Acorethra Bates, 1873

Clarke, Robin O. S., Flora, Hotel, Fauna, Casilla, de, Santa Cruz, Sierra & Bolivia, 2016, Provisional revision of the genus Epimelitta Bates, 1870 and associated genera, with a brief synopsis of the genus Acorethra Bates, 1873 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae), Insecta Mundi 2016 (504), pp. 1-43 : 31

Genus Acorethra Bates, 1873

( Fig. 43-48 )

Type species: Acorethra chrysaspis Bates, 1873 , by original monotypy.

Description of the genus: Bates (1873) described his genus as follows (authors paraphrase from original Latin): Abdomen disproportionately elongate. Head: narrow, rostrum moderately elongate. Eyes in male large, inferior lobes almost contiguous; in female moderately separated. Antennae: moderately short, from antennomere VI dilated and serrate. Prothorax: narrow, and narrowed towards apex. Elytra: cuneiform blunt at apex, the latter reaching middle of urosternite I, disc shining and smooth. Metasternum: not tumid. Abdomen: in male slender and elongate, cylindrical; in female sessile, slightly wider and fusiform. Hind legs: elongate; femora gradually clavate; tibiae without brush; tarsi short.

Genitalia. Based on Acorethra chrysaspis ( Fig. 54 ). Tegmen different from any epimellitid; median lobe similar to Adepimelitta ; but more arced. Median lobe of aedeagus: moderately long (about 1.5 mm), slender, with acuminate apex; and dark bodies not evident. Tegmen: shears-shaped; apical part slightly longer than basal part. Apical lobes long (length/width 5.3), not at all arced nor divergent, parallel to each other; each lobe with almost straight lateral margin, mesal margin weakly bisinuate, widest near middle, apex asymmetrically (obliquely rounded) and weakly setose. Y-piece long and broad, stem not longer than fork.

Diagnosis. Hind legs and abdomen long. In Acorethra hind legs 2.8-3.0 longer than front leg (in Adepimelitta hind leg/front leg 2.5-2.7; in Charisia 2.2-2.4; in the remaining genera 2.3-2.5). In Acorethra abdomen 1.4-1.5 longer than forebody in female and male respectively; among the epimelittids only shared by Charisia bleuzeni and males of Adepimelitta ; but Acorethra species are not robust, nor large ( C. bleuzeni robust and large, and species of Adepimelitta small).

Figures

Figures 43-48. Genus Acorethra Bates, 1873. Fig. 43-46. Acorethra chrysaspis Bates, 1873 revalidated: 43) male, dorsal aspect; 44) male, ventral aspect; 45) female, dorsal aspect; 46) female, ventral aspect. Fig. 47-48. Acorethra aureofasciata Gounelle, 1911: 47) holotype male; 48) female.

Figures 49-57. Tegmen and median lobe of aedeagus in the genus Epimelitta and related genera. Fig. 49- 54. Magnification x1 (represented by2 mmscale bar):49) Epimelitta scoparia (Klug, 1825);50) Exepimelitta nigerrima (Bates, 1892); 51) Exepimelitta windsori sp. nov.; 52) Charisia melanaria Gounelle, 1911; 53) Charisia mneme (Newman, 1841); 54) Acorethra chrysaspis Bates, 1873. Fig. 55-57. Magnification x2 (represented by 1 mm scale bar): 55) Adepimelitta debilis (Gounelle, 1911); 56) Adepimelitta eupheme (Lameere, 1884); 57) Erratamelitta erato (Newman, 1840).