Odontocheila ignita Chaudoir, 1860,
Moravec, Jiří, Brzoska, David & Huber, Ronald, 2017, Taxonomic and nomenclatorial revision within the Neotropical genera of the subtribe Odontocheilina W. Horn in a new sense— 18. Six Mexican and Central American species related to Odontocheila , Zootaxa 4231 (4), pp. 451-499: 482-489
treatment provided by
|Odontocheila ignita Chaudoir, 1860|
Type locality. “Mexique”.
Odontocheila cinctula Bates, 1881: 16 (synonymy by Horn 1904). Type locality. Guatemala: Zapote.
Type material of O. ignita Chaudoir. Holotype (by monotypy) ♂ in MNHN, labelled: “ ignita Chaud. , Mexique, 59. C. Reiche” [ochraceous label with black frame, handwritten]; “Muséum Paris, Coll. Chaudoir, 1874” [greenish, printed]; “Type” [red, printed]; “Revision Jiří Moravec 2012: Holotype (by monotypy), Odontochila ignita Chaudoir, 1860 ” [red, printed].
Note: the holotype lacks its abdomen, as also mentioned by Chaudoir (1860) in the original description.
Type material of O. cinctula Bates. Lectotype (designated here), ♂ in BMNH labelled: “ Type ” [circular with red border, printed] // “ Zapote / Guatemala / G. C. Champion ” // “B. C. A., Coll., I (1). / Odontocheila cinctula ” [printed] // “ Odontocheila / cinctula / Bates ” [handwritten] // “ Lectotype ♂ / Odontocheila / cinctula Bts. / by Erwin 76” [printed/handwritten] // “ The lectotype label / by Erwin is invalid / (unpublished)” [printed]; “ Lectotype / Odontocheila cinctula Bates, 1881 / design. Jiří Moravec 2012” [red, printed] . Paralectotypes. 4 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀ in MNHN: “ Zapote / Guatemala / G. C. Champion ” [printed] // “ H.W.Bates / Biol . Cent.Amer” [printed] // “Muséum Paris / 1952 / Coll. R. Oberthür” [greenish, printed] // “ Odontocheila / cinctula / Bates” [(only in ♂), handwritten] . 2 ♀♀ in MNHN [Coll. Fleutiaux] with same labels. 1 ♂ in SDEI, 3 ♀♀ in MFNB: “ Zapote / Guatemala / G. C. Champion ” // “ Mus. Berolin ” [handwritten]; “ Type! / Coll. W. Horn / DEI Eberswalde ” [printed] // “ Syntypus ” [red, printed] // “( cinctula / Bat.)” [greenish with black border, handwritten]. // “ Odontocheila ignita cinctula / Bates Type (DEI-Eberswalde / borrowed by D. L. Pearson / 23 Oct.1996 (drawer # 58)” [printed] . 1 ♂ in SDEI “ Zapote / Guatemala / G. C. Champion ” // “ Musée de Belgique ” [printed] // “ Coll. W. Horn / DEI Eberswalde ” [printed] . 1 ♀ in IRSNB: “ Zapote / Guatemala / G. C. Champion ” [printed] // “see. W. Horn Coll. Cat. / Junk /86, 1926, p. 119: / Odontocheila / ignita Chaud. ” // “ O. cinctula Bts. / det. H.W. Bates ” [handwritten] . 1 ♂ in BMNH: “ Zapote / Guatemala / G. C. Champion ” [printed] // “ Odontocheila / cinctula / Bates ” [handwritten] // “B. C. A., Coll., I (1). / Odontocheila / cinctula ” [handwritten] . 6 ♀♀ in BMNH with same first three labels. 1 ♂ in BMNH with same first three labels and: “ Odontochila / ignita / Chaudoir / det. R.R. Murray ‘79” . 1 ♂ in BMNH: “ Zapote / Guatemala / G. C. Champion ” // “Co- / type ” [circular with yellow border, printed] // “B. C. A., Coll., I (1). / Odont.: / secedens Steinh. [sic!]: / cinctula Bat. ”. All paralectotypes labelled: “ Revision Jiří Moravec 2012 [2013 or 2014 respectively]: “ Paralectotype, Odontocheila cinctula Bates, 1881 ” [red, printed].
