Purusia Lane, 1956

Heffern, Daniel & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2022, Notes on Purusia Lane, Juninia Lane, and Sibapipunga Martins & Galileo (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae), and description of a new species of Juninia, Zootaxa 5141 (2), pp. 151-162 : 152-153

Purusia Lane, 1956

( Figs 1–11 , 29–30 )

Purusia Lane, 1956: 28 .

Remarks. Lane (1956) described Purusia to include a single species, P. acreana Lane, 1956 , as follows (translated): “Close to Adesmus Latr., 1829 , from which differs by the following features: head with the frons concave, shieldshaped, inferiorly ending in acute apex, split at the end and projected out; antennae 12-segmented; the third about 1.5 times longer than the scape; fourth shorter than third and longer than the scape; the others gradually shorter, the last ones subequal in length; elytra strongly projected at apices and ending in acute spine; the sutural angles rounded; mesoventral process wider; pro- and mesotarsomere I about as long as the third, in the metatarsomere I slightly longer.” In the description of P. acreana , he only commented about the scape (translated): “… scape long, very slightly and gradually widened toward the apex, which is truncate with shiny apical ring.”

Martins & Galileo (1992) provided the first key to species of Hemilophini with 12-segmented antennae. The shape of the scape was not used as a differential feature. According to Martins & Galileo (2014) the scape in Purusia has apical cicatrix. In fact, the scape of the holotype male of P. acreana ( Figs. 7, 8 ) has a very narrow apical cicatrix. However, it is practically absent in a second male and a female belonging to the MZSP collection. The presence or absence of the apical cicatrix on the scape was used in the key to genera by Martins & Galileo (2014), and followed by Santos-Silva et al. (2020).

Although Martins & Galileo (2014) had provided, for the first time, some information about females of P. acreana (frons convex, without projections; distance between upper eye lobes slightly greater than the width of one lobe), it was never illustrated. Currently, P. acreana is recorded from Costa Rica (Puntarenas), Ecuador, Bolivia (Santa Cruz), and Brazil (Acre, Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia). There is no doubt that the species, originally described from Brazil (Acre and Pará), really occurs in Bolivia and Ecuador because we have examined specimens from these countries, personally or through photographs. The occurrence in the Brazilian state of Rondônia and in Peru is probable (the occurrence in Amazonas is confirmed herein). Unfortunately, Martins & Galileo (1992) did not provide the name of the collection where the specimen from Peru was deposited. In the same way, Monné & Giesbert (1994) did not provide the name of the institution of the specimen(s) used by them to record the species for the Brazilian state of Rondônia. Therefore, it is not possible to verify the specimen’s identity. This is a recurring problem in many publications where new records are established. However, we know that the specimens used by Swift et al. (2010) to record P. acreana from Costa Rica, in fact, belongs to the new species described here: the specimen used by them is the paratype of Juninia raberi . Therefore, Purusia acreana is excluded from the fauna of Costa Rica.

The conspicuous frontal shape of the males of Purusia allows separating them from those of Juninia Lane, 1966 and Sibapipunga Martins & Galileo, 1993 . In males of Purusia , there is a single and strongly conspicuous projection, narrowed and bifid apically ( Figs 5, 6 ); males of Sibapipunga have two nearly conical projections directed forward ( Fig. 22 ); and males of Juninia have no projections on frons. However, it is not possible to separate females of these three genera. The only feature that is possible to use, provisionally, is the shape of the elytral apex: with long spine at outer apex in Purusia , short in Juninia , and absent in Sibapipunga .

In the key to genera from Martins & Galileo (2014), Purusia and Purusiella Dalens, Touroult & Tavakilian, 2010 were separated from Juninia and Sibapipunga by the presence of an apical cicatrix on the scape in the two former genera, which is absent in the last two. In fact, the apical cicatrix in the species of Purusiella ( Fig. 12 ) is strongly conspicuous. However, as it is slightly conspicuous or nearly absent in Purusia , a new key to genera of Hemilophini with antennae 12-segmented needs to be provided.

The tarsal claws in male ( Fig. 29 ) and female ( Fig. 30 ) of P. acreana are very similar: the inner tooth is not noticeably widened basally and is shorter than the outer tooth.

Specimens of P. acreana examined. BOLIVIA, Santa Cruz: 4–6 km SSE Buena Vista, Flora & Fauna Hotel , 1 male, 22–31.X.2002, Wappes & Morris leg. ( MZSP) . BRAZIL, Amazonas: Benjamin Constant, Rio Javari , 1 female, X.1960, formerly Diringshofen collection ( MZSP) . Acre: Purus (Selva Alto), holotype male, XI.1950, formerly Diringshofen collection ( MZSP) .

Figures

FIGURES 1–12. 1–8) Purusia acreana Lane, 1956, holotype male: 1) Dorsal habitus; 2) Ventral habitus; 3) Lateral habitus; 4) Elytral carinae; 5) Head, frontal view; 6) Head, lateral view; 7) Scape, apical cicatrix; 8) Scape, detail. 9–11) Purusia acreana, female: 9) Head, lateral view; 10) Dorsal habitus; 11) Ventral habitus. 12) Purusiella wappesi (Martins & Galileo, 2004), scape. Figure 12 by Francisco Eriberto de Lima Nascimento (MZSP).

FIGURES 27–32. Protarsal claws. 27–28) Sibapipunga beckeri (Martins & Galileo, 1992): 27) Holotype female (by Diego de Santana Souza); 28) Male. 29–30) Purusia acreana Lane, 1956: 29) Holotype male; 30) Female. 31–32) Juninia annulifera (Kirsch, 1889): 31) Female; 32) Juninia leechi Lane, 1966, paratype male.

FIGURES 21–26. Sibapipunga beckeri (Martins & Galileo, 1992). 21) Holotype female, dorsal habitus. 22–25) Male: 22) Dorsal habitus; 23) Ventral habitus; 24) Lateral habitus; 25) Frontal tubercles. 26) Holotype female, elytral carinae (by Diego de Santana Souza).