Monneellus Hüdepohl, 1985

Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2017, Synonymy and descriptions in Cerambycinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) from Costa Rica, Zootaxa 4319 (1), pp. 177-184 : 178

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4319.1.10

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:Aa2A6Bd4-94F3-4Ff0-A230-4D5Fdfe03067

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6042510

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A18782-FFE7-FFCC-FF5D-87E88FF17147

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Monneellus Hüdepohl, 1985
status

 

Monneellus Hüdepohl, 1985 View in CoL

( Figs 1–9 View FIGURES 1 – 5. 1 – 3 View FIGURES 6 – 13. 6 – 8 )

Monneellus Hüdepohl, 1985: 136 View in CoL ; Monné, 1994: 101; Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 147 (cat.); Monné, 2005: 620 (cat.); Monné & Hovore, 2006: 146 (checklist); Monné, 2012: 59 (cat.); 2017: 558 (cat.).

Hudepohlellus Chemsak & Hovore, 2010: 5 View in CoL ; Monné, 2012: 58 (cat.); 2017: 551 (cat.). Syn. nov.

According to Chemsak & HoVore (2010): “In Hüdepohl’s (1985) key to Trachyderini View in CoL , this genus [ Hudepohlellus View in CoL ] keys out to Monneellus Hüdepohl. View in CoL Hudepohlellus View in CoL differs immediately from that genus by the short mandibles, almost entirely impunctate body, short, broad, rounded body form, short, broad antennal scape, arcuate, raised prosternal process and abruptly decliVous mesosternal process.”

We agree that Hudepohlellus keys out to Monneellus in Hüdepohl’s key. HoweVer:

1. The mandibles in females of Monneellus rhodopus (Bates, 1870) ( Fig. 8 View FIGURES 6 – 13. 6 – 8 ) are quite different from those in males ( Fig. 7 View FIGURES 6 – 13. 6 – 8 ), and do not differs from those in H. semilunatus Chemsak & HoVore, 2010 ( Fig. 9 View FIGURES 6 – 13. 6 – 8 );

2. The elytra in M. rhodopus ( Figs 4 View FIGURES 1 – 5. 1 – 3 , 7 View FIGURES 6 – 13. 6 – 8 ) are finely, nearly inconspicuously punctate, not impunctate as noted by Chemsak & HoVore (2010);

3. Although the body in H. semilunatus is shorter and broader than M. rhodopus , the difference when compared with females of M. rhodopus is not so great. Furthermore, this kind of difference also occurs in species of Trachyderes Dalman, 1817 . For example, when females of T. (T.) hilaris Bates, 1880 (more elongate species) are compared with those of T. melas Bates, 1870 (shorter species);

4. The scape is broader at base in H. semilunatus ( Fig. 9 View FIGURES 6 – 13. 6 – 8 ) than in M. rhodopus ( Fig. 8 View FIGURES 6 – 13. 6 – 8 ). HoweVer, the difference is small and the shape of the scape is notably Variable in species of Trachyderes . For example, comparing males and females of T. cingulatus Klug, 1825 , with males and females of T. succinctus succinctus (Linnaeus, 1758) ;

5. The prosternal process in M. rhodopus ( Figs 5 View FIGURES 1 – 5. 1 – 3 , 6 View FIGURES 6 – 13. 6 – 8 ) is somewhat similar to that in H. semilunatus ( Figs 2, 3 View FIGURES 1 – 5. 1 – 3 ), although more projected at the apex. Furthermore, the apex of the prosternal process is also Variable in species of Trachyderes ;

6. The mesosternal decliVity in M. rhodopus ( Fig. 6 View FIGURES 6 – 13. 6 – 8 ) is somewhat different from that in H. semilunatus ( Fig. 3 View FIGURES 1 – 5. 1 – 3 ). Furthermore, the inclination of the mesosternal process toward the mesosternum is also somewhat Variable in species of Trachyderes .

Based on the Variation of the features used to separate Hudepohlellus from Monneellus , notably in the species currently placed in Trachyderes , the former needs to be considered a junior synonym of the latter. If not, it would be necessary to diVide Trachyderes into seVeral genera, which does not make sense to us. Still more important is the fact that Hudepohlellus was described to allocate a single species: H. semilunatus Chemsak & HoVore, 2010 . According to the authors, H. semilunatus was described based on two females (one of them was lost). Consequently, the affirmation by Chemsak & HoVore (2010) (“ Hudepohlellus differs immediately from that genus [ Monneellus ] by the short mandibles”) does not make any sense, since the males of H. semilunatus were, and still are, unknown. But, eVen if the males of H. semilunatus haVe mandibles notably different from that of M. rhodopus , this does not change the synonymy, because this is another highly Variable feature in Trachyderes .

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Coleoptera

Family

Cerambycidae

Loc

Monneellus Hüdepohl, 1985

Santos-Silva, Antonio 2017
2017
Loc

Hudepohlellus

Monne 2012: 58
Chemsak 2010: 5
2010
Loc

Monneellus Hüdepohl, 1985 : 136

Monne 2012: 59
Monne 2006: 146
Monne 2005: 620
Monne 1994: 147
Hudepohl 1985: 136
1985
GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF