Trichohippopsis, Breuning and, 1958

Galileo, Maria Helena M. & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2016, OnTrichohippopsisBreuning andAprosopusGuérin-Méneville (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Lamiinae: Agapanthiini): Notes, Transfers, Synonymy, and New Species, The Coleopterists Bulletin 70 (2), pp. 361-367 : 361-367

On Trichohippopsis and Aprosopus and their Species

Breuning (1958) created the genus Trichohippopsis for his single new species T. rufula from Brazil (translated): “Extremely elongate and very narrow. Antennae thin, slightly longer than body, fringed below with very long setae: the scape long and slen- der, the antennomere III much shorter than IV or V or scape, the antennomere XI truncate at apex. Antennal tubercles very close and very elevated. Eyes finely faceted and strongly notched, the lower eye lobes very large, a little higher than wide, the upper eye lobes apart on vertex. Frons strongly shrunken, rectangular. Pronotum cylindrical, distinctly longer than wide. Elytra extremely elongate, parallel, slightly wider than pronotum, narrowly, separately rounded at apex. Head not retractable.

361

Prosternal process narrow, less elevated than coxae. Mesosternal process slightly sloping at front edge. Metasternum with normal length. Intermediate coxal cavities open. Legs short: femora claviform; intermediate tibiae with a dorsal groove; tibial spurs divergent. Whole body and legs with short and erect setae. Antennae with erect and very long setae.” Breuning compared the new genus with Falsohippopsis Breuning, 1940 , a genus synonymized with Aerenicopsis Bates, 1885 by Martins (1984). Aerenicopsis is a genus belonging to Aerenicini, while Trichohippopsis belongs to Agapanthiini.

Breuning (1958) described T. rufula ( Figs. 10–12 ) as follows (translated): “Lower eye lobes three times longer than gena. Entire dorsal surface of the body very densely punctate. Each elytron with three narrow crests, longitudinal, line-shaped, slightly distinct.” Breuning (1958) also figured a specimen ( Fig. 12 ) that agrees very well with a specimen identified by Ubirajara R. Martins and deposited in the MZSP collection ( Fig. 9 ). However, Breuning (1962), without explanation, published a drawing ( Fig. 13 ) of a remarkably different specimen as being T. rufula . This specimen differs from the original drawing by the following characters: slender body, upper eye lobes close together, scape notably slender and longer, prothorax notably narrowed toward anterior margin, elytra centrally narrowed, and pronotum and elytra without longitudinal bands of white pubescence. This specimen does not agree with any known species of Trichohippopsis , therefore, we cannot determine if it belongs to the genus.

Martins and Carvalho (1983) described two new species of Trichohippopsis and provided a key to the three known species. The inclusion of Trichohippopsis magna Martins and Carvalho ( Fig. 6 ) and Trichohippopsis suturalis Martins and Carvalho ( Fig. 8 ) in the genus showed that some features used by Breuning (1958) as generic are actually specific. The length of antennomere III is variable (from shorter to longer than V). The prothorax varies from about as long as wide to distinctly longer than wide. The elytral apex varies from narrowly rounded to widely rounded.

Galileo and Martins (2006) described a fourth species of the genus, Trichohippopsis exilis ( Fig. 5 ), from Bolivia, currently also recorded for Brazil (Bahia, Maranhão) ( Martins et al. 2015). With the inclusion of this species, another feature originally pointed out as generic (“Antennae thin, slightly longer than body”) was shown to be specific, because the antennae in T. exilis are distinctly longer than the body.

Three subsequent species were included in Trichohippopsis . Galileo and Martins (2007) included Trichohippopsis unicolor Galileo and Martins, 2007 (see photograph of the holotype in Bezark 2015), described from Brazil (Amazonas). Martins and Galileo (2013a) described Trichohippopsis barbatulus (see photographs of the holotype in Bezark 2015) from Ecuador, and Martins and Galileo (2013b) described Trichohippopsis vestita ( Fig. 7 ) from Brazil (Piauí) (see photographs of the holotype in Bezark 2015).

Trichohippopsis barbatula (originally described as T. barbatulus , but the suffix “ opsis ” is feminine) belongs to Aprosopus Guérin-Méneville, 1844 . By the original description and photographs of the holotype, it differs from Aprosopus buquetii Guérin- Méneville, 1844 as follows: antennomeres light; prothorax slightly longer, less sinuous laterally; elytral pubescence obscuring integument. In A. buquetii ( Fig. 14 ), the antennomeres are dark, the prothorax is slightly shorter and more sinuous laterally, and the elytral pubescence does not obscure the integument. According to the original description of A. buquetii , the antennae are also notably shorter in the holotype (1.5 times body length), while in the holotype of T. barbatula they are almost twice the body length. However, we know the sex of the latter only. Thus, it is not possible to be sure about this feature, mainly because only one specimen of each species is known. Examination of more specimens may confirm if A. barbatulus is really different from A. buquetii . We provisionally transfer this species from Trichohippopsis to Aprosopus , resulting in A. barbatulus (Martins and Galileo) , new combination ( Aprosopus is masculine in gender). Aprosopus differs from Trichohippopsis by having the antennae much longer than the body, at least 1.5 times the body length (at most, 1.2 times the body length in Trichohippopsis ), antennomeres notably slender (antennomeres thicker in Trichohippopsis ), antennomere III as long as scape (shorter than scape in Trichohippopsis ), and upper eye lobes notably curved forward (not strongly curved in Trichohippopsis ).

