Ctenocolum podagricus ( Fabricius, 1801 )
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3838.1.1 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:1534C775-D28D-470F-9AEC-8BABB3D8FA56 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6124243 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FF87F5-FFF5-FFE1-38AD-F90EFADA7210 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Ctenocolum podagricus ( Fabricius, 1801 ) |
| status |
|
Ctenocolum podagricus ( Fabricius, 1801)
( Figs. 14 View FIGURES 8 – 16 , 27 View FIGURES 22 – 30 , 39 View FIGURES 35 – 43 , 50 View FIGURES 47 – 52 , 58 View FIGURES 53 – 60 , 71 View FIGURES 66 – 71 , 83 View FIGURES 79 – 84 , 95 View FIGURES 91 – 99 )
Bruchus podagricus Fabricius (1801): 399 (original description, type-locality: América Meridional); Johnson & Nilsson (1990): 171, 172 (synonym, lectotype).
Pseudopachymerus podagricus: Pic (1913a) : 11 (catalog).
Caryedes podagrica: Blackwelder (1946): 758 (catalog). Wilcox (1975):10; Peck (2011): 40 (distribution); Peck et al. (2014): 111 (distribution).
Acanthoscelides podagricus: Zacher (1952): 465 (host plant).
Caryedes podagricus: De Luca (1972): 106 (catalog); Johnson & Kingsolver (1981): 417 (catalog); Udayagiri & Wadhi (1989) (catalog); Lorea-Barocio et al (2006): 518 (catalog).
Ctenocolum podagricus: Johnson & Nilsson (1990):171 (distribution); Alvarez-Marin & Kingsolver (1997): 219 (catalog); Romero & Johnson (2004): 623 (catalog); Silva & Ribeiro-Costa (2008): 803, 809, 811, 814, 816-819, 821, (distribution, taxonomy); Rodrigues et al. (2012): 273 (host plant).
Bruchus crotonae Fåhraeus (1839): 123 , 124 (original description, type-locality: Brasil).
Pseudopachymerus crotonae: Pic (1913a) : 10 (catalog).
Caryedes crotonae: Blackwelder (1946): 758 (catalog).
Ctenocolum crotonae: Kingsolver & Whitehead (1974a) : 287, 307, 310, 311 (redescription, key, characters, distribution, figures, type-locality, host plant); Janzen (1977): 417 (host plant); Janzen (1978): 183 (host plant); Janzen (1980): 947 (host plant); Johnson & Kingsolver (1981): 418 (catalog); Udayagiri & Wadhi (1989): 79 (catalog); La Rosa & Romero-Nápoles (2002): 189 (host plant); Sari et al. (2002): 483, 484, 485 (host plant); Turnbow et al. (2003): 277 (citation).
Bruchus pictifemur: Sharp (1885): 446 (original description, type-locality: Mexico, Jalapa); Kingsolver & Whitehead (1974a): 307 (= Bruchus podagricus ). Pseudopachymerus pictifemur: Pic (1913a) : 11 (catalog).
Caryedes pictifemur: Blackwelder (1946): 758 (catalog); Wilcox (1975): 10 (catalog).
Type material. Bruchus podagricus Fabricius, 1801 . Not examined.
Note. In the original description of Bruchus podagricus, Fabricius (1801) did not specify how many specimens he studied. He also failed to mention which museum the material was deposited. We requested the material to the Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark, but our request was not granted. According to Johnson & Nilsson (1990), the male genitalia of B. podagricus and B. crotonae are identical.
Bruchus crotonae Fåhraeus, 1839 . Syntype deposited in NHRS, male: “ Typus ” [red label with black margin, printed in black]; “mi Sem: Croton/ et Laqurninofa/ e Brazilia./ Falderman” [white label handwritten in black]; “90/ H” [red label, 90 numbers printed in black, H letter handwritten in blue]; “♂” [white label printed in black]; “ SYNTYPE / Bruchus crotonae / Fåhraeus, 1839 / Det. Albuquerque & Ribeiro-Costa” [white label with red margin, printed in black]; “ Ctenocolum podagricus / ( Fabricius, 1801)/ F. P. Albuquerque det. 2013” [white label with black margin, printed in black].
