Bakeriella rossi Evans, 1964

(Figs 132–135)

Bakeriella rossi Evans 1964: 118 (list), 120 (key), 129–130 (♂ description); Evans 1966a: 273 (additional material); Evans 1979: 257 (list), 259 (key), 264 (comment); Gordh & Móczár 1990: 72 (catalog); Azevedo et al. 2005: 168 (comparison).

Material examined. Holotype ♂: COLOMBIA, 5 miles north of Anserma, Caldas, 1750 meters, 17.III.1955, E.I. Schlinder and E.S. Rossi col. (CASC)

Diagnosis. MALE (Fig. 132). Black. Mandible wide apically, with five apical teeth (Fig. 133). Clypeus with angulate median lobe. Antennal scrobe weakly carinate. Frons weakly coriaceous. Vertex broadly convex. Pronotal disc with anterior corner angulate; anterior carina thick; median carina absent; lateral carina complete, but narrowing posterad; posterior margin paralleled by series of foveae. Scutellar pit transverse. Mesopleuron with upper fovea rounded. Genitalia (Figs 134, 135): paramere very, apical margin subtruncate; cuspis divided into two arms, about 0.75 × length of paramere, dorsal arm shorter and wider than ventral arm; aedeagus bottle-shaped, apex not aligned with cuspis apex, basal margin short and angulate; ventral surface with conspicuous projection ventrad; apodeme with base very dilated.

FEMALE [not examined]. Black. Mandible with five apical teeth. Clypeus with obtusely angular. Eye setose. Antennal scrobe not carinate. Vertex broadly rounded far from eye top. Temple not carinate. Pronotal disc with anterior carina weakly arched and not angulate; median carina absent. Scutellar pit transverse.

Distribution. Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru.

Remarks. Evans (1966a) studied a female from Peru (Monson Valley in Tiago Maria) when he compared it with similar species, but he did not formally described. The female diagnosis above is an interpretation of his comments at page 273. However, Evans (1979) did not include this female in his synopsis of Bakeriella . He affirmed that B. rossi has only males, as listed at page 257 and commented not to see additional material other males. Thus I do not know if he review this female and concluded to be of other species or simply forgot it in his paper of 1979. Because of that I judge not prudent to include in the key proposed here in order to avoid future unnecessary taxonomical problems.