Ectrichodia minima, Valdes, 1910,

Gil-Santana, Hélcio R., Baena, Manuel & Grillo, Horacio, 2013, Berengeria Gil-Santana & Coletto-Silva, a junior synonym of Ectrichodiella Fracker & Bruner, with new records and taxonomic notes on Ectrichodiinae from Brazil, and with keys to Ectrichodiinae, Zootaxa 3652 (1): -1

publication ID

publication LSID

persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Ectrichodia minima


Ectrichodiella minima  (Valdés, 1910)

In the “Reduvini” Family in a catalog of the Hemiptera  of the Gundlach Museum in Cuba, Valdés (1910) (page 435) recorded the specimen number 45 as “ Ectoiocchoda [sic] minima  ,” an unpublished taxon. Fracker & Bruner (1924) described a new genus and species, Ectrichodiella cubensis  , based on a single female from Sierra Maestra, Cuba, conserved in USNM (Fig. 17). These authors also stated “two examples of this species in the Gundlach Museum are considerably smaller than the above. These are labeled “ Ectrichodia minima Uhler  ,” which is evidently a manuscript name as no description has been found.” Bruner & Barber (1937) established E. cubensis  as a junior synonym of E. minima  , transferring this species to Ectrichodiella. They had found that the manuscript name in the Gundlach Museum, Ectrichodia minima Uhler  , had been published in 1910 by Pedro Valdés as Ectoiocchoda minima  , arguing that those who adhere to a very strict interpretation of the International Code will prefer to use this specific name and credit it to Valdés (Bruner & Barber 1937). These authors also commented on a male of this species, which was very similar to the female. The type of Ectrichodiella has been considered to be Ectrichodia minima Valdés, 1910  by Wygodzinsky (1949), Dougherty (1995), and Carpintero & Maldonado (1996). However, Maldonado (1990) considered it to be Ectrichodiella cubensis  Fracker & Bruner, 1924, by original designation, although there was no explicit mention to this designation by Fracker & Bruner (1924). According to ICZN, it seems that the type of Ectrichodiella must be, in fact, Ectrichodia minima Valdés, 1910  , by monotypy, but mainly by subsequent designation by Wygodzinsky (1949).

