Hammatoderus olivescens ( Dillon & Dillon, 1941 )

Botero, Juan Pablo & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2017, Four new species, taxonomic, and nomenclatural notes in Hammatoderus Gemminger & Harold, 1873 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae), Zootaxa 4231 (3), pp. 377-397 : 392-394

Hammatoderus olivescens ( Dillon & Dillon, 1941)

( Figs. 26–28 )

Plagiohammus olivescens Dillon & Dillon, 1941: 89 ; 1949: 2; Chemsak et al., 1992: 111 (checklist); Noguera & Chemsak, 1996: 404; Monné, 2005: 514 (cat.); Toledo, 2005: 420; Hovore, 2006: 375; Swift et al., 2010: 61; Constantino et al., 2014: 13 , fig. 31.

Hammoderus strandi Breuning, 1943: 262 , fig. 126. Syn. nov.

Plagiohammus strandi ; Breuning, 1961: 333.

Breuning (1943) described H. strandi as follows: “Très proche de nitidus Bat. , mais les lobes inférieurs des yeux deux fois plus longs que les joues; le front ridé et ponctué; le disque du pronotum moins ridé; ses côtés plus granulés; l’épine latérale plus mince; les élytres moins densément granulés à la base; l’épíne apicale située en prolongation de la suture. Les quatre grandes taches élytrales blanc pur, plus dilacérées.”

Comparison of photographs of the holotypes of H. strandi and H. nitidus show that both are very similar. However, apparently they are different, not only because the position of the elytral spine (apparently, somewhat variable in the genus), but because the elytral pubescence in H. nitidus forms numerous small spots with compact pubescence, while in H. strandi it is not so, and by the central tubercle of pronotum not glabrous and very well marked as in H. nitidus . We could not examine photographs of the holotype of H. nitidus showing details of the head. However, the lower eye lobes in the holotype of H. strandi , evidently, it is not twice as long as gena ( Fig. 27 ).

Dillon & Dillon (1949) pointed out: “ Hammoderus strandi Breuning. This species appears from the description to be identical to Plagiohammus olivescens Dillon and Dillon , but it is impossible to ascertain this at present. The latter name would fall as a synonym.” In Monné’s Catalogue (2016), it is indicated that it was Dillon & Dillon (1949) who synonymized H. strandi with P. olivescens . Nevertheless, the statement by Dillon & Dillon (1949) cannot be considered a synonymy. Even so, after Dillon & Dillon (1949), only Breuning (1961) and Chemsak et al. (1992) considered both species as distinct. Any citation of H. strandi as a junior synonym of P. olivescens cannot be considered a formal synonymy, because the authors were only mistakenly attributing the synonymy to Dillon & Dillon (1949).

The reading of the original descriptions of Plagiohammus olivescens and Hammoderus strandi , as well as the study of the photographs of the holotypes allows us to confirm that the supposition by Dillon & Dillon (1949) was correct. Consequently, the synonym is formally established here: Plagiohammus olivescens Dillon & Dillon, 1941 = Hammoderus strandi Breuning, 1943 , syn. nov.

Figures

FIGURES 26 – 31. 26 – 38, Hammoderus strandi, holotype female: 26, dorsal view; 27, head, frontal view; 28, labels. 29 – 31, Plagiohammus mexicanus, holotype female: 29, labels, 30, dorsal view; 31, lateral view. Photographs 26 – 28 by Gabriel Biffi; 29 – 31 by Harold Labrique.