Calliaspis Dejean, 1836

Sekerka, Lukáš, 2014, Review of Imatidiini genera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 54 (1), pp. 257-314 : 271-272

Calliaspis Dejean, 1836

( Fig. 7 )

Calliaspis Dejean, 1836: 367 . Type species: Cassida rubra Olivier, 1808 by monotypy.

Cyanaspis Weise, 1904: 433 ; SPAETH (1905): 84 (synonymy). Type species: Cyanaspis testaceicornis Weise, 1904 by monotypy.

Distinguishing characters. The genus can be unambiguously distinguished by its ten-segmented antennae which is a unique character within the tribe. Unfortunately, pinned museum specimens frequently have broken antennae, but the genus is also characterized by its general habitus. All species have a short and very stout body, with broadly explanate margins and a semicircular pronotum ( Fig. 7 ). It also possesses prognathous, but not projecting mouthparts, an interantennal carina, and smooth apico-lateral margins of the elytra.

Remarks. DEJEAN’ s (1836) proposed the genus and included ¿ve species, however, only one species, Cassida rubra Olivier, 1808 , was a valid taxon, which became the type species by monotypy.

WEISE (1904) described the genus Cyanaspis on the basis of ten-segmented antennae comparing it to Himatidium auct. thus he evidently did not know about the existence of Calliaspis . A year later Cyanaspis was synonymized with Calliaspis by SPAETH (1905).

Number of species. 20 ( BOROWIEC 2003).

Key to species. BOROWIEC (2003) covers all the known species.

Biology. So far nothing was published on the biology of this genus as the association given by BURGESS et al. (2003) for C. rubra is based on a misidenti¿cation 1. Based on our ¿eld

1 BURGESS et al. (2003) published an ecological paper on chrysomelid herbivory on Aechmea nallyi L. B. Smith (Bromeliaceae) . Two voucher specimens were sent to C. L. Staines (USNM) who identi¿ed the species as Calliaspis rubra (Olivier, 1808) and that name was used in the paper. I have studied a single specimen preserved in USNM ( Peru: Amazon Center for Education & Enviromental Research, 28.iii.1999, M. Lowman & D. Krabill lgt.) and found that it was misidenti¿ed and in fact belongs to Spaethiella erhardti ( Boheman, 1862) . However, it bears Staines identi¿cation label (from 2000) as the latter species. Therefore, feeding association with A. nallyi must be transferred to S. erhardti . The specimen was also published as S. erhardti and treated as a new country record for Peru by CHABOO (2002) but without plant association. Moreover, BURGESS et al. (2003) mentioned also ¿nding mines on leaves of A. nallyi and associated them also with C. rubra . Based on photographs published in the paper and description of the damage found on the plants, there is most likely a second cassidine species on A. nallyi , most probably some Acenthroptera Guérin-Méneville, 1844 species as this genus is known to have mining larvae in bromeliad leaves. The adult beetles may cause very extensive damage, however, they live mostly hidden among bases of leaves making them very dif¿cult to ¿nd.

research, the genus seems to be associated with two plant families: Bromeliaceae and Poaceae (Windsor & Sekerka, unpubl. data).

Distribution. Colombia to Bolivia and SW Brazil.

Figures

Figs 1–11. Dorsal habitus. 1 – Homalispa batesii Baly, 1858, French Guyana: Mt. Kaw; 2 – Cyclantispa gracilis (Baly, 1885), Panama: La Fortuna; 3 –Xanthispa cimicoides (Guérin-Méneville, 1844), French Guyana: Le Larivot; 4 – Imatidium thoracicum Fabricius, 1801, Ecuador: Cascada San Rafael; 5 – Aslamidium (s. str.) capense (Herbst, 1799), French Guyana: Fourgassie; 6 – Aslamidium (Neoaslamidium) pichinchaensis Borowiec, 1998, Ecuador: Puerto Misahuallí; 7 – Calliaspis sachaensis Borowiec & Stojczew, 1998, Ecuador: Shushu¿ndi; 8 – Spaethaspis lloydi Hincks, 1952, Ecuador: Río Puno. 9 – Xenispa testaceicornis (Pic, 1926), Bolivia: Refugio Los Volcanes; 10 – Xenispa costaricensis (Uhmann, 1930), Panama:La Fortuna;11 – Euxema insignis Baly, 1858, syntype, Panama: Volcan de Barú. All scale bars = 2.5 mm.