleopterists Bulletin 72 (4), pp. 691-699 : 694-696

Tessaropa luctuosa Zayas, 1975 ( Fig. 3 )

Tessaropa luctuosa Zayas 1975: 54 . Ivie and Philips 1998: 81; Nearns et al. 2006: 3; Devesa et al. 2015: 109.

Methia taina Zayas 1975: 53 . Ivie and Philips 1998: 81; Nearns et al. 2006: 3; Devesa et al. 2015: 108. New synonymy.

The holotypes of T. luctuosa ( Fig. 3B ) and M. taina ( Fig. 3A ) are in the FZMC. Details of the Zayas type collection can be found in Ivie (1991), Nearns (2006), Nearns et al. (2006), and Devesa et al. (2015). The types are figured by Zayas (1975), Nearns et al. (2006), and Devesa et al. (2015). Although one of us (MAI) briefly examined the holotypes of M. taina and T. luctuosa in 1990, the two species were placed incertae sedis when Philips and Ivie (1998) revised the Methiini of the West Indies. Lack of a microscope in the limited time available during that visit precluded confirmation of more than that these names indeed belonged to members of the Methiini .

Following access to the collection 15 years later, Nearns (2006) and Nearns et al. (2006) provided a discussion and habitus photographs of the types, but these were still not sufficient to fully determine the generic status of the species. In 2008, MAI was finally able to again examine the type specimens with a microscope and proper lighting and determine the characters needed to place these two very distinctive specimens. Low quality but adequate photographs of important characters were taken with a MiScope® handheld digital microscope and provided to TKP, and together we determined the status of these names.

Within the Methiini , Tessaropa Haldeman, 1847 is characterized by a small eye with small, diurnaltype facets, divided into separate dorsal and ventral lobes that are joined, at most, by a narrow strip of cuticle and a hind tarsus with the first tarsomere shorter than the second and third together ( Linsley 1962). The males have an elongate abdomen, a nearly obsolete pedicel, and stout, feebly clavate metafemora (Hovore 1987; Philips and Ivie 1998; Lingafelter 2010). Based on the form of the eyes, antennae, femora, elytra, and tarsi, we conclude that both type specimens are members of the genus Tessaropa . Both specimens have a transverse pedicel, short metatarsus I, and finely faceted eyes. The elytra are weakly costate, and the male ( T. luctuosa ) has an elongate abdomen, weakly clavate metafemora, and narrow terminal antennomeres. Methia taina (the female) has finely faceted diurnal-type eyes with the upper and lower lobes broadly separated. This excludes the possibility of membership in either Methia or Coleomethia Linsley, 1940 , which was mentioned as a possibility by Philips and Ivie (1998).

Both Zayas species are based on unique specimens from eastern Cuba. One is male and the other female. They share the unique shape of the pronotum, which is rounded at the sides and narrowed behind (in Fig. 3C , the female pronotum is somewhat foreshortened by the angle). The color and other differences in the two specimens correspond to the type of sexual dimorphism known in the tribe ( Linsley 1940, 1962; Hovore 1987). Therefore, we consider the types to represent the two sexes of a single species, and we place M. taina as a junior synonym of T. luctuosa (new synonymy).

It is interesting to note that although the sexes of the two types were discussed by Philips and Ivie (1998), Devesa et al. (2015) mistakenly reported the holotype of T. luctuosa to be a female. Female Methiini have the fifth ventrite deeply and broadly angularly notched, fringed with stout clavate setae (Ivie and Philips 1998 (fig. 13), Fig. 1G herein). The fifth ventrite of the male is tapered, with the sixth ventrite visible. The abdomen of this holotype is clearly that of a male, confirmed by both direct observation by MAI and in the photograph in Devesa et al. (2015, fig. 1). Evidence of their confusion on this point is the mislabeling of several figures of M. necydalea on page 105 of Devesa et al. (2015), with the most obvious error being the closeup of the ventral apex of a female that is incorrectly labeled as a male in their fig. 8.

Figures

Fig. 3. A) Methia taina, holotype, habitus, B) Tessaropa luctuosa, holotype, habitus, C) T. luctuosa, holotype, lateral view of head. Photographs by E. Nearns from Nearns et al. (2006), used with permission.

Fig. 1. Cyanomethia pseudothonalmus. A) Female, dorsal view, B) Ventral view, C–D) Males, E–F) Females, G) Female abdominal apex.