Ochterus perbosci ( Guérin-Méneville, 1843 )

Kment, Petr, Carapezza, Attilio & Jindra, Zdeněk, 2020, Taxonomic catalogue of the family Ochteridae with description of Ochterus papaceki sp. nov. from Socotra Island and Tanzania (Hemiptera: Heteroptera), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 60 (1), pp. 23-64 : 45

Ochterus perbosci ( Guérin-Méneville, 1843)

Pelogonus Perboscii Guérin-Méneville, 1843: 113 –114 (original description,differential diagnosis). LECTOTYPE (designated by CHAMPION 1901: 345, as type):, Mexico: Campeche: ‘dans la baie Campèche’ [= in the Campeche bay] (coll. Sallé + BMNH).

Pelogonus Perboscii: FIEBER (1851): 15 (checklist); DOHRN (1859): 52 (list); STÅL (1876): 137 (catalogue).

Pelogonus perbosci: CHAMPION (1901): 344–345, Pl. XX: fig. 11 (key, diagnosis, illustration).

Ochterus perbosci (i): TORRE BUENO (1906): 50 (list).

Ochterus perboscii: KIRKALDY & TORRE BUENO (1909): 179 (catalogue).

Pelogonus Perbosci: MONTANDON (1910): 1 (note).

Ochterus perbosci : BARBER (1913): 213 (key to species); VAN DUZEE (1923): 167 (distribution); SCHELL (1943a): 32 –33, 35 (key to species, original description repeated, differential diagnosis, illustration); DRAKE (1952):75 (checklist); COBBEN (1960): 54 (distribution); NIESER (1975): 26, 28–29, 31, Pl. 2a (key to species, diagnosis, illustrations); POLHEMUS (1976): 226, 242 (listed); FROESCHNER (1981): 61 (catalogue); POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS (1988a): 543 (catalogue); NIESER & AL- KINS KOO (1991):13–14 (key); NIESER & CHEN (1992): 8 (distribution); NIESER & MELO (1997):12, 50 (distribution); FROESCHNER (1999): 148 (catalogue); BASS (2003): 66 (distribution); VIANNA & MELO (2003): 126 –127 (distribution); MELO & NIESER (2004): 44 (distribution); SOUZA et al. (2006): 808 (distribution); PEREIRA & MELO (2007): 645 (distribution); HECKMAN (2011): 458 (key to species, illustration); MOREIRA et al. (2011): 58 (checklist, Brazil); CIANFERONI (2012): 67 (key to species); BROŻEK (2013): 342, 343, 345, 372 (morphology); CORDEIRO et al. (2014): 496 (key to species, illustrations); BARBOSA & RODRIGUES (2015): 163 (listed); BROŻEK (2015): 6, 14, 21–24 (morphology); LLANO & GUTIÉRREZ (2015): 377 (list); POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS (2016):13, 15–16, 55–58 (key to species, redescription, illustrations).

Pelogonus marginatus (misidentification, partim): UHLER (1893): 706 (list, ‘two forms’); UHLER (1894): 222 (variability).

Material examined. MEXICO: BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR: [El] Triunfo, 8.vii.1914, 1, G. H. Harris lgt., C. J. Drake det. ( NMPC). SAN LUIS POTOSÍ: Valles, 17.vii.1950, 2 1 ♀, Drake & Hottes lgt., C. J. Drake det. ( NMPC). TAMAULIPAS: Tampico, 16.vii.1950, 1, Drake & Hottes lgt., C. J. Drake det. ( NMPC).

Distribution. Nearctic Region: North America: USA: Arizona ( DRAKE 1952, POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 1988a), Texas ( SCHELL 1943a; DRAKE 1952; POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 1988a, 2016), Utah ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016). Neotropical Region: Central America: Belize ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016); Costa Rica ( SCHELL 1943a); Guatemala ( SCHELL 1943 a, POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016); Honduras ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016); Mexico (KIRKALDY & TOR- RE BUENO 1909, SCHELL 1943 a, DRAKE 1952, POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 1988a): Baja California Sur ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016), Campeche ( CHAMPION 1901, MONTANDON 1910, POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016), Chiapas ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016), Guanajuato ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016), Guerrero ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016), Jalisco ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016), Mexico ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016), Morelos ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016), Nayarit ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016), Oaxaca ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016), Pueblo ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016), San Luis Potosí (new record), Sinaloa ( CHAMPION 1901, POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016), Tamaulipas ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016), Veracruz ( CHAMPION 1901, POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016); Nicaragua

( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016); Panama ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016). Caribbean Islands: Curaçao ( COBBEN 1960); Grenada ( UHLER 1894, as P. marginatus , partim; CHAMPION 1901, KIRKALDY & TORRE BUENO 1909, SCHELL 1943 a, POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016); St. Vincent ( UHLER 1893, as P. marginatus , partim; CHAMPION 1901, KIRKALDY & TORRE BUENO 1909, SCHELL 1943 a, POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016); Trinidad and Tobago (NIESER & ALKINS KOO 1991, NIESER & CHEN 1992, BASS 2003). Souh America: Brazil: Amazonas ( PEREIRA & MELO 2007, MOREIRA et al. 2011, CORDEIRO et al. 2014), Minas Gerais ( NIESER & MELO 1997, VIANNA & MELO 2003, MELO & NIESER 2004, SOUZA et al. 2006, MOREIRA et al. 2011, CORDEIRO et al. 2014); Colombia ( DRAKE 1952); Ecuador ( SCHELL 1943 a, NIESER & CHEN 1992, CIANFERONI 2012); Paraguay ( SCHELL 1943a); Peru ( SCHELL 1943 a, DRAKE 1952); Suriname ( NIESER 1975); Venezuela ( POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016).

Notes. GUÉRIN- MÉNEVILLE (1843) dedicated the species to its collector, M. Perbosc, using the latinized form of his name (Perboscius, stem perbosci -) to form the name as O. perboscii, which is the correct original spelling of the name. The name was cited as O. perboscii at least five times (for references see above) until KIRKALDY & TORRE BUENO (1909), with a single exception of CHAMPION (1901). CHAMPION (1901), MONTANDON (1910), and all subsequent authors (for 27 additional references see above) used the incorrect subsequent spelling of the name, O. perbosci (see ICZN 1999: Art. 32.1–3, 33.3, 33.4). In this case the Article 33.3.1 ( ICZN 1999) applies in favour of O. perbosci : ‘when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling.’ We recognize O. perbosci as being in prevailing usage and therefore the correct original spelling in the sense of ICZN (1999).

GUÉRIN- MÉNEVILLE (1843) described the species based on unknown number of specimens and without information on their depository. CHAMPION (1901) wrote that: ‘The type of this insect was obtained by us from the Sallé collection’. CIANFERONI (2012) specified the sex of the specimen, incorrectly labelled as holotype, as male. Using the term ‘the type’ for the syntype he used for definition of the taxon, CHAMPION (1901) fulfilled the requirements of the Article 74.5 ( ICZN 1999) and his action constitutes a valid lectotype designation.

It was also recorded from Cuba by CHAMPION (1901) and KIRKALDY & TORRE BUENO (1909) by error (see NARANJO et al. 2010, POLHEMUS & POLHEMUS 2016).