Other material examined. Historical data. 1 ♂ in SDEI: “ Guatemala ” // “ex Museo / H.W. Bates / 1892” . 1 ♀ in BMNH [standing as Odontocheila chrysis Fabricius ]: “ Zapote / Guatemala / G. C. Champion ” // “Odont. / secedens Steinh. [sic!] . 1 ♀ in BMNH: “ San Isidro / 1600 ft / Champion ” // “ B.C.A. Coll. I. (1) / Odontocheila cinctula ” . 1♂ in MNHN: “ Venezuela ” [sic!] // “ Muséum Paris , Coll. Chaudoir, 1874” // “1543 / Rivalier ” [referring to the separately mounted aedeagus by Rivalier]. Other data . 1 ♀ in MNHN: “ Guatemala ”. // “ Odontocheila / cinctula Bates ” . 1 ♂, 1♀ in MFNB: “ Mexico / Soconusco / 8.VII. / Purpus S.V. ”. Recent data . 3 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀ in DBCN, 1 ♂ in CCJM: “ Mexico—Chiapas , 210 m / 13 km N Mapastepek / 15°32.7´N ; 92°52.9´W” / D. Brzoska 1- VI- 209”. 5 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀ in DBCN, 2 ♂♂ in CCJM: “ Mexico—Chiapas / Union Juarez Rd / Km 15, 735 m / 15°02.4´Ń ; 92°07.7´W / D. Brzoska 31-V-2009 ”. 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in DBCN: “ Mexico, Chiapas / Rd. to Motozintla , Km 32, (NE- Huixtla) / D. Brzoska 9-VI-1999 ” 1 ♂ in DBCN: ibid., except for: “Hy. 211, KM 32, (S. Motozintla) / D.
Brzoska 30-V- 2009 ” . 4 ♂♂, 5 ♀♀ in DBCN, 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in CCJM: “ Guatemala: / Quezaltenango [Quezaltenango] / Rd. 3 / km 216—W—Colomba / 14°42.2´N, 91°46.7´W, 900 m / D. Brzoska 24-V-2004 ”GoogleMaps . 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀ in RLHC: “ Mex: Chiapas / KM15 on road to / Union Juarez / 31.V.2009 / N of Cacahoatàn // R.L. Huber / 1502.4’N / 9207.9’W / elev 735m ” . 2 ♂♂ in RLHC: “ Guatemala: Quezaltenango / W of Colomba / 24.V.2004 / R.L. Huber ” / / “ 14°42.18’N, 91°46.74’W / elev 900m, km 216 on / Hwy 3, Finca Horizonte ”GoogleMaps . 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀ in WJCM: “ Chiapas, Mexico / 3.5 mi. n. of Belisario Dominguez / 23.VI.1994, Walter N. Johnson coll.” 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in WJCM: “ Bosque El Imposible / Depto . Ahuachapan / El Salvador / VI 19 1979 // RD Cave / colr”.
Differential diagnosis. O. ignita possesses similar, dense elytral sculpture of commonly anastomosing punctures as in O. iodopleura , O. tawahka and O. exilis . However, males of O. ignita immediately differ in having much wider, capitate apex of their aedeagi, in contrast to much narrower apex of the aedeagi in O. iodopleura and O. tawahka (and also in O. mexicana and O. potosiana sp. nov.); the male labrum in O. ignita is mostly notably shorter than in males of O. iodopleura and O. tawahka ; females of O. ignita can be distinguished from O. iodopleura and O. tawahka by their narrower pronotal disc with bright reddish sublateral areas, and more irregular and finer surface sculpture (in contrast to the pronotal disc in O. iodopleura and O. tawahka , which is much wider and covered with generally coarser and more regular and continuous rugae, particularly along the median line). Nevertheless, very rarely adults of O. ignita possess wider pronotal disc and such females may cause a confusion with females of O. iodopleura which, apart from the above mentioned difference in the surface sculpture of the pronotal disc, differ in having more distinctly multicoloured elytra.
