Cirrhicera leuconota ( Laporte, 1840 )

Santos-Silva, Antonio, Heffern, Daniel, Botero, Juan Pablo, de, Francisco Eriberto & Nascimento, L., 2020, Notes, new records, new combinations, a new genus and three new species in Hemilophini (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Lamiinae), Insecta Mundi 2020 (785), pp. 1-25 : 2-3

Cirrhicera leuconota ( Laporte, 1840)

( Fig. 1–2 )

Hemilophus leuconotus Laporte 1840: 489 ; Gemminger 1873: 3209 (cat.).

Cirrhicera leuconota ; Thomson 1860: 64; 1864: 128; 1878: 15 (types); Bates 1881b: 302; Aurivillius 1923: 592 (cat.); Duffy 1960: 276; Gilmour 1965: 639 (cat.); Chemsak 1972: 88; Chemsak et al. 1992: 158 (checklist); Monné 1995: 38 (cat.); Monné and Giesbert 1994: 283 (checklist); Noguera and Chemsak 1996: 408 (checklist); Terrón 1997: 223 (distr.); Turnbow et al. 2003: 41 (distr.); Monné 2005: 460 (cat.); Monné and Hovore 2006: 258 (checklist); Bezark 2013: 53 (distr.); Monné 2020: 673 (cat.); Bezark 2019: 298 (checklist).

Cirrhicera leuconotus ; Bates 1881a: 213; Blackwelder 1946: 624 (checklist).

Cirrhicera leucronota Thomson 1857: 309 .

The number of specimens in the type series of Hemilophus leuconotus Laporte, 1840 has been reported incorrectly. Also, the status and the number of specimens in the type series of Cirrhicera leucronota Thomson, 1860 have been incorrectly listed in catalogs and checklists.

Laporte (1840) described Hemilophus leuconotus ( Fig. 1 ) from Mexico without further details. Although he had mentioned the catalog of Dejean, he did not add any additional information about the catalog (year, date, and page): “DEJ., Cat.” Even so, the specimens from the Dejean collection (currently deposited at BMNH) are syntypes. According to ICZN (1999: Article 74.2.1): “The type series of a nominal speciesgroup taxon consists of all specimens included by the author in the new nominal taxon (whether directly or by bibliographic reference)…” Additionally, ICZN (1999: Article 72.4.1.1) establishes: “For a nominal species or subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens constitute the type series.” The mention of the Dejean catalog is clear evidence. Thus, although the species has been mentioned as having been described based on a single specimen (holotype) (e.g. Tavakilian and Chevillotte 2020), there were at least two specimens.

Later, Thomson (1857) described Cirrhicera leucronota from Mexico, also without further details, and mentioned: “ CIRRHICERA LEUCRONOTA (Dej. Cat. 3 e edit. p. 379) Thomson.” Although the species really appears in Dejean (1836: 379 – third edition), it was present already in the second edition ( Dejean 1835: 352). Again, the species has been mentioned as having been based on a single specimen (holotype) (e.g. Tavakilian and Chevillotte 2020), but there is no doubt that there were syntypes ( ICZN 1999: Article 74.2.1). Thus, the syntypes of Cirrhicera leucronota and C. leuconota belonging to the Dejean collection are the same specimens. Thomson (1860) synonymized C. leucronota with C. leuconota but did not mention anything about the name “leucronota”. Even so, his text suggests he was making a correction: “Espèces: C. leuconota, Cast., Hist. Nat. des Col., II , 489, et Thomson, Arch. Ent., I, p. 309…”. Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2020) pointed out that the synonymy occurred in Thomson (1878). However, as seen above, it occurred in Thomson (1860). The change of the name “leucronota” to “leuconota” in Thomson (1860) cannot be considered an “emendation”, because according to ICZN (1999: 33.2.1): “A change in the original spelling of a name is only to be interpreted as “demonstrably intentional” [ ICZN 1999: Article 33.2] when in the work itself, or in an author’s (or publisher’s) corrigenda, there is an explicit statement of intention, or when both the original and the changed spelling are cited and the latter is adopted in place of the former, or when two or more names in the same work are treated in a similar way.” As seen above, none of these conditions are met in Thomson (1860). Accordingly, Cirrhicera leucronota Thomson in Thomson (1860) is an incorrect subsequent spelling ( ICZN 1999: Article 33.3). It is important to highlight that as the conditions requested by the ICZN (1999: Article 32.5) are not satisfied, it is not possible to consider C. leuconota Thomson, 1860 a mandatory change. Following these arguments, it is a mistake to regard C. leucronota as an “error”, as it appears in Monné (2020) and Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2020).

Males and females of the species in this genus exhibit sexual dimorphism in the upper eye lobes, slightly wider and distinctly closer to each other in the males. In males of C. leuconota ( Fig. 2 ), as well as in those of C. championi Bates, 1881 , the frons have very dense white or yellowish-white pubescence, while in the females ( Fig. 1 ) it is distinctly sparser, not obscuring the integument; the vertex may or may not have dense pubescent maculae, usually absent in females; the dense pubescent maculae on the sides of the pronotum are somewhat variable, making the central area with sparse pubescence narrower or wider; the dense pubescent macula on the elytra are variable anteriorly, and may or may not reach the base.

Cirrhicera leuconota has been so far recorded from Mexico (Veracruz, Oaxaca, Chiapas), and Honduras ( Monné 2020).

Material examined. GUATEMALA (New country record), IZABAL: Morales, 600 m, 1 male, VI.2000, J. Monzon col. ( DHCO).

Figures

Figures 1–6. Habitus of Hemilophini spp.1–2) Cirrhicera leuconota, dorsal habitus.1) Holotype female (Hemilophus leuconotus). 2) Male.3) Lamacoscylus albatus, male, dorsal habitus.4) Malacoscylus humilis (Lamacoscylus humilis), holotype male, dorsal habitus. 5) Malacoscylus humilis flavescens (Schmidarius flavescens), syntype male, dorsal habitus. 6) Malacoscylus humilis flavescens (Schmidarius grisescens), BMNH specimen identified by Bates, dorsal habitus.