Fidia confusa Strother

Strother, M. S. & Staines, C. L., 2008, A revision of the New World genus Fidia Baly 1863 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Eumolpinae: Adoxini), Zootaxa 1798 (1), pp. 1-100 : 30-33

Fidia confusa Strother

( Figs. 6 , 55 , 66 , 97 ; Map 2)

Fidia confusa Strother 2003: 151 (replacement name for F. murina Crotch ); Clark et al. 2004: 103 (host plants).

Fidia murina Crotch 1873: 33 (nec Glover 1868:71), (original description); Henshaw 1885: 108 (checklist); Lefèvre 1885: 76 (catalog); Horn 1892: 199 (synonymized with F. viticida Walsh ); Schultz 1970: 255 (dissertation, removed from synonymy, not a valid nomenclatural act); Wilcox 1975: 57 (checklist, removed from synonymy).

Crotch (1873) neither designated a holotype in his description of F. murina , nor indicated the number of specimens he had before him, but he clearly implied that he had more than one specimen by giving the distribution as "Middle and Southern States". In the last sentence of his introductory paragraph, he stated, "All the species described are from the cabinets of Drs. LeConte and Horn ..." It is impossible to know how many of the specimens now in the Horn and LeConte collections were before Crotch at the time of his description .

Schultz (1970) indicated that he had seen a series of nine specimens from the LeConte collection headed by a specimen bearing a Fidia murina identification label; one male proved to be F. viticida . A study of specimens from the LeConte and Horn collections, housed in the MCZC, revealed twenty specimens fitting the brief description of F. murina given by Crotch. These specimens comprise three zoological taxa that, based on the external morphological characters used by Crotch, are superficially very similar. The question now arises as to which taxon should bear the name, F. murina Crotch , and, subsequently, which specimens should be excluded from the syntype series of F. murina .

Among these specimens is a female bearing the following labels: [pink disk] / "J.L. LeConte Coll. / Type 5049 [number handwritten on red paper and glued to type label] / Fidia murina Dej. [handwritten] / Fidia viticida Walsh det. M.S.Strother 1993". The specimen is pinned through the right elytron and is in poor condition. Schultz (1970) mentioned this specimen in a brief discussion of types under his treatment of F. murina , incorrectly transcribing the fourth label as " Fidia murina Dg. ", but he gave no further information. The origin of the type label on this specimen is not known and is not here assumed to be the work of Crotch. The specimen is actually a specimen of F. viticida Walsh and is here expressly rejected as the type of F. murina . Ten other specimens in the Horn and LeConte collections are F. viticida and are here rejected as belonging to Crotch's syntype series. They are as follows: 1 ♂ no data, "Horn Coll H6725" ; 1♂ " Dac. / Horn Coll H6725" ; 1 ♂ " Ill. / 23 [handwritten] / Horn Coll H6725" ; 1 ♂ " Marion County. / Horn Coll H6725" ; 1 ♂ " Neb. / Horn Coll H6725" ; 1 ♂ " Tex. / Horn Coll H6725" ; 1♂, 1 ♀ no data, "J.L. LeConte Collection" (♂ dissected); 1 ♀ " Ill. / 817 [handwritten]/ J.L. LeConte Collection "; and 1 ♂ "Ks. / J.L. LeConte Collection " (dissected). Each of these specimens also bears the label, " Fidia viticida Walsh det. M.S.Strother 1993" .

Of the nine remaining specimens, three are females of F. texana Schaeffer. In his description, Crotch specifically gives characters of the male metasternum and abdominal sterna for the species he considered to be F. murina . Since he did not have males of F. texana before him, his description could not have applied to this species. As a result, these specimens are here rejected as belonging to Crotch's syntype series. They are as follows: 1 ♀ "Tex / Horn Coll H6725" and 2 ♀♀ "Columbus 23 ⋅ 5 Texas / 648. [handwritten / J.L. LeConte Collection". Each of these specimens also bears the label, " Fidia texana Schaeffer det. M.S.Strother 1993".

