Ambotingis senta ( Drake and Hambleton 1945 )

Knudson, Alexander H., Rider, David A. & Knodel, Janet J., 2017, Review of the Genus Ambotingis Drake and Ruhoff (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Tingidae), Zootaxa 4269 (1), pp. 146-150 : 147

Ambotingis senta ( Drake and Hambleton 1945)

Plate 1 figs a–d

Monanthia senta Drake and Hambleton 1942: 329 ; Drake and Hambleton 1945: 356.

Dictyla senta: Drake and Ruhoff 1960a: 51 .

Ambotingis senta: Drake and Ruhoff 1960b: 31 , 33, fig. 2 [Not fig. 1, see comments]; Drake and Ruhoff 1960c: 80; Drake and Ruhoff 1965: 83, pl. 10; Ojeda and Neciosup 1974: 114.

Diagnosis. Readily separated from its congener, by the sharp and projecting cephalic spines, by the more elevated and spiny paranota, by the variegated color of the hemelytra, and by spines along the lateral margins.

Material examined. Type material examined: HolotypeƋ: Peru: Sullena, May, 10, 1942, E. J. Hambleton ( USNM) . Allotype♀: Sullena, May, 10, 1942, E. J. Hambleton (USNM). (Figure 1). Paratypes: Peru, Sullena , May 10, 1942, E. J. Hambleton (2♂ 2♀ USNM) . Peru, Paita, July, 7, 1940, E. J. Hambleton (1 missing abdomen USNM) .

Other specimens. Ecuador, October, 19, 1944, E. J. Hambleton (4♂ 2♀ USNM) . Ecuador: Machala, September, 27, 1944, E. J. Hambleton, (1♂ 2♀ USNM) .

Plant associations. The host plant for this species is unknown. Ojeda and Neciosup (1974) listed many host plant records for different tingid species found in Peru, but they did not list any host plants for A. senta . Drake and Hambleton (1941) stated that this species had been taken on a woody shrub, but they did not provide any specific information.

Comments. In their original description, Drake and Ruhoff (1960b) inadvertently switched the captions of figure 1 and figure 2; they corrected this error later that same year ( Drake and Ruhoff, 1960c).

PLATE 1. Ambotingis senta . Fig. a. dorsal habitus of holotype (left) and allotype (right). Fig. b. Type labels. Fig. c. lateral habitus. Fig. d. venation of forewing.