Sibapipunga Martins & Galileo, 1993

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 : 159-160

Sibapipunga Martins & Galileo, 1993

( Figs 21–28 )

Sibapipunga Martins & Galileo, 1993: 110 .

Martins & Galileo (1992) described Juninia beckeri based on a single female from Costa Rica (Cartago). According to them (translated): “The separation of the males of the species of Purusia and Juninia is immediate: the frons in Purusia is strongly projected and in Juninia regularly convex, without projections. Since the frontal projections, that occur in several genera of this tribe, are a secondary sexual character, the distinction between females of Juninia and Purusia is still difficult. We do not know females of J. leechi , but we have a female of P. acreana in our hands. The shape of the elytral apex and the color pattern led us to describe J. beckeri in Juninia .” When they received a male of the species, Martins & Galileo (1993) described Sibapipunga to include Juninia beckeri , which has two large tubercles on frons. In the description of the genus, they only noted that the humeral carina is prolonged to the apical quarter. As seeing before, according to Martins & Galileo (2014), Sibapipunga would have only the humeral carina, lacking another lateral carina. However, although very close to the humeral carina, there is a second carina in male ( Fig. 24 ) and female (26).

Martins & Galileo (1993) recorded S. beckeri for Ecuador and Martins & Galileo (2004) examined a female from Colombia.

In the male of S. beckeri , the humeri are distinctly projected, while they are not so in female, the outer apical angles of the elytra are distinctly more projected than in the female, and the antennae are much longer.

The tarsal claws in the female ( Fig. 27 ) and male ( Fig. 28 ) are similar, with the inner tooth noticeably widened basally. However, the inner tooth in the male is considerably shorter than in the female.As we had only one pair, we do not know if the length of the inner tooth is variable between the sexes.

See remarks in Purusia on the difference between females of Juninia and Sibapipunga .

Specimen of S. beckeri examined. ECUDADOR, Canar: Rte. Gun to El Triunfo, parroquial Chontamarca, 500 m, 1 male, 17.III.1980, Rec. Porion-Bertrand leg. ( MZSP). The holotype female was returned to the “Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Brasil, Curitiba ” before starting this work. However, a photograph of the holotype in dorsal view was taken earlier .

Figures

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).

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.