Dorcasta Pascoe, 1858

Dorcasta Pascoe, 1858: 264; Thomson, 1861: 383; 1864: 95; 1865: 388; Lacordaire, 1872: 705; LeConte, 1873: 345 (syn.); Bates, 1880: 129; LeConte & Horn, 1883: 330; Leng & Hamilton, 1896: 143; Bradley, 1930: 245; Arnett, 1962: 871; Breuning, 1971: 246; Linsley & Chemsak, 1984: 119; Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 188 (checklist); Monné, 1994: 11 (cat.); 2005: 299 (cat.); 2012: 86; 2017: 261 (cat.).

Aegilopsis Horn, 1860: 571; Thomson, 1864: 98; 1865: 389; Lacordaire, 1872; 706.

Breuning (1971) defined Dorcasta as follows (translated): “Very elongate. Antennae very coarse, slightly shorter than body, fringed with long setae; scape moderately long, slightly thickened, as long as antennomere IV; antennomere III slightly shorter, as long as V. Antennal tubercles small, close to each other and elevated, separated by a rectangular angle. Eyes very finely faceted, strongly emarginate, the lower eye lobes as long as wide, slightly elongate at antero-inner margin . Frons distinctly narrowed beneath, wider than long, distinctly trapeziform. Pronotum as long as wide, cylindrical, convex, slightly trilobate at base, with 2 thin transverse sulci, one anteriorly and one posteriorly, with straight side margins. Elytra very long, parallel, moderately convex, weakly narrowed from middle, basally slightly broader than pronotum. Head not retractable. Prosternal process lower than coxae, arched. Mesoventral process slightly inclined forward. Metaventrite with normal length. Mesocoxal cavities closed. Legs short, the femora claviform, the mesotibiae with dorsal sulcus. Entirely covered with long, erect, dark setae.”

This description is problematic. The frons is not narrowed beneath, but it is narrowed toward the antennal tubercles (“Front fortement rétréci en dessous”). Apparently this was not a mistake, because Breuning (1971) reported a similar feature for Bebelis Thomson, 1864 (“Front rétréci en dessous”). The type of ommatidia (“Eyes very finely faceted”) could be used as a distinctive feature when compared with species of Bebelis, because according to Breuning (1971), the eyes in Bebelis are coarsely faceted. However, the eyes in Bebelis are exactly as in Dorcasta: finely faceted. The antennae may be as long as or slightly longer than the body; as seen above, the length of antennomere III ranges from slightly shorter to slightly longer than the scape, and may be slightly longer than antennomere V. Finally, the pronotum may be longer than wide, and the lateral margins may be slightly rounded centrally, and/or slightly narrowed toward the head from middle.

Key to species of Dorcasta

1. Antennomeres with erect, ventral setae visibly dense and contiguous, (Figs 18, 24).................................. 2

- Antennomeres with erect, ventral setae sparser and separated (Figs 1, 8, 31, 33, 34, 38).............................. 3

2(1). Frons densely pubescent centrally, nearly obscuring integument (Fig. 21); body without minute scale-like setae. Mexico, Gua- temala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia (?).................................. D. crassicornis Pascoe, 1858

- Frons without dense pubescence centrally (Fig. 28); minute scale-like setae widely distributed on nearly the entire body. Brazil ........................................................................................ D. birai sp. nov.

3(1). Dorsal dark pubescence of elytra variegated (sometime fused) without clearly defined longitudinal bands (Figs 34, 38)..... 4

- Elytra with at least one dorsal clearly defined dark longitudinal band of pubescence................................. 5

4(3). Sutural apex of elytra with or without minute spicule (Fig. 34). Brazil (Alagoas, Sergipe, Ceará, Pernambuco, Maranhão, Bahia, Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul), Bolivia (Santa Cruz, Tarija), Paraguay, Argentina (Tucumán, Santa Fé, Buenos Aires, Formosa)......................................................... D. implicata Melzer, 1934

- Sutural apex of elytra with long spine (Fig. 38); lateral spine sometimes sub-fused with sutural spine. Brazil (Rio Grande do Norte, Pernambuco, Bahia, Minas Gerais)........................................ D. quadrispinosa Breuning, 1940

5(3). Dorsal pubescent bands of elytra entirely fused.............................................................. 6

- Dorsal pubescent bands of elytra not entirely fused........................................................... 7

6(5). Outer apex of elytra with spine longer than pedicel (Fig. 33). Brazil (Goiás)......... D. singularis Martins & Galileo, 2001

- Outer apex of elytra with spine shorter than pedicel (Figs 8, 39). Nicaragua, Costa Rica ......... D. borealis Breuning, 1940

7(5). Central, yellow pubescent band on pronotum about 3/4 of basal width of antennomere III (Fig. 31).................... 8

- Central, yellow pubescent band on pronotum half of basal width of antennomere III (Figs. 1, 13)...................... 9

8(7). Antennomeres with grayish pubescent basal ring. United States (Kansas to Texas), northeastern Mexico .................................................................................................... D. cinerea (Horn, 1860)

- Antennomeres without basal pubescent ring. Mexico, Panama .................................... D. rifkindi sp. nov.

9(7). Outer elytral spine short, at most as long as pedicel (Fig. 13); metafemora in male (Fig. 16) notably wider than in female (Fig. 17). El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica ................................................ Dorcasta parkeri sp. nov.

- Outer elytral spine slightly longer than pedicel (Fig. 1); metafemoral width similar in male (Fig. 4) and female (Fig. 2)... 10

10(9). Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, French Guiana, Colombia ................................ D. dasycera (Erichson, 1848)

- Haiti ............................................................................. D. gracilis Fisher, 1932

Observations:

1. We did not examine any specimens of Dorcasta from Hispaniola. Therefore, it is not possible to know if there are differences between D. dasycera and D. gracilis based solely on the original descriptions and photographs of the holotypes;

2. According to Martins & Galileo (2001), when comparing D. singularis with D. gracilis, the outer elytral spines in D. gracilis are convergent. Although they appear that way in the holotype of D. gracilis, the feature is variable in D. dasycera, and the spines can be distinctly convergent as well, independent of the locality.