Martarega mcateei Jaczewski, 1928
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00222933.2011.651645 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5199815 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DF811D-1E65-602A-FE70-FC678A9DFEF8 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Martarega mcateei Jaczewski, 1928 |
status |
|
Martarega mcateei Jaczewski, 1928 View in CoL
( Figures 11A–D View Figures 9–12 , 14B)
Martarega mcateei Jaczewski, 1928: 134 View in CoL [ Brazil].
Martarega mcateei: Truxal 1949: 17 View in CoL [ Brazil].
Martarega mcateei: Fittkau 1977: 16 View in CoL (tab.2) [ Brazil].
Martarega mcateei: Mazzucconi 2008: 215 View in CoL [ Argentina].
Martarega mcateei: Mazzucconi et al. 2008: 61 View in CoL [ Argentina].
Martarega mcateei: Heckman 2011: 492 View in CoL [South America].
No specimens were collected in the regions sampled. Martarega mcateei View in CoL is not a common species and it is confined to the central-southern South America (Figure 14B), with one record from Amazon Region ( Fittkau 1977). In addition, this species is relatively uncommon in collections, possibly because of its geographical range, which encompasses the infrequently visited regions. According to Truxal (1949), almost all the types of M. mcateei View in CoL were destroyed, except for a single female housed at the collection of C.O. Bare (Museo de La Plata).
According to the original description by Jaczewski (1928), this species is similar to M. uruguayensis , but it is longer, more robust and has a shorter ocular commissure. The hemelytral appearance of the macropterous forms of both species is very similar. However, females of the two species may be separated by their greatly differing hind femora. In M. mcateei they are not emarginated along their bases.
Here evidence is provided that the female specimens of M. mcateei studied by Nieser (1970) were erroneously identified. The description by Nieser (1970) states clearly that the previously female specimens of M. mcateei present hind femora emarginated at their bases, whereas Jaczewski (1928) described such female specimens as having hind femora not emarginated. Taken together, the aforementioned comments are consistent with only one conclusion: that Nieser’s description of “female specimens of M. mcateei ” in fact refers to female specimens of M. uruguayensis .
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Martarega mcateei Jaczewski, 1928
Barbosa, Julianna Freires, Ribeiro, José Ricardo Inacio & Nessimian, Jorge Luiz 2012 |
Martarega mcateei: Heckman 2011: 492
Heckman CW 2011: 492 |
Martarega mcateei:
Mazzucconi SA & Lopez-Ruf M & Bachmann AO 2008: 61 |
Martarega mcateei:
Fittkau EJ 1977: 16 |
Martarega mcateei:
Truxal FS 1949: 17 |
Martarega mcateei
Jaczewski T 1928: 134 |