Redescription. Male (Figs. 18–23). Dimensions (in mm): Total length: to tip of abdomen: 3.79; to tip of hemelytra: 4.17; maximum width of the body (at level of tergites IV –V): 1.79. Head: length: 0.61; width: 0.98; interocular width: 0.38; eye width: 0.18; antennal segments: I: 0.58; II: 0.93; III: 0.25; IV: 0.76; IV- 1: 0.18; IV- 2: 0.19; IV- 3: 0.18; IV- 4: 0.20; rostral segments: I: 0.51; II: 0.38; III: not measured. Thorax: pronotum: fore lobe: length: 0.23; width: 0.63; hind lobe: length: 0.51; width: 1.19; scutellum: length: 0.35. Legs: forelegs: femur: 0.96; tibia: not measured; tarsus: 0.33; middle legs: femur: 1.01; tibia: 1.01; tarsus: 0.3; hind legs: femur: 1.14; tibia: 1.31; tarsus: 0.35. Hemelytra: length: 2.78; maximum width (at level of tergites IV –V): 1.34; membrane maximum width: 1.39. Body testaceous yellow. Hemelytra brown, clearer light brown or testaceous veins. Body covered with long, thin, yellow pilosity HEAD: Eyes dark brown, large, protruding, reniform in side view, almost reaching bottom of head; ommatidia hemispheric, very well marked. Back of eyes and head covered with dense fringe of short whitish hairs. Ocelli large, prominent, separated by one wide groove slightly wider than ocellar diameter; dark ring surrounding base of each ocellus. Front with shallow median sulcus, more pronounced posteriorly near ocelli where flanked by two hemispherical elevations visible in side view surpassing the eye level and below level of ocelli. Occipital sulcus extends from posterior edge of eye, reflecting in the bottom of the head. Tylus prominent, carinated throughout its length, basally with U-shaped depression with extremes reaching base of antennae. Antennae: covered with small setigerous tubercles, its base covered by semicircular lateral sclerite. First antennomere thickened, provided with two tubercles apically more pronounced than the others, one dorsal and one lateral. Second antennomere somewhat thinner than first. III and IV much thinner and delicate than I and II. All antennomeres covered with long, thin hairs whose length exceeds twice diameter of segments. Rostrum: first segment thick and longer, second shorter than first and third very short. Proportions of segments 40: ~ 30: ~ 6. THORAX: Meso and metasternum of caramel color, smooth, shiny, its sutures covered with dense fringe of short whitish pubescence; which is at center of thorax and abdominal-thoracic suture too. Pronotum: bell-shaped; fore lobe narrower than hind, anterior angles rounded, not protruding; fore edge straight, finely beaded and covered with short, dense pubescence; the disc smooth, glossy with shallow convolutions; longitudinal groove shallow reaching the transverse constriction. It has two blunt discal tubercles. Hind lobe smooth. Median groove does not reach posterior border, deep in disc and less pronounced towards end; two shallow lateral longitudinal grooves at level of humeral angles. Posterior margin straight between scutellar angles and with wide scutellar notch which fits the scutellum; scutellar angles straight. Posterior margins of pronotum between scutellar and humeral angles oblique. Humeral angles rounded. Scutellum triangular, ending in thick rounded tip; base of scutellum with deep depression finely keeled in middle and limited laterally by two carinae ending in two points finer than median tip. Carinae and scutellar apex with long, thin yellowish hairs. Hemelytra surpassing tip of abdomen. Corium with reduced venation, a large cell occupying almost its entire length; distal region broad, heavily sclerotized with straw color that stands out on the darkest membranous areas. Veins and cuneal area with long and thin yellow hairs. Membrane large which is 2 / 3 of hemelytra, finely wrinkled on back and smooth in cells; has two large cells of unequal size: basal squared, and distal piriform. Legs: Femora and tibiae covered with small setigerous tubercles. Femora somewhat dilated apically, finely granular on its top, covered with dense and fine hairs, longer than diameter of femur. Fore femora a bit thicker than others. Two small teeth in lower distal end of femur. Tibiae cylindrical, without fossula spongiosa; fore tibia compressed and dilated distally with tibial comb at tip. Tarsi twosegmented, basal segment very small, four times shorter than second. Claws long and thin, longer than first tarsomere. ABDOMEN: squared, subcircular, posterior edge straight, with long pilosity on all borders, more dense and long towards the end. Sternites smooth, with some sparse and weak punctuation. Abdominal spiracles located in middle, on suture of the sternites with connexivum. Connexivum finely rough-looking, with rim along its entire length, which is visible dorsally in segments II –VI, and with one blunt tubercle on posterior edge of segment I. Sutures VI and VII somewhat split. Posterior edge of pygofer reaching end of abdomen. MALE GENITALIA (Figs. 19–23): Paramere falciform with sensory hairs in tip, without distal teeth (Fig. 21). Pygophore (Figs. 19–20): with ventral notch in side view, in lateral view with two lateral and one central tuff of hairs; hind border without median projection and finely and irregularly ondulated. Phallus with two sclerotizations in distal region (Fig. 23).

Material examined: CUBA, Topes de Collantes, Escambray, 1 male, IV- 1976, Molto leg., coll. Horacio Grillo.

