Pirangoclytus mniszechii ( Chevrolat, 1862 )

Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto de Lima & Silva, Weliton Dias, 2020, A new synonym and seventeen new distributional records in South American Cerambycidae (Coleoptera), with notes on Chlorethe scabrosa Zajciw, 1963, Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 60, pp. 1-11 : 2-3

CLYTINI MULSANT, 1839 Pirangoclytus mniszechii ( Chevrolat, 1862) Figs. 2‑8

Mecometopus mniszechii Chevrolat, 1862: 64 ; Monné, 2019a: 150 (cat.).

Mecometopus mendosus Galileo & Martins, 1996: 58 ; Monné, 2019a: 150 (cat.). Syn. nov.

Material examined: BRAZIL, Espírito Santo: Barra do São Francisco ( Córrego Itá ), 2 males, 1 female, paratypes of M. mendosus , XI.1956, Zikán col. ( MZSP); rio Guandú, 1 paratype female of M. mendosus , X.1920, F. Hoffmann col. ( MZSP). Rio de Janeiro: Rio de Janeiro, 1 paratype male of M. mendosus , X.1934, B. Pohl col. ( MZSP). Minas Gerais: Mar de Espanha , 1 paratype male of M. mendosus , 15.XI.1907, Zikán col. ( MZSP); 1 paratype male of M. mendosus , 29.XI.1909, Zikán col. ( MZSP); Coronel Pacheco , 1 female, I.1956, V.Gomes col.( MZSP); Parque Estadual do Rio Doce, 1 female, XI.2014, L. Migliore col. ( MZSP). São Paulo: Anhembi (22°42′20.8″S, 48°10′01.4″W), [semiochemical trap], 1 female, 11.XII.2018, W.D. Silva col. ( ESALQ); [ Guarulhos ] (22°71′52.32″S, 48°15′89.65″W), 1 male, 1 female, 06.V.2013, E.N. Lopes col. ( MZSP); Itu ( Fazenda Pau d’Alho ), 1 female (holotype of M. mendosus ), 10.XI.1970, Monné col. ( MZSP); Guarujá , 1 paratype male of M. mendosus , 10.XI.1920, Melzer col. ( MZSP); Iguape , 1 paratype male of M. mendosus , XII.1921, A.C. Braole col. ( MZSP); Campinas , 1 paratype male of M. mendosus , XI.1919, Merbach col. ( MZSP); São Paulo (Saúde), 1 paratype male of M. mendosus , 13.XI.1921, Melzer col. ( MZSP). Santa Catarina: Joinville , 1 paratype male of M. mendosus, 1916 , Sohmalz col. ( MZSP); Rio Vermelho , 1 paratype male of M. mendosus, Dirings ( MZSP). PARAGUAY, Distrito Capital: Asunción, 1 paratype female of M. mendosus , 18.IX.1976, B. Aranda col. ( MZSP). Cordillera (new department record): San Bernardino , 1 male, IX.1922, K. Friebrig col. ( MZSP).

Geographical distribution: Currently, it is known from Brazil (Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul) ( Monné, 2019a).

Remarks: Chevrolat (1862) described Mecometopus mniszechii from Brazil without a specific locality. Monné et al. (2009) have first provided a detailed place for this species ( Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, Itatiaia). Later, Galileo & Martins (1996) described M.mendosus from Brazil (São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Santa Catarina) and Paraguay. Di Iorio (2006) synonymized M. mendosus with M. mniszechii , but Martins & Galileo (2011: 191) revalidated the species(translated):“Di Iorio(2005,est.47,fig.9)illustrat- ed in color Pirangoclytus insignis under the denomination of M. mendosus . However, the same author (2006: 12) erroneously considered Pirangoclytus mendosus as synonym of P.mniszechi [sic]”; and ahead, in the same work (translated, p. 196): “ Di Iorio (2006: 12) considered Mecometopus mendosus synonym of M. mniszechi [sic]. This synonymy is inaccurate because the elytral color patterns are different. In Pirangoclytus mniszechii the basal maculae of the elytra are much larger and are followed by a small lateral spot near to its apex; the sutural maculae at the front of the middle also are much larger and closer to the basal one.” Nevertheless, we think that Di Iorio (2006) was right. Firstly, the small yellowish pubescent spot on sides of anterior third may or may not be present. It is present in some paratypes of M. mendosus ( Figs. 5, 7, 8 ), and not only in a paratype as pointed out in the original description. Furthermore, when present, it is variable in size. Moreover, the size and shape of the elytral pubescent maculae ( Figs. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 ) are very variable in this species. Accordingly, the arguments by Martins & Galileo (2011) are not consistent.

DiIorio(2006:13) reported: “Mecometopusmendosus and the true Mecometopus palmatus (of Olivier, 1795) can be differentiated by the pubescence of sternites 1º and 2º, which is of a yellow color in Mecometopus mendosus , and white in Mecometopus palmatus ( Galileo & Martins, 1996) . The description of “ Mecometopus palmatus ” given by Laporte & Gory (1836: 84-85) says clearly“abdomen noir, avec les deux premiers segments et une tache de chaque côté du mesothorax d’un beau jaune”. According to this, the reference of Laporte & Gory (1836) must be referred to Mecometopus mendosus . This character, abdominal pubescence of white or yellow color, is of uncertain value to the determination of specimens:many Clytini exhibit variable coloration of the integument, and of the pubescent bands or spots […]. Large series of specimens from different localities often are need- ed to clearly establish taxonomic status. ” These statements are somewhat confused. It is true that Laporte & Gory (1836) described the ventral pubescence in Mecometopus palmatus as being yellow.We agree with him regarding the synonymy between M. palmatus sensu Laporte & Gory (1836) and M. mendosus , and also regarding the variation in the color of the pubescence. However, apparently Di Iorio (2006) was suggesting that Mecometopus mniszechii may be also equal to M. palmatus (Olivier, 1795) . However, when present, the small yellow pubescent spot of the elytra in M. mniszechii (= Pirangoclytus mniszechii ) is always placed at anterior third, while in M.palmatus it is placed about middle. Furthermore, although it is possible that these features are variable, in all specimens of M. palmatus the elytral apex is less oblique, and the anterior elytral pubescent band is elongate. Still according to Di Iorio (2006: 15): “Only the extension of the abdominal yellow pubescence appears to differ slightly: on sternites I-III and part of IV in Mecometopus mniszechii (fide de [sic] Chevrolat, 1862 a), and only on sternites I-II in Mecometopus mendosus . ” Actually, there are paratypes of M. mendosus with pubescence on ventrites III and IV ( Fig. 6 ), not as dense as on I-II, but distinct.

The holotype of Mecometopus mendosus was described as being a male, but it is a female ( Figs. 2-3 ).

Figures

Figures 1-11. (1) Sphallotrichus sericeotomentosus,female,dorsal habitus.(2-8) Pirangoclytusmendosus: (2) holotype female,dorsal habitus;(3) holotype female, ventral habitus; (4) paratype 1, female,dorsal habitus;(5) paratype 2, female, dorsal habitus; (6) paratype 2, female,ventral habitus;(7) paratype 3, male,dorsal habitus;(8) paratype4, male,dorsal habitus.(9) Chlorethe scabrosa,female,dorsal habitus.(10) Tropidion rubricatum, female,dorsal habitus.(11) Piezocera costula, female,dorsal habitus.