Hamaederus fragosoi ( Martins and Monné, 2002 ) Botero, 2021

Botero, Antonio Santos-Silva Kimberly García Juan Pablo, 2021, A review of the history of the names Hamaticherus Dejean and Plocaederus Dejean and description of a new genus and species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae), Insecta Mundi 2021 (887), pp. 1-32 : 13

Hamaederus fragosoi ( Martins and Monné, 2002) , new combination

( Fig. 15–17 )

Plocaederus fragosoi Martins and Monné 2002: 238 ; Monné 2005: 56 (cat.); Wappes et al. 2006: 7 (distr.); Martins et al. 2008: 281 (distr.); Touroult et al. 2010: 28; Morvan and Morati 2011: 15 (distr.); Galileo et al. 2011: 10, 78 (distr.); Nascimento and Bravo 2014: 131 (distr.); Monné and Monné 2016: 7 (holotype); Monné 2021: 73 (cat.).

Remarks. Hamaederus fragosoi was described based on a single female from Brazil (Amapá). The holotype was destroyed during the fire in 2018 at the MNRJ. Martins et al. (2008) reported the species from French Guiana, and Martins et al. (2014) from the Brazilian state of Ceará.

According to Martins and Monné (2002) (translated): “The absence of tubercle in the mesoventral process separates P. fragosoi from P. bipartitus , P. glabricollis , P rugosus , and P. rusticus , species whose mesoventral process is provided with a tubercle. It is more similar to P. glaberrimus and differs in its general color, in the apical spines of non-divergent elytra, and in the upper ocular lobes as far apart as a row of ommatidia. In P. glaberrimus , the elytral spines are markedly divergent and the upper ocular lobes are separated by a distance equal to two rows of ommatidia.” In fact, H. fragosoi is much more similar to H. bipartitus . With the finding that the tubercle of the mesoventral process may be absent in H. bipartitus , as in H. fragosoi ( Fig. 17 ), the only reliable difference between these two species is the shape of the apex of antennomeres III and IV: nodose or subnodose in H. fragosoi ( Fig. 16 ), distinctly projected in H. bipartitus ( Fig. 4 ). This feature does not vary in other species (including those of which we examined a large number of specimens).

Material examined. FRENCH GUIANA: Amazone Nature Lodge , Kaw Rd. 6, 4.550330, −52.170310, 1 male, 11–23.VIII.2017, Morris and Wappes leg.( RFMC) ; Saint Laurent du Maroni , Crique Serpent, 1 female, 10.XI.2006, O. Morvan leg. ( MZSP) .

Figures

Figures 10–17. Hamaederus spp. 10–14) Hamaederus bipartitus (Buquet, 1860), female from Ecuador. 10) Dorsal habitus. 11) Ventral habitus. 12) Lateral habitus. 13) Prosternal and mesoventral processes, lateral view. 14) Prosternal and mesoventral processes, oblique ventral view. 15–17) Hamaederus fragosoi (Martins and Monné, 2002), male from French Guiana.15) Dorsal habitus. 16) Scape, pedicel, and antennomeres III–V. 17) Prosternal and mesoventral processes, lateral view. Figures 10–14 by Steven W. Lingafelter.

Figures 1–9. Hamaederus bipartitus (Buquet, 1860). 1–2) Male from French Guiana, specimen 1. 1) Dorsal habitus. 2) Ventral habitus. 3) Male from French Guiana, specimen 2, dorsal habitus. 4) Male from French Guiana, specimen 1, antennomeres III–IV.5–6) Prosternal and mesoventral processes, oblique ventral view, females from French Guiana. 5) Specimen 1.6) Specimen 2. 7–9) Prosternal and mesoventral processes, lateral view, specimens from French Guiana. 7) Female, specimen 1. 8) Male. 9) Female, specimen 2.