Lepturdrys Gilmour, 1960

Monné, Miguel A., Botero, Juan Pablo, Olivier, Renan Da Silva & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2024, South American Acanthocinini (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae): new species, synonymy, description of females, and notes, Zootaxa 5519 (3), pp. 345-383 : 359-361

Lepturdrys Gilmour, 1960 , reinstated

( Figs 39–51 )

Lepturdrys Gilmour, 1960: 47 ; Monné et al., 2020b: 29 (syn.).

Note: for full references see Monné (2024b) and Tavakilian & Chevillotte (2023).

Remarks. Monné et al. (2020b) synonymized Lepturdrys with Eucharitolus and commented: “The detailed description of Lepturdrys does not allow separating this genus from Eucharitolus as both genera share identical or nearly identical characters. Accordingly, Lepturdrys is considered a junior synonym of Eucharitolus .” However, Lepturdrys does not have the pronotum abundantly and coarsely punctate throughout.According to Gilmour (1960), Lepturdrys “is most closely allied to the genus Lepturges Bates , but may be immediately distinguished through the comparatively broad mesosternal process, with is four times as broad as the prosternal process, and a third the breadth of a mesocoxal cavity, not nearly linear as in Lepturges .” Although L. novemlineata , apparently, is not a true Lepturges Bates, 1863 , especially when compared with L. (Lepturges) elegantulus Bates, 1863 , which is the type species of the subgenus, the width of the prosternal and mesoventral processes is not a reliable feature to separate these two genera. This is because although always at least slightly narrow, the width is too variable in Lepturges . For example, in the species in which the prosternal process is laminiform centrally, the mesoventral process is often distinctly wider than it and usually about four times wider than it. Therefore, we think that the most correct is to reinstate Lepturdrys so as not to make Lepturges (Lepturges) even more chaotic. But at the moment, based on the species included in L. ( Lepturges ), it is not possible to provide a set of features that really allow separating Lepturdrys from it. Therefore, it is not possible to include Lepturdrys separately from Lepturges (Lepturges) in the key by Monné et al. (2020b). Furthermore, the width of the prosternal process in the new species described here ( Figs 46–51 ) is somewhat variable and the mesoventral process is also variable in L. novemlineata . In the photograph of the male of L. novemlineata from Bolivia examined by us ( Figs 42–44 ), the mesoventral process ( Fig. 44 ) is distinctly narrowed centrally and this region is much narrower than one-third of the mesocoxal width. However, in the holotype female the mesoventral process is almost parallel-sided from its anterior third and its narrowest region is about as wide as one-third of mesocoxal width. In dorsal view, the male from Bolivia photographed by James E. Wappes ( Fig. 45 ), agrees perfectly in the general shape and pronotal and elytral pubescent pattern.

In the description of L. novemlineata, Gilmour (1960) reported: “This species is, at first glance, very similar to certain vittate species in the genus Lepturges Bates , subgen. Chaeturges Gilmour, such as flavovittata Gilmour , ovalis Bates and griseostriata Bates, from which it may be immediately distinguished through the comparative breadth of the mesosternal process. It is most similar in appearance to the first named, flavovittata Gilmour , in the number of vittae, but examination reveals several differences in arrangement of these.” Lepturges (Chaeturges) flavovittata Gilmour, 1959 has antennae 12-segmented and erect setae on sides of elytra, and was transferred to Lepturgantes Gilmour, 1957 by Gilmour (1960); L. (Chaeturges) griseostriatus Bates, 1863 has erect setae on sides of elytra. As L. novemlineata has no erect setae on sides of elytra, apparently, Gilmour (1959) was only using the general appearance (pubescent lines on elytra), and not reliable features. Lepturges ovalis Bates, 1866 was transferred to Urgleptes Dillon, 1956 by Gilmour (1962). Urgleptes ovalis belongs to Lepturges (Lepturges) and not to Urgleptes (see below). Either way, it is very different from L. novemlineata .

Accordingly, Lepturdrys is composed now by L. novemlineata and L. capixaba sp. nov.

Figures

FIGURES 39–41. Lepturdrys novemlineata Gilmour, 1960, holotype female, by Christophe Rivier (MNHN). 39) Dorsal habitus; 40) Ventral habitus; 41) Lateral habitus.

FIGURES 42–45. Lepturdrys novemlineata Gilmour, 1960. 42–44) Male from Bolivia, by Kyle Schnepp (FSCA): 42) Dorsal habitus; 43) Ventral habitus; 44) Prosternal and mesoventral processes. 45) Male from Bolivia, dorsal habitus, by James E. Wappes (deceased).

FIGURES 46–51. Lepturdrys capixaba sp. nov. 46–49) Holotype female (MZSP 60897): 46) Dorsal habitus; 47) Ventral habitus; 48) Lateral habitus; 49) Head, frontal view. 50–51) Paratype male (MZSP 60896): 50) Dorsal habitus; 51) Ventral habitus.