Considering the described species in Breuning (1962), Trichohippopsis can be defined as follows: Body narrow, elongate. Antennae filiform, moderately thin, from slightly to distinctly longer than body; antennomeres fringed below with very long setae; scape elongate, slightly enlarged toward apex, with distinct apical cicatrix; antennomere III shorter than scape (sometimes slightly), from shorter to longer than IV. Antennal tubercles close and elevated. Eyes finely faceted, strongly notched; lower eye lobes very large; upper eye lobes separated on vertex, not notably curved forward. Pronotum cylindrical, from about as long as wide to distinctly longer than wide. Elytra elongate, parallel, slightly wider than pronotum. Head not retractable. Legs short; femora claviform; intermediate tibiae with dorsal groove.

Breuning (1962) revised Agapanthiini and provided a key to the genera of the tribe. In that key, Trichohippopsis and Aprosopus are separated in couplet 6 (translated): “Antennomere III distinctly shorter than scape”, leading to Trichohippopsis / “Antennomere III at least as long as the scape”, leading to Aprosopus . However, since antennomere III is slightly shorter than the scape in some species of Trichohippopsis described after Breuning (1962) (e.g., T. suturalis and T. vestita ), the interpretation of that feature can lead to the wrong genus. Providing a new key to the genera of Agapanthiini is beyond the scope of this work.

Breuning (1962) described Aprosopus gilmouri ( Fig. 15 ) based on a specimen from Suriname. In the same work, he provided a photograph of the holotype (his figure 4). However, the specimen figured belongs to Grammopsis Aurivillius, 1900 and disagrees with the description of the holotype (and/ or of Aprosopus sensu Breuning 1962 ). These disagreements include: upper eye lobes absent (present in Aprosopus ); scape clavate and notably long (not so in Aprosopus ); elytral apex uniformly acute (elytra widely truncate at apex, with sutural angle rounded and outer angle forming a short and large lobe, projected and rounded in the holotype of A. gilmouri ). Unfortunately, the photograph in Breuning (1962) does not allow for the recognition of the species. Nevertheless, A. gilmouri belongs to Trichohippopsis due to the proportionally short head and eyes not strongly emarginated.Consequently, we are transferring the species from Aprosopus to Trichohippopsis , resulting in T. gilmouri (Breuning) , new combination. Examination of the paratype of T. exilis and the original description and photograph of the holotype (see Bezark 2015) allows us to conclude that T. exilis is a junior synonym of T. gilmouri (new synonymy).

The catalogue in Monné (2015) should be modified as: “ Trichohippopsis rufula Breuning, 1958 a: 26 , fig. 7; 1962a: 23, fig. 3”; “ Aprosopus gilmouri Breuning, 1962 a: 26 , fig. 4.” Both “fig. 3” in T. rufula and “fig. 4” in A. gilmouri must be excluded: “ Trichohippopsis rufula Breuning, 1958 a: 26 , fig. 7; 1962a: 23”; “ Aprosopus gilmouri Breuning, 1962 a: 26 .”

Figures

Figs. 8–15. 8) Trichohippopsis suturalis, holotype female, dorsal habitus; 9–12) Trichohippopsis rufula: 9) Dorsal habitus, female from MZSP collection; 10) Holotype, lateral habitus; 11) Holotype, dorsal habitus; 12) Holotype drawing by Breuning (1958); 13) T. rufula sensu Breuning (1962); 14) Aprosopus buquetii, holotype, dorsal habitus; 15) Aprosopus gilmouri, holotype, dorsal habitus (true color changed due to the slide from which it was copied). Photographs in Figs. 10–11 by Camille Locatelli; photographs in Figs. 14–15 by Gérard L. Tavakilian.

Figs. 1–7. 1–4) Trichohippopsis birai, holotype female: 1) Dorsal habitus; 2) Ventral habitus; 3) Lateral habitus; 4) Head, frontal view; 5) Trichohippopsis exilis, paratype female, dorsal habitus; 6) Trichohippopsis magna, holotype female, dorsal habitus; 7) Trichohippopsis vestita, holotype female, dorsal habitus.