O. exilis is externally very similar, but can be distinguished from O. ignita by generally larger size, generally smaller white elytral maculae, and almost subacute elytral apices in both sexes. In addition, females of O. exilis have much darker mandibles and legs, and usually even denser elytral punctation of which the narrow intervals form almost reticulate ornamentation on the elytral disc. Males of O. exilis are clearly recognizable by the differently shaped apex of their aedeagi ( Figs 197–207View FIGURES 193 – 207), in contrast to the capitate apex of the aedeagi in O. ignita ( Figs 161–176View FIGURES 158 – 176); moreover, the labrum in O. exilis is slightly but notably longer.
O. potosiana sp. nov., apart from the very different, much narrower apex of the aedeagus, clearly differs from O. ignita in having much more regular elytral punctation and an even much finer surface sculpture on its pronotal disc which is, moreover, bright reddish-cupreous in the middle.
O. mexicana immediately differs in having its pronotal disc notably subglobose and almost smooth and polished.
Frons, vertex and clypeus basically as in O. iodopleura with the same pattern of the striae and rugae on the surface of vertex, but vertex moderately convex in middle, and the striae and rugae somewhat coarser and deeper, and the lateral edges above the supraantennal plates very short and indistinct as formed by much smaller impression at the apices of the supraantennal plates.
Genae as in O. mexicana , but mostly shallowly parallel-striate also on median and anterior area.
Labrum 4-setose; distinctly bicoloured; male labrum ( Figs 135–137View FIGURES 132 – 140, 145–146View FIGURES 141 – 148) with shape of teeth basically as in O. mexicana (anterior margin either shallowly emarginate in middle, or with either indicated or small median tooth), rather short, length 0.60–0.65 mm, width 1.10–1.15 mm, female labrum ( Figs 138–139View FIGURES 132 – 140, 147View FIGURES 141 – 148) 1.00– 1.15 mm long, 1.15–1.30 mm wide, with prominent, acutely tridentate median lobe with protruding median tooth.
Mandibles ( Figs 134View FIGURES 132 – 140, 143–144View FIGURES 141 – 148) metallic-black (faded to brown in old specimens), with distinct, ivory-yellow lateral stripe (more extended in male), normally shaped (as in O. mexicana ).
Palpi ( Figs 134View FIGURES 132 – 140, 143–144View FIGURES 141 – 148) shaped as in O. mexicana , ivory-yellow to ochre-testaceous, terminal palpomeres in both labial and maxillary palpi metallic black; penultimate palpomeres of maxillary palpi variably yellow-ochre to brownish-darkened, or black.
Antennae ( Figs 132–134View FIGURES 132 – 140, 141–144View FIGURES 141 – 148) rather short, in male slightly reaching elytral half, in female shorter, barely reaching elytral third; scape with only apical seta, coloration of scape and antennomeres 2–4 ( Figs 134View FIGURES 132 – 140, 143–144View FIGURES 141 – 148) as in O. iodopleura .
Thorax. Pronotum ( Figs 157–160View FIGURES 149 – 157View FIGURES 158 – 176) glabrous, usually metallic green-blue in middle, iridescent reddish-cupreous on sublateral areas and iridescent blue-green on lateral areas, slightly but mostly notably longer than wide, length 1.75–2.05 mm, width 1.75–1.95 mm; sulci well pronounced; anterior lobe slightly wider than posterior lobe; surface of anterior lobe rather coarsely, irregularly but mostly transversely rugulose; disc normally shaped with only moderately convex lateral margins of dorsally visible proepisterna, while thin, clearly dorsally visible notopleural sutures are much narrower and mutually subparallel; medial line distinct; whole discal surface up to the notopleural sutures covered with rather fine, wavy to vermicular rugae which are irregularly arranged and only slightly more transverse and coarser on median area; posterior lobe with distinct basal rim, shiny metallic reddishcupreous and mostly iridescent green on distinct dorsolateral bulges, its surface mostly coarsely and irregularly rugulose; all ventral and lateral sterna glabrous; proepisterna, mesepisterna and metepisterna shiny metallic black, rarely with diffusing golden or bluish lustre, female mesepisternal coupling sulci in form of a deep, sinuous longitudinal furrow running in the middle throughout the mesepisternum, more distinctly carved than the similar but shallower furrow in male, lacking any pit; prosternum, mesosternum and metasternum smooth and polished, metallic black with strong, chatoyant, blue or blue-green lustre.