Ectrichodiella rafaeli  (Gil-Santana & Coletto-Silva, 2005), new combination

Morphological remarks. Female (Figs. 24–35). Dimensions (in mm): HOLOTYPE: Total length: to tip of abdomen: 3.55; to tip of hemelytra: 3.8; head length: 0.65; head width: 0.63; interocular distance: 0.45; eye width: 0.12; antennal segments: I: 0.5; II: 0.6; III –IV: absent; rostral segments: I: 0.45; II: 0.2; III: 0.1. Thorax: pronotum: fore lobe: length: 0.3; width: 0.65; hind lobe: length: 0.45; width: 1.2; scutellum: length: 0.3; maximum width: 0.5. Legs: forelegs: femur: 0.9; tibia: 0.9; tarsus: absent; middle legs: femur: 0.9; tibia: 0.95; tarsus: 0.3; hind legs: femur: 1.15; tibia: 1.2; tarsus: 0.3. Abdomen: length: 1.7; maximum width: 1.7. General coloration brownish (Fig. 24). HEAD (Figs. 25–27): with long fine yellowish hairs, and dense fringe of short whitish hairs on ventral and posterior areas; integument opaque; eyes salient, somewhat small; with transverse sulcus just behind eyes; ocelli bright; rostrum elongated, reaching prosternum; first rostral segment reaching posterior margin of eyes, longer than second and third segments combined; antennal insertion protected laterally by small sclerite; clypeus thin; covered with fine long hairs; antennal segments I and II (other absent) covered with long fine hairs; segment I somewhat enlarged; segment II somewhat curved; median portion of ventral area of head forming a tumescence; posterolateral angle of head prominent almost forming a tubercle. THORAX (Figs. 24 –25, 28): somewhat darker, covered with long fine yellowish hairs and fringe of short whitish hairs on anterior margin, adjacent to head, on mesosternum, metasternum, pleural area adjacent to meso-metathorax suture, besides small tufts of these hairs on posterior portions of pro and middle coxae; integument opaque; fore lobe of pronotum much narrower than hind lobe; midlongitudinal furrow formed by series of small shallow subcircular impressions, more profound at mid portion, interrupted at anterior margin and obsolete posteriorly; transverse furrow not well defined; fore lobe with granulosity on lateral sides, a small spine on left side of lateral margin at posterior half, and a pair of conspicuous spines on its center (Fig. 28); posterior margin of hind lobe produced sublaterally; metasternum with fringe of short whitish hairs in area adjacent to first sternite; scutellum with median well developed process with rounded apex and two lateral short subtriangular processes, and a pair of somewhat excavated and shiny areas at basal portion. Legs brighter, with long yellowish hairs; coxae short, globose; trochanters subtriangular; femora with granulosity on its upper portion, a small subapical dilatation and a pair of apical small denticles; fore tibiae enlarged apically (Figs. 29–30), somewhat excavated at ventral side on apex, with much more numerous and shorter hairs on ventral apical portion (Fig. 30); with apical conspicuous spine on anterior margin and another two much smaller, one near this bigger spine and other at posterior margin, between these there is a short comb (Fig. 29); middle and hind tibiae straight; with much more numerous and shorter hairs on posterior apical portion; some straight hairs on posterior margin of hind tibiae are especially long, reaching six times the width of the segment (Fig. 34); tarsi two-segmented. Hemelytra extending beyond tip of abdomen; darkened; base, veins and surround area on corium bright, almost yellowish; corium with elongated cell near costal margin; membrane blackish with bright veins and two large cells, the distal a little larger than basal one; corium has very sparse fine long hairs, mainly on distal half of Costal vein; membrane glabrous. ABDOMEN: enlarged; with a pair of conspicuous spines on lateral margin of first abdominal segment (Figs. 31, 33); connexivum with long bright hairs, mainly on its margin, with dorsal prominent crest on inner margin and intersegmental sutures white (Figs. 24, 32); sternites brighter, with shining integument; first sternite with fringe of short whitish hairs basally (Fig. 33); other sternites with very sparse long bright hairs; median keel is present on first five sternites; intersegmentar sutures very faintly marked between sternites II –IV. Genital segments with opaque integument, with long fine hairs; their external appearance in posterior view as Fig. 35.

Material examined: Berengeria rafaeli  , HOLOTYPE female: BRAZIL, Amazonas, Reserva Ducke, 26 km N of Manaus, 27 -VIII- 1982 / J. A. Rafael [leg.], Ar. Malaise / Hemipt 155 Holotipo / HOLOTIPO, Berengeria rafaeli Gil-Santana & Coletto-Silva, 2005  (red label) [INPA].