The six remaining specimens represent a third zoological taxon to which no published name other than F. murina Crotch has been applied. These six specimens are here considered to exclusively comprise the syntype series of F. murina Crotch. A male bearing the following labels, "C. Mo. / JUNE. / Horn Coll H 6725 / LECTO- TYPE Fidia murina Crotch design. M.S.Strother 1993 [red]", is the lectotype ( Strother 2003). The specimen is pinned through the right elytron and is missing the left eleventh antennomere. Some setae on the pronotum and elytra have been abraded, but the specimen is otherwise in very good condition. The other five specimens are paralectotypes and are as follows: 2 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ no data, "J.L. LeConte Collection" and 1♀ "Ill. [handwritten] / J.L. LeConte Collection". Each of these specimens also bears the label, " PARALECTOTYPE Fidia murina Crotch design. M. S. Strother 1993 [yellow]". All five types are deposited in the MCZC.

Fidia longipes: Isely 1930 (misidentification), ex parte.

Fidia viticida: Isely 1942 (misidentification), ex parte; Rouse & Medvedev 1972: 79 (checklist), ex parte; Riley & Enns 1979:65 (checklist), ex parte.

Description. Males: TL = 5.32–7.00 mm, HW = 2.52–3.28 mm. Females: TL = 5.48–7.20 mm, HW = 2.56– 3.68 mm. Color: Entirely pale orange-brown to castaneous; legs occasionally appearing lighter than dorsum; thoracic sterna often slightly darker than dorsum; pubescence white to straw-yellow. Pronotum: Length subequal to width, widest at or immediately posteriad middle, sides distinctly arcuate; densely, finely punctatereticulate; pubescence dense, recumbent, not completely obscuring surface sculpture. Elytra: Intrahumeral callus weakly to moderately developed; asetose punctate-striae well-developed, often obscured by pubescence, interstices flat to feebly convex, densely, minutely punctulate-rugulose; pubescence dense, recumbent, either forming distinct longitudinal rows between striae or appearing evenly distributed. Abdomen: Males with small to medium-sized, impunctate, glabrous area on first and usually second sternum; last sternum usually with broad, shallow, subrectangular to semicircular, transverse medial impression; pygidium dorsally convex in apical ½ with broadly rounded to subtruncate apex. Females with medial area of all sterna evenly convex, uniformly punctate-pubescent; last sternum with small, shallow to deep, circular to semicircular medial fovea; pygidium shallowly impressed at posterolateral angles on either side of slightly elevated midline, sides reflexed, apex subacutely rounded. Legs: Both sexes with femora gradually tapered towards base. Males with protibia distally slightly ventrally curved; pro- and mesotibial spurs stout, contiguous, minutely rugulose; probasitarsus subequal in width for most of length; disco-setae on pro- and mesobasitarsi only. Penis: In posterior view, sides gently concave near middle, widest at apical lobes; apical emargination broad, shallow, basally truncate to feebly concave; apical lobes small, feebly tapered, with subtruncate to rounded apex. In lateral view, eudorsal surface of declivitous part feebly convex; euventral surface slightly convex; apex tapered to acute point. Sperm guide composed of lower sclerite only. Spermatheca: Basal arm type.

Diagnosis. Large (5.32-7.20 mm.); entirely pale orange-brown to castaneous with white to straw-yellow pubescence; pronotum finely punctate-reticulate. Males with probasitarsus broad for most of length ( Fig. 55 ); penis ( Fig. 97 ) with broad, shallow apical emargination; apical emargination basally slightly concave to truncate; apical lobes small, widely separated. Females with distinct, circular to semicircular medial fovea on last abdominal sternum ( Fig. 66 ).

Specimens of F. confusa are very similar to F. texana and F. viticida in almost every aspect of their external morphology, but males of the first two species have the probasitarsus wider in the basal ½, giving it a slightly swollen appearance, whereas males of F. viticida have the probasitarsus gradually tapered towards the base ( Fig. 56 ). In addition males of F. confusa and F. texana have the apical emargination of the penis very broad and shallow ( Figs. 96–97 ), whereas in F. viticida it is semicircular and approximately as deep as wide ( Fig. 99 ). Males of F.confusa are distinguished from males of F. texana by having the base of the apical emargination truncate to slightly concave and the apical lobes acutely rounded to subtruncate, whereas F. texana has the base of the apical emargination slightly convex and the apical lobes almost feebly to distinctly pointed apically. Females of F. confusa and F. texana are readily distinguished by the shallow, circular fovea of the last abdominal segment, which is lacking in F. viticida . No consistent character was found to separate females of F. confusa and F. texana ; however, F. confusa tends to be smaller and paler than F. texana , and often has the elytral pubescence arranged in feeble to distinct rows between the punctate-striae, a condition never found in F. texana . Finally, the two species appear to be allopatric, with F. texana occurring only in central Texas and New Mexico, and F. confusa having a much broader range throughout the central U.S.