Elytra ( Figs 149–156View FIGURES 149 – 157) elongate, length 5.70–6.70 mm, in male with rounded humeri which are subquadrate in female; lateral margins as in O. mexicana and other species of this species-complex; dorsal elytral surface and pattern of commonly anastomosing punctures as in O. iodopleura , but the punctation and also cristulate sculpture on elytral disc is somewhat denser; elytral coloration almost uniformly dark or bright reddish cupreous on elytral disc and also sublateral areas, with narrow or more distinct, blue-green lateral stripe passing to violaceous or purple-violet juxtaepipleural area; whitish elytral maculation in both sexes as in O. iodopleura .
Abdomen as in other species of this species complex, but ventrites predominantly metallic-blue.
Legs as in O. mexicana , but metatrochanters in some females blackened; femora rather variably coloured independent of sex, sometimes darker, particularly metafemora almost black (faded in old specimens).
Aedeagus ( Figs 161–176View FIGURES 158 – 176) slightly more voluminous in middle than in preceding species, 3.25–3.40 mm long, 0.95–1.00 mm wide, apex conspicuously capitate; internal sac ( Figs 162, 168View FIGURES 158 – 176) as in the preceding species.
Variability. Apart from some faint differences in the brightness of the elytral coloration, O. ignita is not significantly variable in its external characters, but in some adults (independent of locality) the pronotal disc is wider than usual and such females my cause confusion with O. iodopleura (see “Differential diagnosis” above). Humeral macula of female elytra is either reduced and invisible from above, or entirely missing. The aedeagi are somewhat variable in the shape of the capitate apex ( Figs 161–176View FIGURES 158 – 176), but among the great number of examined specimens, only one aedeagus of O. ignita ( Fig. 172View FIGURES 158 – 176) and one of O. exilis ( Fig. 203View FIGURES 193 – 207) with the apex of an intermediate shape between these two species have been found.
Biology and distribution (map Fig. 208View FIGURE 208). The occurrence of O. ignita has been verified only from Mexico (the state of Chiapas) and neighbouring Guatemala, and the occurrence in El Salvador, mentioned by Boyd (1982), has also been confirmed (two specimens in WJCM). Rivalier (1969) quite mistakenly mentioned “Venezuela and Panama” as the only occurrence for O. ignita , partly because he obviously confused this species with O. exilis , which was entirely unknown to him as he omitted the name in his review (see under that taxon below). Moreover, one historical specimen in MNHN from the Chaudoir collection bears handwritten labels “Venezuela” and “1543 / Rivalier”; the latter refers to the aedeagus separately mounted by Rivalier between two, underlying and cover glasses (stored in MNHN as “lames”). Examinations of the male and the “lame” with its aedeagus by the first author has confirmed that the male is conspecific with O. ignita , but the specimen was obviously mislabelled as the occurrence in Venezuela is quite improbable (see “Map of the occurrence Fig. 208View FIGURE 208).
Erwin & Pearson (2008) in error have not mentioned the occurrence of O. ignita in Mexico, although the country is the type locality of this species.
The records from other countries outside of Mexico and Guatemala by some other authors, such as from Venezuela by Fleutiaux (1892) and Horn (1910, 1926), Panama by Boyd (1982), Costa Rica, Panama and Venezuela by Cassola & Pearson (2001), partly adopted by Erwin & Pearson (2008), are based either on the mentioned mislabelled historical specimens or on the confusion with O. exilis which occurs in Panama but was not confirmed within this revision from Colombia nor Venezuela. These localities are with question marks in Erwin & Pearson (2008).