Note. In the original description of Bruchus crotonae Fåhraeus (1839) did not specify how many specimens he studied. He also failed to mention which museum the material was deposited. However, the literature indicates that the type material is deposited in the NHRS ( Kingsolver & Whitehead 1974a; Johnson & Nilsson 1990). It was received from NHRS one specimen that confers with the original description of Fảhraeus (1839), being considered here as a syntype.
Bruchus pictifemur Sharp, 1885 . Lectotype designated here, deposited in BMNH, female: “ Bruchus View in CoL picti/ femur. Type / D.S./ Jalapa./ Mexico. Hoge” [white label handwritten in black]; “LECTO–/ TYPE ” [round label, purple with center white, printed in black]; “ Type ” [round label, red with center white, printed in black]; “Jalapa,/ Mexico./ Hoege.” [white label printed in black]; “B. C. A. Col. V./ Bruchus View in CoL / pictifemur ,/ Sharp.” [white label with black margin, printed in black]; “Sharp Coll./1905–313.” [white label printed in black]; “♀” [white label printed in black]; “ LECTOTYPE / Bruchus pictifemur / Sharp, 1885 / Det. Albuquerque & Ribeiro-Costa” [white label with red margin, printed in black]; “ Ctenocolum podagricus / ( Fabricius, 1801)/ F. P. Albuquerque det. 2013” [white label with black margin, printed in black]. 2 paralectotypes, deposited in BMNH, female: “ Bruchus View in CoL picti–/ femur. D.S./ Jalapa./ Mexico. Hoge.” [white label handwritten in black]; “PARA–/ LECTO–/ TYPE ” [round label, blue with center white, printed in black]; “Jalapa,/ Mexico./ Hoege.” [white label printed in black]; “B. C. A. Col. V./ Bruchus View in CoL / pictifemur ,/ Sharp.” [white label with black margin, printed in black]; “♀” [white label printed in black]; “ PARALECTOTYPE / Bruchus pictifemur / Sharp, 1885 / Det. Albuquerque & Ribeiro- Costa” [white label with yellow margin, printed in black]; “ Ctenocolum podagricus / ( Fabricius, 1801)/ F. P. Albuquerque det. 2013” [white label with black margin, printed in black]. Female: “PARA–/ LECTO–/ TYPE ” [round label, blue with center white, printed in black]; “Jalapa,/ Mexico./ Hoege.” [white label printed in black]; “B. C. A. Col. V./ Bruchus View in CoL / pictifemur ,/ Sharp.” [white label with black margin, printed in black]; “ pictifemur ” [white label printed in black]; “♀” [white label printed in black]; “ PARALECTOTYPE / Bruchus pictifemur / Sharp, 1885 / Det. Albuquerque & Ribeiro- Costa” [white label with yellow margin, printed in black]; “ Ctenocolum podagricus / ( Fabricius, 1801)/ F. P. Albuquerque det. 2013” [white label with black margin, printed in black].
Note. In the original description of Bruchus pictifemur, Sharp (1885) did not specify where the material was deposited, he only mentioned that he studied three specimens. However, the literature indicates that the type material is deposited in the BMNH ( Kingsolver & Whitehead 1974a). We received three specimens from this museum, one with lectotype label and two with paralectotype labels, although a formal designation was not published. As these specimens agree with the original description, the specimen that has the lectotype label is here designated as lectotype to improve nomenclatural stability (Declaration 44, Amendment of Article 74.7.3, ICZN 1999).