Discussion. E. rafaeli  , new comb. was described based on a single female (Gil-Santana & Coletto-Silva 2005), which remains as the unique known specimen of this species. It has only the first two antennal segments. Gil-Santana & Coletto-Silva (2005) included E. rafaeli  , new comb. in Reduviinae  based on features recorded in other genera or species belonging to this subfamily, like two-segmented tarsi, absence of fossula spongiosa in tibiae, and two cells in the membrane of hemelytra ( Nalata Stål, 1860  ); a relative reduction of the area of the corium when compared to the membrane of hemelytra ( Microlestria Stål, 1872  ) as well as the general resemblance, hemelytral coloration, and long body hairs like Peregrinator biannulipes (Montrouzier & Signoret, 1861)  . However, recently, the French entomologist Dr. Jean-Michel Bérenger noticed an evident similarity between Berengeria  and Ectrichodiella Fracker & Bruner, 1924, suggesting that the former should be, in fact, a junior synonymy of the latter and kindly communicated this fact to the senior author. The holotype of B. rafaeli  was reexamined and the synonym between Berengeria  and Ectrichodiella, with E. rafaeli  as a new combination as well as its transference to Ectrichodiinae  , are formally presented here. All features considered by Gil-Santana & Coletto-Silva (2005) as diagnostic of Berengeria  , as well as belonging to Reduviinae  , are shared with Ectrichodiella, which reinforces the synonym proposed.

E. minima  and E. rafaeli  , new comb. show features that have not been found in other New World Ectrichodiinae  (Fracker & Bruner 1924; Bruner 1926; Wygodzinsky 1951; Dougherty 1995; Carpintero & Maldonado 1996): antennal insertion protected laterally by a small sclerite, the scutellum triangular finished in a blunt tip and with two midlateral projections, absence of spongy fossae on apex of fore and middle tibia, and twosegmented tarsi. Both species also have in common a small size, long fine hairs on integument, general shape of the head, first rostral segment reaching posterior margin of the eyes, hemelytra with similar venation, and abdomen relatively broad.

According to our observations the scutellum of Ectrichodiella does not have three distal projections as occurs in other genera of Ectrichodiinae  from the Old World like Libaviellus, Miller 1954 and Rellimocoris, Dougherty 1982  (Dougherty 1982; see her Figs. 1, 2-E, 4 -C). In fact, the scutellum of Ectrichodiella is triangular with two lateral projections located at the middle and finished in a rounded blunt tip (Fig. 25; see also Fracker & Bruner 1924: their Fig. 1).

The actual taxonomic position of Ectrichodiella as an Ectrichodiinae  should be based more on future comprehensive phylogenetic studies and, if possible, by examining more specimens of Ectrichodiella.

Regarding the validity of E. rafaeli  , new comb., there are several features to be considered. The ocelli are not prominent in E. rafaeli  , new comb. as they are in E. minima  (Figs 26–27; see also Weirauch 2010, her Fig. 1 -F). The pronotum of E. rafaeli  , new comb. is opaque, brownish, covered with long fine hairs, showing granulosity on the lateral sides of the fore lobe, together with a pair of conspicuous spines on the center of the fore lobe (Figs. 24 – 26, 28); whereas in E. minima  the fore lobe is yellowish, glabrous, shining, smooth, polished, with just a pair of hemispherical elevations, each with a small tubercle in front of the fore lobe (Fracker & Bruner 1924; Carpintero & Maldonado 1996) (Figs. 17–18). A median keel occurs on the first five sternites of E. rafaeli  , new comb., but only the distal sternite is keeled in E. minima  (Fracker & Bruner 1924; Carpintero & Maldonado 1996). E. rafaeli  , new comb. shows a pair of conspicuous spines on the lateral margin of first abdominal segment (Figs. 25, 31, 33), which is much less developed in E. minima  (Figs. 17–18); and a prominent crest on the inner margin of connexivum, dorsally (Fig. 32), which are absent in E. minima  . Thus, differences showed by E. rafaeli  , new comb. and E. minima  may be sufficient to maintain these two taxa as separated species. On the other hand, perhaps the differences may be because of geographical variation, which can be clarified only if more specimens can be studied in the future.