Pygmaeopsis Schaeffer, 1908,

Bezark, Larry G. & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2019, Synonymies and seven new species in Lamiinae from the Neotropical Region (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae), Zootaxa 4648 (1), pp. 92-110: 104-105

publication ID

publication LSID

persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Pygmaeopsis Schaeffer, 1908


Pygmaeopsis Schaeffer, 1908 

Pygmaeopsis Schaeffer, 1908: 347  ; Bradley, 1930: 244; Arnett, 1962: 870, 892; Breuning, 1974: 134; Chemsak & Linsley, 1975: 273; Linsley & Chemsak, 1985: 162; Monné, 1994: 1 (cat.).

According to Schaeffer (1908): “This genus… is perhaps best placed in Lacordaire’s tribe Estolides  , though the intermediate coxal cavities are not quite closed. To the genera having these open, it seems to be less related. In our fauna it has to be placed in LeConte and Horn’s tribe Pogonocherini  near the genus Zaplous  .”

Bradley (1930) included Pygmaeopsis in Estolini  (now equal to Desmiphorini  ). The author followed Lacordaire’s (1872) key to tribes of Lamiinae. Breuning (1974) included the genus in Rhodopinini (now equal to Desmiphorini  ). Since Chemsak & Linsley (1975), the genus has been included in Pogonocherini  . According to them: “Previous writers have disagreed as to the appropriateness of recognizing this group of beetles ( Pogonocherini  ) as a separate tribe and also in the interpretation of the characters expressed in the genera assigned to it. Two of the characters shared by the genera included here are closed intermediate coxal cavities and middle tibiae with an external sinus.” However, those characters do not allow excluding Estolini, in which Pygmaeopsis  was placed. Furthermore, according to Linsley & Chemsak (1975), in the key to tribes of Lamiinae: “Body short and convex, long flying hairs often present, if elongate and flying hairs absent, pronotum laterally unarmed,” leading to Pogonocherini  ; “Body elongate and parallel-sided, flying hairs absent; pronotum tuberculate laterally”, leading to Estolini. Thus, following this key, Pygmaeopsis  would need to be included in Estolini, and not in Pogonocherini  .

The validity of Pogonocherini  as distinct from Desmiphorini  was questioned by Nascimento et al. (in press): “It is important to note that Pogonocherus  appears to belong in Desmiphorini  , at least, we could not find a feature that would exclude this genus from this tribe. The eventual transfer of the type genus of Pogonocherini  to Desmiphorini  would require the names of the two tribes to become synonyms, and in this situation Pogonocherini  would be the senior name for the resulting tribe.”

For now, we transfer Pygmaeopsis  to Desmiphorini  , following the key by Linsley and Chemsak (1985). Actually, it is probable that Pseudestola Breuning, 1940  is a junior synonym of Pygmaeopsis  , since we could not find a reliable difference. However, we prefer not to establish the formal synonymy without examining more specimens of the species currently placed in Pseudestola  .












Pygmaeopsis Schaeffer, 1908

Bezark, Larry G. & Santos-Silva, Antonio 2019


Monne, M. A. 1994: 1
Linsley, E. G. & Chemsak, J. A. 1985: 162
Chemsak, J. A. & Linsley, E. G. 1975: 273
Breuning, S. 1974: 134
Arnett, R. H. 1962: 870
Bradley, J. C. 1930: 244
Schaeffer, C. F. A. 1908: 347