Additional material. PORTO RICO: 2, Mayaguez, 12.X.1936, #1770, R. H. Moore & L. C. McAlister col., Piscidia erythrina ( TAMU). MEXICO: Sinaloa: 1, Mazatlán, 14.VIII.1965, H. Burke & J. Meyer col. ( TAMU); Jalisco: 8, 34 mi. NW Barra de Navidad, 09.III.1973, emerged in 30.VII.1973, C. D. Johnson col., reared seeds 438-73, Lonchocarpus nitidus ( DZUP); 16, same information except emerged in 23.V.1973, ( TAMU); 6, same information except emerged in 12. IV.1973, ( TAMU); 2, same information except emerged in 13.VI.1973, ( TAMU); 3, same information except emerged in 9.X.1973, ( TAMU); 1, same information except emerged in 29.XII.1973, ( TAMU); 3, same information except emerged in 27.VI.1973, ( TAMU). JAMAICA: Saint James: 1, Montego Bay, 03.VIII.1967, L. & C. W. O’Brien col. ( TAMU). COSTA RICA: Guanacaste: 8, 30 Km de Liberia, 26.II.1976, D. H. Janzen col., Bauhinia glabra ( DZUP); 1, Santa Rosa, 15.III.1972, D. H. Janzen col. ( BMNH); Puntarenas: 1, Guacimal, 07.III.1976, D. R. Whitehead col., Bauhinia glabra ( DZUP). PERU: Junin: 1, San Ramón de Pangoa, 40 Km SE Satipo, 750 m., 07.V.1972, R. T. & J. C. Schuh col. ( TAMU).
Diagnosis. Ctenocolum podagricus differs from C. triangulatus Albuquerque & Ribeiro-Costa sp. nov. by ocular index 4.7–7.0 and pygidium oval in male and triangular in females; differs from C. martiale by elytral striae 3 and 4 with less conspicuous teeth at base. This species is different from all other species by having a squamous inverted V-shaped sclerite in the internal sac of male genitalia ( Fig. 83 View FIGURES 79 – 84 ).
Redescription. BL: 2.0– 3.4 mm; BW: 1.4–2.1 mm.
Integument. Dorsum variegated with dark brown to black and reddish brown or predominate black. Antenna brown to dark brown, first 3 antennomeres paler ( Figs. 14 View FIGURES 8 – 16 , 58 View FIGURES 53 – 60 ). Pygidium reddish brown or rufous. Ventral region from brown to black and reddish brown. Front and middle femur from pale brown to dark brown; hind femur dark brown and black.
Pubescence. Pronotum brown, black and white; sparse setae exposing the by a transversal and/or longitudinal strip of denser setae and on each lateral region a small area ( Fig. 14 View FIGURES 8 – 16 ). Elytra strongly variegated, brown, black and white setae; interstria 3 with short dense strip of white setae at base and at submedian region ( Fig. 14 View FIGURES 8 – 16 ). Pygidium densely white and yellowish gray in male, white and brown in female; two basal, four lateral, one apical small areas and at median region a larger area with sparse setae ( Figs. 39 View FIGURES 35 – 43 , 50 View FIGURES 47 – 52 ).Ventral region brown, pale brown, yellowish gray and white ( Fig. 58 View FIGURES 53 – 60 ).
Head. Ocular sinus 0.2 mm; ocular index 4.7–7.0; length of eyes in frontal view behind sinus 0.06–0.08 mm ( Fig. 27 View FIGURES 22 – 30 ). Antenna serrate from antennomere 4-10. Frons with frontal carina ( Fig. 27 View FIGURES 22 – 30 ).
Prothorax. Pronotum with median gibbosity slightly elevated, divided or not by longitudinal sulcus and not divided by transversal sulcus ( Fig. 58 View FIGURES 53 – 60 ); lateral gibbosity slightly to moderately elevated; basal lobe with or without depression and slightly emarginated ( Fig. 14 View FIGURES 8 – 16 ).
Mesothorax and metathorax. Elytra, striae with punctures moderately impressed; less conspicuous teeth at base of striae 3 and 4; tooth of stria 4 closer to base of tooth of stria 3 than to anterior margin of elytra; stria 6 conspicuously impressed. Hind femur ( Fig. 71 View FIGURES 66 – 71 ) on external ventral margin with toothed carina; without denticles above of external ventral margin; pecten with 7–9 teeth. Hind tibia ( Fig. 71 View FIGURES 66 – 71 ) strongly emarginated beside mucro; lateral coronal denticles present.
Abdomen. Pygidium longer than wide, oval in male ( Fig. 39 View FIGURES 35 – 43 ), subtriangular in female ( Fig. 50 View FIGURES 47 – 52 ), at median basal region with moderately impressed punctures.
