Botanochara pavonia ( Boheman, 1850 )

Sekerka, Lukáš, 2016, Taxonomic and nomenclatural changes in Cassidinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 56 (1), pp. 275-344 : 319-320

Botanochara pavonia ( Boheman, 1850)

Poecilaspis pavonia Boheman, 1850: 409 (original description).

Poecilaspis conjuncta Boheman, 1850: 406 (original description); SPAETH (1940): 155 (synonymy), syn. confirm.

Poecilaspis multipicta Boheman, 1862: 189 (original description), syn. nov.

Type localities. Poecilaspis conjuncta : ‘Brasilia’; P. multipicta : ‘Brasilia’; P. pavonia : ‘Brasilia’.

Type material examined. Poecilaspis conjuncta : LECTOTYPE (designated by BOROWIEC 1999a): ♀, pinned, ‘ Brasil [w, p, s] || M. Wien [w, p, s] || Type. [w, p, s] || LECTOTYPE | des. L. Borowiec [r, p, cb] || NHRS-SRAH | 000000194 [w, p, cb]’ ( NHRS).

Poecilaspis multipicta : SYNTYPES: ♀, pinned, ‘ Type [w, p, s, c, rf] || Brazil [hw] | Baly Coll. | 1905—54. [w, p, cb] || Poecilaspis | multipicta | Boh | Brazil [w, hw by Baly, cb] || Type | Boheman | 73 [hw by Baly on underside of preceding label]’ ( BMNH); ♀, pinned, ‘ Brazil [hw] | Baly Coll. | 1905—54. [w, p, cb]’ ( BMNH) .

Poecilaspis pavonia : LECTOTYPE (designated by BOROWIEC 1999a): ♂, pinned: ‘♂ [w, p, cb] || Brazil | Sello | nr. 14133 [g, hw, cb] || Typus [red, p, cb] || LECTOTYPE [p] ♂ [hw] | Stolas pavonia [hw] | Boh. [hw] | By [p] J.ADIS,1980 [hw] [w, p, cb]’ + vial with aedeagus on separate pin: ‘ ♀ [w, p, cb] || ♀ [p] genitalia [hw] | drawn [p], J.ADIS,1980 [hw] [w, p, cb] || LECTOTYPUS | Poecilaspis | pavonia | Boheman, 1850 | des. L. Borowiec [red, p, cb, bf]’ ( ZMHB). PARALECTOTYPE: ♀, pinned: ‘ ♀ [w, p, cb] || 14133 [w, p, s] || pavonia | Boh.* | Bras. Sello. [g, hw, cb] || Typus [red, p, cb] || Stolas ♀ | pavonia Boh. | J. Adis, det. 1980 [w, hw, cb, red frame]’ + vial with spermatheca on separate pin: ‘♂ [w, p, cb] || ♂ [p] genitalia [hw] | drawn [p], J.ADIS,1980 [hw] [w, p, cb] || PARALECTOTYPUS | Poecilaspis | pavonia | Boheman, 1850 | des. L. Borowiec [red, p, cb, bf]’ ( ZMHB).

Remarks. SPAETH (1940) informally synonymized Poecilaspis conjuncta with Poecilaspis pavonia as he considered it as aberration of the latter. I have reexamined lectotypes of both taxa and the synonymy is correct.

BOHEMAN (1862) described Poecilaspis multipicta based on unknown number of specimens and mentioned the collection of J. S. Baly as depository. There are two specimens in that collection, both agreeing with the primary description and therefore I consider both as syntypes. SPAETH (1940) synonymized this taxon with P. rubroguttata Boheman, 1850 . The two syntypes are however conspecific with B. pavonia and not with B. rubroguttata . The two latter species are quite similar in general appearance but differ in punctation and also colour pattern on elytra. Despite the fact that colour pattern is very variable in species of Botanochara , particularly among maculate species, B. rubroguttata always has only two spots on the explanate margin of elytra while B. pavonia has three and more. Botanochara rubroguttata also has explanate margin of pronotum distinctly punctate (apparently impunctate in B. pavonia ), the disc of elytra sparser but coarser punctate than B. pavonia , and finally the explanate margin of elytra finer but denser punctate than those on disc, while B. pavonia has them as coarse as or coarser than those on disc. Poecilaspis multipicta has similar characters to B. pavonia and thus I synonymize it with the latter species. The three nominal forms of B. pavonia differ only in colouration: the typical form has elytra largely black with seven isolated oval orange spots on each elytron (four on disc and three on explanate margin); form multipicta has particularly discal spots increased in large bands; and finally form conjuncta has the spots enlarged and coalescent so the elytra are orange with isolated black spots in extreme forms the black colour is present only on explanate margin.

BOHEMAN (1850) mentioned under B. conjuncta also material from Campos Geraës referring most likely to the Campos Gerais Region in the state of Paraná. There is also a municipality of the same name in the state of Minas Gerais but that was founded as late as in 1901 and thus unlikely refers to the locality.

Distribution. Brazil: Paraná ( BOHEMAN 1850), Rio Grande do Sul ( SPAETH 1940) and Uruguay ( BOROWIEC 1996).