Periestola Breuning, 1943

Santos-Silva, Antonio, Nascimento, Francisco E. De L. & Kozlov, Anton Olegovich, 2019, The megadiverse fauna of Neotropical Cerambycidae (Coleoptera): Notes, descriptions, new records, new species, and revalidations, Zootaxa 4603 (3), pp. 441-472 : 453-454

Periestola Breuning, 1943 , revalidated

Periestola Breuning, 1943: 54 ; 1974: 44 (rev.); Monné & Giesbert, 1992: 252 (syn.); Monné, 1994: 37 (cat.); Martins & Galileo, 1998: 265 (transf.); Monné, 2005: 121 (cat.); Monné, 2012: 73; Monné & Monné, 2018b: 289 (syn.). Paracobelura Monné & Martins, 1976: 85 .

Breuning (1943) described Periestola to include his new species P. strandi , from Costa Rica (Cartago, Turrialba). Posteriorly, Breuning (1974) redescribed the genus as follows (translated): “Elongate. Antennae thin, a quarter longer than the body, fringed with short setae; scape very long and thin, antennomere III distinctly longer than IV, as long as scape, IV distinctly longer than V. Antennal tubercles distant from each other and slightly salient. Eyes very finely faceted and strongly emarginate, with lower eye lobes slightly long than wide. Frons convex, as long as wide. Vertex with deep, central, longitudinal sulcus. Pronotum transverse, short, convex, regularly rounded laterally, with two slender, transverse sulci, one anteriorly, another posteriorly. Elytra long, moderately convex, distinctly larger than pronotum, emarginate at apex (sutural angle slightly projected, outer angle projected with a distinctly triangular acute spine). Head not retractile. Prosternal process very wide, less elevated than the coxae and arched. Mesoventral process wide, centrally with a longitudinal carina slightly elevated. Metaventrite with normal length. Mesocoxal cavities open. Legs very long, the femora claviform, the mesotibiae emarginated.” Breuning (1943) did not mention the tribe of Periestola , but according to Breuning (1974), it belonged to Rhodopinini Gressitt, 1951 . Actually, that was an incomprehensible act, since Breuning (1974) considered two older tribes as synonymous of Rhodopinini : Desmiphorini Thomson, 1860 ; Estolini Lacordaire, 1872. Currently, nearly all genera included in Rhodopinini by Breuning (1974) belong to Desmiphorini , and Rhodopinini is considered a distinct tribe.

Monné & Martins (1976) described Paracobelura to their new species, P. curiosa , from Costa Rica (Cartago, Turrialba) as follows (translated): “Upper eye lobes as distant from each other as triple of width of one lobe; lower eye lobes 1.5 times genal length.Antennae slightly longer than body in both sexes, 11-segmented. Scape elongate, cylindrical, notched at inner side of base, subequal in length to antennomere III.Antennomere III longer than IV,also slightly notched at base; remaining antennomeres gradually decreasing in length. Prothorax unarmed laterally, slightly constricted basally.Pronotum irregular,without distinct tubercles, with two slightly distinct gibbosities anteriorly.Prosternal process with same width of one procoxa. Mesoventral process without tubercle, with2/3 of width of one mesocoxa. Elytra without erect setae, without centrobasal crest, with slightly elevated carina, parallel to suture, more distinct on apical half. Elytral apex obliquely emarginated (sutural angle barely projected, and outer angle spiniform). Femora short, thickened at middle; posterior ones do not reaching elytral apex; in males, with longitudinal sulcus ventrally. Protibiae widened at apex in both sexes. Metatarsomere I not elongated. Last abdominal segments—Male: dorsal truncated, ventral emarginated; female: dorsal narrowed and acuminated toward apex, ventral truncated.” Monné & Giesbert (1992) synonymized Paracobelura with Periestola , and Paracobelura curiosa with Periestola strandi . Martins & Galileo, 1998 transferred Periestola to Desmiphorini , but the transferance had already been established by Monné & Giesbert (1992).

Monné & Monné (2018) synonymized Periestola with Cobelura Erichson, 1847 : “Examination of a specimen of Periestola strandi Breuning, 1943 , described originally as belonging to the tribe Desmiphorini ( Rhodopinini Breuning, 1943, 1974 ), allowed us to propose the synonymy of Periestola Breuning, 1943 with Cobelura Erichson, 1847 . Consequently, Cobelura inornata Monné & Monné, 2017 is a junior synonym of Periestola strandi Breuning 1943 .”

Actually, the prothoracic shape of the type species of Periestola strandi ( Figs. 37–39 ), and especially the strongly different form of the scape (noticeably narrow basally, and distinctly widened at apex—clavate), leads us to conclude that Periestola is not equal to Cobelura (see photographs of the types of Acanthosphenopsilus flavocinctus Tippmann, 1960 , Probatius choliniformis Lane, 1956 [both equal to Cobelura lorigera Erichson, 1847 ], Sphenopsilus claviger Bates, 1885 , Cobelura sergioi Monné, 1984 , and Cobelura stockwelli Corbett, 2004 at Bezark 2018a). However, we understand the reasoning, because when the synonymy was proposed, four species with unusual features were included in Cobelura : C. howdenorum Corbett, 2004 ; C. raphaeli Monné & Monné, 2017 ; C. wappesi Corbett, 2004 ; and C. inornata Monné & Monné, 2017 . Thus, it was Corbett (2004) who first included species with different scape and pronotal shape in Cobelura .

Accordingly, Periestola is revalidated as a different genus from Cobelura , and kept in Acanthocinini . The following species are allocated in Periestola , besides the type species of the genus: P. howdenorum , comb. nov.; P. raphaeli , comb. nov.; and P. wappesi , comb. nov. The later is provisionally included in Periestola , but, apparently, it does not belong to this genus and, evidently, not to Cobelura , too. However, only examination of specimens of P. wappesi will allow us to correctly allocate the species.

As it was not mentioned in the original descriptions, and because it is not possible to see in the photographs of the type specimens, we do not know if the basal notch in the scape is present in P. howdenorum and P. raphaeli (apparently, it is present in both species). Thus, we do not know if this feature is specific or generic.

Figures

FIGURES 33–39. 33–36) Hyperplatys ushveridzei, holotype female: 33) Dorsal habitus; 34) Ventral habitus; 35) Lateral habitus; 36) Head, frontal view. 37–39) Periestola strandi: 37) Paracobelura curiosa, dorsal habitus, paratype female; 38) Dorsal habitus, male; 39) Periestola strandi, dorsal habitus, holotype. Figure 39 by Jesus Santiago Moure (deceased).