Male genitalia. Median lobe, ventral valve as long as wide, lateral margin concave on subapical region ( Fig. 83 View FIGURES 79 – 84 ), basal margin slightly or strongly emarginated. Internal sac, lateral apex with short tuft of setae, hinge sclerite similar to stick, long, extending through subapical region; subapical region with homogeneously distributed spicules and medially dense; median region with an agglomerate of spicules; submedian region with squamous inverted V-shape sclerite ( Fig. 83 View FIGURES 79 – 84 ); basal region with or without spines. Tegmen ( Fig. 95 View FIGURES 91 – 99 ), lateral lobes separated by emargination about 0.75 times the length of lateral lobes; internal margin near end of emargination curved, forming a "U"; expanded at apex, about 2 times the smallest width on median region; without membranous projection at apex.
Distribution. Neotropical region: Puerto Rico, Mexico (Sinaloa, Jalisco, Querétaro, Veracruz, Chiapas, Campeche, Quintana Roo), El Salvador (San Salvador, La Unión), St. Barthelemy, Costa Rica (Guanacaste, Puntarenas), Venezuela (Distrito Capital), Trinidad and Tobago ( Tobago), Ecuador, Guyana, Brazil (Mato Grosso, Paraná).
New records: Jamaica (Saint James) and Peru (Junin).
Host plants (Table I–II). Caesalpinioideae : Peltophorum dasyrrhachis (Miq.) Kurz. Papilionoideae : Lonchocarpus sp., L. costaricensis (Donn.Sm.) Pittier. , L. heptaphyllus (Poir.) DC. (= L. pentaphyllus (Poir.) DC.), L. hondurensis Benth. , L. margaritensis Pittier , L. minimiflorus Donn. Sm. , L. nitidus (Vogel) Benth. , L. parviflorus Benth. , L. rugosus Benth. , Piscidia carthagenensis Jacq. , Piscidia piscipula (L.) Sarg. (= P. erythrina L.).
New records: Caesalpinioideae : Bauhinia glabra Jacq.
Note. According to Kingsolver & Whitehead (1974a), the record in Peltophorum dasyrrhachis is dubious.
| DZUP |
Universidade Federal do Parana, Colecao de Entomologia Pe. Jesus Santiago Moure |
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 |
Ctenocolum podagricus ( Fabricius, 1801 )
| Albuquerque, Felícia Pereira De, Manfio, Daiara & Ribeiro-Costa, Cibele Stramare 2014 |
Ctenocolum podagricus:
| Silva 2008: 803 |
| Johnson 1990: 171 |
| Kingsolver (1997) : 219 |
| Rodrigues et al. (2012) : 273 |
Caryedes podagricus:
| Johnson 1981: 417 |
| Lorea-Barocio et al (2006) : 518 |
Ctenocolum crotonae:
| Udayagiri 1989: 79 |
| Johnson 1981: 418 |
| Janzen 1980: 947 |
| Janzen 1978: 183 |
| Janzen 1977: 417 |
| Kingsolver 1974: 287 |
| La Rosa & Romero-Nápoles (2002) : 189 |
| Sari et al. (2002) : 483 |
| Turnbow et al. (2003) : 277 |
Acanthoscelides podagricus:
| Zacher 1952: 465 |
Caryedes podagrica:
| Peck 2011: 40 |
| Blackwelder 1946: 758 |
| Peck et al. (2014) : 111 |
Caryedes crotonae:
| Blackwelder 1946: 758 |
Caryedes pictifemur:
| Blackwelder 1946: 758 |
Pseudopachymerus podagricus:
| Pic 1913: 11 |
Pseudopachymerus crotonae:
| Pic 1913: 10 |
Bruchus pictifemur:
| Kingsolver 1974: 307 |
| Pic 1913: 11 |
| Sharp 1885: 446 |
Bruchus crotonae Fåhraeus (1839) : 123
| Fahraeus 1839: 123 |
Bruchus podagricus
| Johnson 1990: 171 |
| Fabricius 1801: 399 |