Probably influenced by Rivalier (1969), Werner (1993) also erroneously included Panama and Venezuela as the occurrence of O. ignita , and published ( Werner 1993: 24, plate 12, fig. 89) a colour photograph of a supposed specimen of O. ignita from Quepos (misspelled by him as “Quopos”) in the Costa Rican province of Puntarenas; thus he obviously confused this species with O. exilis which occurs in the nearby Manuel Antonio National Park.
The record of O. ignita from Peru by ( Pearson 1984) was based on misidentification as later rectified by Pearson et al. (1999) that the Peruvian record belonged to “ Pentacomia pentacomioides ( W. Horn, 1900) ”, which was restored by Moravec (2014) to its original name combination Odontocheila pentacomioides W. Horn, 1900 .
The Mexican region of Soconusco is a narrow strip wedged between the Siera Madre de Chiapas mountains (Cordillera Central) and the Pacific Ocean, along the border with Guatemala in the southwest corner of the Mexican state of Chiapas . Mapastepek is in the same area and Union Juarez is situated eastwards, just near the border with Guatemala. Quezaltenango lies in south-western Guatemala, while El Zapote (the type locality of the synonymous O. cinctula ) is situated in north-eastern Guatemala near the border with Belize .
Like most of Odontocheila species, adults of O. ignita inhabits trails through forests, but prefer the open areas for hunting. They frequently fly ahead and land on trails, sometimes landing on low vegetation, and often fly off the trail into the forest, but usually return to more open areas. The adults recently caught by the second author in Quezaltenango, Guatemala, inhabited trails through coffee plantations.
Remarks. Examinations of the type specimens has confirmed the synonymy of O. cinctula Bates, 1881 with O. ignita by Horn (1904), also treated it as such by Horn (1905, 1910, 1926) and subsequent authors such as Boyd (1982), Wiesner (1992) and Erwin & Pearson (2008), tentatively also by Huber et al. (2006). Lorenz (1989a, b, 2005a, b), Johnson (1996) and Cassola & Pearson (2001) mentioned or listed O. cinctula as a separate species.
Fleutiaux (1892) treated O. cinctula as a synonym of Odontocheila secedens Steinheil, 1875 that was described, however, from an area of the town of Muzo in the historical Nueva Grenada, 104 km north of Bogota, Colombia. The synonymy by Fleutiaux (1892) was probably based on specimens labelled “ O. secedens ”, but those in BMNH with “ secedens ” on their labels, have their locality label: “Zapote, Guatemala” which is the type locality of the synonymous O. cinctula , and indeed, these specimens proved to be identical with O. ignita . In contrast, O. secedens Steinheil was correctly synonymized with O. salvini by Horn (1892), and also was treated as the synonym of O. salvini by Horn (1904), Boyd (1982) and Erwin & Pearson (2008). The synonymy is in accordance with some other specimens in collections labelled as O. secedens , including the historical ones standing in MNHN (Fleutiaux historical Collection) under this name, and which proved to be conspecific with O. salvini .
The nomenclature is even more complicated by O. secedens sensu Lynch Arribálzaga (1878) , which is conspecific with Odontocheila chrysis (Fabricius, 1801) . Lynch Arribálzaga only misidentified and redescribed the species described by Steinheil (1875), but did not describe a new homonymous species as probably considered by Horn (1905) when he “synonymized” O. secedens sensu Lynch Arribálzaga (1878) with O. chrysis .
In addition, Odontocheila iodopleuroides Mandl, 1972 was excluded from the genus Odontocheila (Moravec 2013) because examination of the holotype (by monotypy) in NHMW by the first author, revealed that this species is conspecific with East Asian Prothyma heteromala MacLeay, 1825 .
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Odontocheila ignita Chaudoir, 1860
|Moravec, Jiří, Brzoska, David & Huber, Ronald 2017|
|Johnson 1996: 37|
|Wiesner 1992: 78|
|Rivalier 1969: 197|
|Horn 1893: 343|
|Fleutiaux 1892: 123|
|Bates 1881: 16|
|Chaudoir 1860: 52|