Mesoleptobasis acuminata Santos 1961

Garrison, Rosser W. & Ellenrieder, Natalia Von, 2009, Redefinition of Mesoleptobasis Sjöstedt 1918 with the inclusion of Metaleptobasis cyanolineata (Wasscher 1998) comb. nov. and description of a new species, Mesoleptobasis elongata (Odonata: Co, Zootaxa 2145, pp. 47-68: 52-55

publication ID

10.5281/zenodo.188653

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FC87D3-EB07-FF88-01B2-FCF0817040DE

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Mesoleptobasis acuminata Santos 1961
status

 

Mesoleptobasis acuminata Santos 1961 

Figs. 3View FIGURE 3 a, 4 a, 5 a, 7 a, 9 a, 10 a, 12 a, 14 a, 15 a, 16 a, 17 a, 18 a, 21

Mesoleptobasis acuminata Santos 1961: 200  (in part, description of 3); — Davies & Tobin 1984: 77 (catalog); — Bridges 1994: VII. 2 (catalog); — Steinmann 1997: 288 (catalog); — Tsuda 2000: 39 (catalog); — Lencioni 2006: 159 (notes and illustrations from original description); — Heckman 2008: 395 (key and reproduction of Santos 1961 illustrations).

Types. Holotype (locality unknown) in MNRJAbout MNRJ (not examined but our illustrations compared and confirmed with holotype by J.M. Costa).

Specimens examined. Total: 3 3, 4 Ƥ. Peru, Loreto Department: 1 3, Explorama Lodge, 80 km NE of Iquitos on Amazon River at junction with Yanamono River (3 ° 21 ' 59 "S, 72 ° 47 ' 56 "W), 14 viii 1989, leg. S.W. Dunkle (RWG); 2 3, same but 13 viii 1989 (RWG); 2 Ƥ, same but 17 viii 1989 (RWG); 2 Ƥ, same but 31 viii 1989 (RWG); Explornapo Camp at junction of Sucusari River and Napo River, ca 160 km NE of Iquitos (3 ° 16 ' 33 "S, 72 ° 56 ' 18 "W), 27 viii 1989, leg. S.W. Dunkle (SWD).

Diagnosis. Male prothorax with a pair of lateral projections separated at base ( Fig. 4 a; unique) and with acuminate apices directed antero-laterally; female prothorax lacking processes, with posterior margin slightly trilobate, with smoothly convex medial lobe slightly projected posteriorly beyond level of lateral lobes ( Fig. 5 a; unique). Costal side of FW pt shorter than basal side (unique), its posterior margin strongly convex in male ( Fig. 10View FIGURE 10 a), moderately convex in female ( Fig. 12View FIGURE 12 a). CuA relatively long (shared with M. cyanolineata  ), extending one and a half to four cells distal to vein descending from subnodus in male, three to seven cells in female ( Figs. 10View FIGURE 10 a, 12 a). Genital ligula in ectal view with distal margin transverse and lateral sub-apical deep emarginations ( Fig. 14View FIGURE 14 a; unique); in lateral view with a large triangular lateral lobe bearing a spine at its posterior base ( Fig. 15 a; unique), and with an inconspicuous low latero-basal lobe (shared with M. cyanolineata  ). Posterior margin of male S 10 recessed and with a medio-dorsal emargination, lacking posterolateral processes ( Figs. 17View FIGURE 17 a, 18 a; shared with M. cyanolineata  ). Male cercus subtriangular and attenuate dorsally with a membranous central area ( Fig. 17View FIGURE 17 a; unique); in lateral view smoothly curved, with tip directed postero-ventrally ( Fig. 18 b; shared with M. cantralli  and M. incus  ); male paraproct about as high as half of S 10 height at base in lateral view ( Fig. 18 a; shared with M. cyanolineata  ); base of paraproct lacking a thumblike tubercle ( Figs. 17View FIGURE 17 a, 18 a; shared with M. cyanolineata  and M. incus  ). Ovipositor surpassing tip of cerci for a distance shorter than length of cerci ( Fig. 16View FIGURE 16 a; shared with M. cyanolineata  and M. incus  ).

Dimensions. Males (n 3; mean in parenthesis): Hw 18.5 –19.0 (18.8); abdomen 32.0–33.0 (32.7); total length 38.0–39.0 (38.3). Females (n 4): Hw 20.0–21.0 (20.6); abdomen 32.0–33.0 (32.25); total length 37.0–39.0 (38.0).

Remarks. Santos (1961) described this species from one male lacking locality data, which he designated as holotype, and two females from Porto Velho, Rondônia, Brazil. His description and figures of the holotype show no central membranous area on the dorsal surface of male cercus characteristic of the males from Peru we examined ( Fig. 17View FIGURE 17 a). Unfortunately the holotype is incomplete and only its wings and hind legs remain (J.M. Costa pers. comm.). J.M. Costa kindly illustrated a pair of its wings for us, which had not been figured by Santos (1961). Her drawing (J.M. Costa in litt.) shows Fw Pt as less markedly convex along posterior margin than in the male we illustrated ( Fig. 10View FIGURE 10 a), and Hw Pt rectangular, with costal and posterior sides slightly longer than basal and distal sides, rather than rhomboidal, with costal and posterior sides slightly shorter than basal and distal sides, as in our illustration ( Fig. 10View FIGURE 10 a). The remainder of Santos’ (1961) description and illustrations of the holotype fully agree with males we ascribe to this species, and we consider them conspecific.

The females described by Santos (1961) as M. acuminata  (allotype and paratype) are still in the MNRJAbout MNRJ and not in the UMMZAbout UMMZ as stated in the description (J.M. Costa pers. comm.). J.M. Costa sent us illustrations of one pair of wings, posterior lobe of pronotum, and S 8-10 of female allotype (J.M. Costa in litt.). According to her drawings, pterostigmata are unmodified and rectangular and ovipositor is short, not surpassing tip of cerci.

The posterior lobe of the pronotum has lateral processes similar to those of males of M. acuminata  , but the posterior margin between the lateral processes is bilobate lacking a medial lobe, rather than trilobate with a medial lobe as in the holotype and in our males ( Fig. 4 a). We believe these females are not conspecific with the holotype male, and belong instead to an undescribed species (M. sp. in the key). We have females collected at the same locality as males we ascribe to M. acuminata  , and they lack the long lateral prothoracic processes mentioned by Santos (1961). They have instead a smooth pronotum with slightly trilobate posterior margin ( Fig. 5 a), similar to the trilobate margin of male ( Fig. 4 a). They also differ by their ovipositor, which is longer (surpassing tip of cerci; Fig. 16View FIGURE 16 a) compared to the illustrations by Santos (1961, fig. 12) and J.M. Costa (in. litt.). We believe we have correctly associated the female sex of M. acuminata  since it shares the characteristic modified pterostigma of male (unique for this species within Mesoleptobasis  ), although the modification is less pronounced than in male. The identity of the two females described by Santos (1961) as M. acuminata  will remain uncertain until more of these females are found in association with males.

Distribution. Amazonian region of Peru ( Fig. 21View FIGURE 21).

MNRJ

Museu Nacional/Universidade Federal de Rio de Janeiro

UMMZ

University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Odonata

Family

Coenagrionidae

Genus

Mesoleptobasis

Loc

Mesoleptobasis acuminata Santos 1961

Garrison, Rosser W. & Ellenrieder, Natalia Von 2009

2009
Loc

Mesoleptobasis acuminata

Heckman 2008: 395
Lencioni 2006: 159
Tsuda 2000: 39
Steinmann 1997: 288
Davies 1984: 77Santos 1961: 200

1984