Distribution (Map 2). Fidia confusa occurs from central Illinois south to north-central Louisiana, from eastern Kansas and Oklahoma to western Kentucky and Tennessee. Only three collecting elevations, " 798 ft. ", " 900 ft. ", and " 1114 ft. " for Montgomery, Douglas, and Cowley counties, Kansas, respectively, were given.

Specimens examined (191). UNITED STATES. ARKANSAS: Washington Co., Fayetteville, vii:6:09 (UADE:1), Springdale, vi:20:1930 (UCDC:5), county only, v:1941 (UADE:17, USNM:6), vi:26:1928 (UADE:10), 6:xvii:40 (UADE:2), vii:13:1928 (UADE:3), vii:15:1928 (UADE:16); Yell Co., 6 mi. N.W. Danville, viii:27:1975 (MUIC:1), No county, South West Ark., no date (AMNH:1). ILLINOIS: Calhoun Co., Kampsville, vi:10:1932 (INHS:1); Champaign Co., Cham., vi:11:1911 (INHS:1), Champaign, vii:16:1939 (INHS:2), Urbana, vi:26:1923 (INHS:1), vii:5:1925 (INHS:2); Edwards Co., Albion, no date (BMNH:1); Madison Co., Collinsville, vi:24:1927 (INHS:3), vi:30:1927 (INHS:9); Pike Co., Pittsfield, vii:5:46 (UCDC:1), vii:6:1946 (UCDC:2), vii:9:1946 (UCDC:2); St. Clair Co., Kahokia, 1:7:03 (UMRM:1), county only, vi:15:1908 (UMRM:1); Vermillion Co., Oakwood, vi:18:1939 (INHS:5); County not known, Hick's Branch Eichorn, vi:24:1932 (INHS:1), State only, v:25:75 (USNM:1), no date (USNM:1). INDIANA: Vermillion Co., county only, viii:17:21 (CUIC:1). KANSAS: Cowley Co., county only, 1916 (SEMC:2); Douglas Co., Baldwin, vi:16:1906 (AMNH:2, USNM:7), vi:17:1906 (AMNH:1), Lawrence vicinity, vi:24:1980 (SEMC:1), county only, no date (CUIC:1, SEMC:1); Miami Co., county only, 1915 (SEMC:2); Montgomery Co., county only, 1916 (SEMC:1); Shawnee Co., Topeka, no date (USNM:1); Wyandotte Co., county only, vi:22:24 (SEMC:1); State only, no date (CASC:4, INHS:2, MCZC:2). KENTUCKY: State only, no date (AMNH:1, CUCC:3, INHS:1, USNM:3). LOUISIANA: Morehouse Par., near Oak Ridge, vi:26:1979 (LSUC:1). MISSISSIPPI: Grenado Co., county only, 6:11:44 (CDAE:1). MISSOURI: Boone Co., Ashland Wildlife Area, vii:15:1970 (UMRM:1), C., vi (MCZC:1, UMRM:2, USNM:9), no date (DEFW:1), Columbia, vi:27:1978 (UMRM:1), vii:1:1919 (UMRM:1), vii:15:1970 (UMRM:1); Callaway Co., Tucker Prairie, vii:24:1968 (UMRM:1); Gasconade Co., Jct. Crider Creek and A, vi:26:74 (EGRC:1); Holt Co., Mound City. viii:29:1969 (UMRM:1); Jasper Co., county only, viii:14:1963 (UMRM:1); Madison Co., 3 mi. W. Frederick- town, vi:20:1978 (EGRC:1); Phelps Co., Royal, vi:17:1971 (UMRM:2); Randolph Co., 1 mi. E. Moberly, vi:26:74 (EGRC:1), vii:10:72 (EGRC:1), vii:14:76 (EGRC:1), vii:24:73 (EGRC:1), vii:27:73 (EGRC:1); St. Charles Co., Weldon Springs, vii:11:84 (FSCA:1); Vernon Co., 4 mi. w. Montevallo, vi:14:1966 (TAMU:1), vi:24:1966 (TAMU:1), Vieth farm 5 mi. east Nevada, MO., vi:4:1959 (FSCA:1); Wayne Co., Wmsville, vii:10:1947 (UMRM:1). NEW JERSEY: State only, no date (CASC:1). [This is most likely a mislabeled specimen because New Jersey is approximately 700 mi. east of the known continuous distribution of F. confusa .] OKLAHOMA: Atoka Co., Atoka Indian Trail, vi:13–15 (USNM:1); Choctaw Co., Hugo, vi:11:1939 (OSEC:1); Delaware Co., Grove, vi:5:1934 (OSEC:1); Latimer Co., county only, vi:1981 (EGRC:1), vi:85 (FSCA:1); LeFlore Co., county only, viii:14:1931 (OSEC:1). TENNESSEE: Montgomery Co., Clarksville, 6:3:1936 (SEMC:1), 6:21:1936 (SEMC:1). No locality, no date (INHS:3, MCZC:1 [bears yellow circular LeConte label], UADE:2).

