Nesanoplium puberulum ( Fleutiaux & Sallé, 1889 )

Botero, Juan Pablo, Bezark, Larry G. & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2020, A new genus, new species and taxonomic notes on American Cerambycinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae), Zootaxa 4758 (1), pp. 157-175 : 159-161

Nesanoplium puberulum ( Fleutiaux & Sallé, 1889)

Cyrtomerus puberulus Fleutiaux & Sallé, 1889: 464 ; Fleutiaux, 1892: 70; 1903: 375 (host).

Cylindera (?) puberula ; Gahan, 1895: 108.

Cylindera puberula ; Aurivillius, 1912: 120 (cat.); Leng & Mutchler, 1914: 446 (distr.); 1917: 209 (distr.); Gowdey, 1926: 21 (distr.); Blackwelder, 1946: 571 (checklist); Cazier & Lacey, 1952: 28; Woodruff et al., 1998: 16 (distr.).

Nesanoplium puberulum ; Chemsak, 1966: 214; Villiers, 1980a: 98 (lect.); 1980b: 131; 1980c: 284; Chemsak et al., 1992: 45 (cat.); Browne et al., 1993: 43 (distr.); Monné, 1993a: 3 (cat.); Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 57 (checklist); Lingafelter, 1998: 95; Touroult, 2004: 130 (hosts); Monné, 2005: 227 (cat.); Chalumeau & Touroult, 2005: 89; Peck, 2005: 170 (distr.); 2006: 192 (distr.); Perez-Gelabert, 2008: 118 (distr.); Turnbow & Thomas, 2008: 21 (distr.); Peck, 2010: 51 (distr.); 2011a: 37 (distr., hosts); 2011b: 34 (distr., hosts); Peck et al., 2014: 93 (distr.); Peck, 2016: 175; Monné, 2019: 360 (cat.).

Cyrtomerus puberulus was described by Fleutiaux & Sallé from Guadeloupe, based on a single specimen. According to Monné (2019) the species is recorded from the Bahamas, Jamaica, Hispaniola, Tortola, St. Barthélemy, St. Vincent, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Montserrat?, Dominica, Bequia, Les Saintes, Mustique, and Union. Peck (2016) listed the species from the Bahamas, Bequia, Canouan, Dominica, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Hispaniola, Jamaica, Les Saintes, Martinique, Mayreau, Mustique, St. Bathélemy, St. Vincent, Tortola, and Union.Additionally, according to Peck (2016), the species does not occur on Montserrat, and the record for Martinique “needs confirmation, possibly confused with Nesanoplium dalensi Chalumeau and Touroult 2005 a: 90 of St. Lucia.” Villiers (1980a) designated a lectotype for Cyrtomerus puberulus (translated): “Described in the genus Curtomerus , based on three specimens. I designate as LECTOTYPE a male 6.5 mm in length, with the following labels: “Type”, “ Guadeloupe, Delauney;” “ Cyrtomerus puberulus Fleut. & S., type;” “Museum Paris, Coll. E. Fleutiaux”.” However, there is no evidence that Fleutiaux & Sallé (1889) had more than one specimen. Furthermore, according to the original description, the specimen was 7.5 mm in length, and not 6.5 mm. Thus, it is possible that Fleutiaux and/or Sallé had included more specimens in his (their) collection after the original description.Accordingly, we think that the designation of a lectotype for this species is not valid.

According to Chemsak (1966) on the antennae in Nesanoplium : “antennae about as long as body in males, short- er in females, segments carinate, three to seven spined at apex internally, segments six to nine spined externally…” Villiers (1980c) repeated exactly the same information about the antennae. Lingafelter (1998) reported: “mesal antennal spines present.” However, photographs of some specimens of N. puberulum examined by us suggest that the outer apical angle in basal antennomeres may be distinctly rounded and not spined (actually, the photographs show that the outer angle is dentate and not spined). From what we can see, the inner apex of the basal antennomeres has a minute spine, and not a true spine as may be understood when reading the description by Chemsak (1966), Villiers (1980c) and Lingafelter (1998). Thus, apparently, the shape of antennomeres in Nesanoplium puberulum is variable. But this also occurs in other species of Elaphidiini as, for example, in Aposphaerion unicolor (White, 1855) .

We tried to find the holotype of Cyrtomerus puberulus , but unfortunately, according to Gérard L. Tavakilian, the specimen was not found in the collection of MNHN. As the specimen was examined by Steven W. Lingafelter in the USNM in the 1990s, we contacted him to determine if the specimen was still was in the USNM. However, according to Steven W. Lingafelter and Charyn Micheli (USNM), the specimen was returned by registered air mail on December 5, 1996. Following this information, Eugenio H. Nearns, along with Gérard L. Tavakilian, tried to find the specimen once again at the MNHN, but to no avail. Accordingly, there are only two possibilities: the specimen never arrived in the MNHN and has been lost in transit; or it is misplaced somewhere in the museum collection.