Temporal Data: Collecting dates ranged from 25 May to 29 August.

Natural History. Plant associations include cotton and grape, with the former probably representing an accidental association. Seventeen specimens from the UADE and six specimens from the USNM bear the label, "Reared by D. Isely ", with one of the USNM specimens also bearing the handwritten label, "read [sic] from larvae on roots of grape D. Isely ". This confirms that grape is a host plant for this species and indicates that F. confusa may have been responsible, at least in part, for the Arkansas "grape rootworm" outbreak of 1928. In addition, specimens have been collected at lights and in Malaise and Leggett traps .

Taxonomic History. The name, F. murina , was first used by Dejean in the second edition of his catalog (1836). Dejean merely listed the name, failing to give a description or indication, and the name was, therefore, a nomen nudum (Art. 12, ICZN 1999). Glover (1868) unknowingly made F. murina available with a small, unlabelled drawing and a very brief comparison to a scarab. Glover's name is herein considered a nomen dubium (see discussion under F. murina Glover following the species treatments), but it still takes priority over Crotch's name. As a result, F. murina Crotch is a junior primary homonym. Horn (1892), apparently unaware of Glover's description, attributed authorship of F. murina to Crotch. He synonymized it with F. viticida Walsh and was followed by Clavareau (1914), Leng (1920), and Balsbaugh & Hays (1972). Schultz (1970), based on differences in male genitalia, correctly discerned the taxon described by Crotch and removed it from synonymy with F. viticida . In addition, Schultz placed F. texana Schaeffer in synonymy with F. murina Crotch. Like Horn , however, he was unaware of the homonymous relationship between the Glover and Crotch names. Schultz's unpublished nomenclatural changes were made available by Wilcox (1975).

Isely (1930) reported a 1928 outbreak of what he believed to be F. longipes in Arkansas. In 1942, he indicated that F. viticida had actually been the species involved. Strother examined Isely's specimens from both of these publications and found many specimens of F. confusa along with specimens of F. viticida . It is not surprising that Isely did not realize he was dealing with two species because at the time of his work no one had discovered the genitalic differences between them.

Figures

FIGURES 5–8. Dorsal habitus of Fidia species. 5. F.comalensis. 6. F. confusa. 7. F. convexicollis. 8. F. costaricensis.

FIGURES 53–57. Pro- and mesobasitarsus (scale bar = 0.2 mm). 53. F. clematis ♂. 54. F. viticida ♂. 55. F. confusa ♂. 56. F. viticida ♀. 57. F. clematis ♀.

FIGURES 61–70. Last visible abdominal sternum of female (scale bar = 1.0 mm). 61. F. rileyorum. 62. F.spuria. 63. F. delilahae. 64. F. pedestris. 65. F. papillata. 66. F. confusa. 67. F. marraverpa. 68. F. dichroma. 69. F. humeralis. 70. F. xanthonioides.

FIGURES 96–100. Distal part of male aedeagus, lateral and dorsal views (scale bar = 0.5 mm). 96. F. texana. 97. F.confusa. 98. F. pedinops. 99. F. viticida. 100. F. clematis.