Three new species of Macrelmis Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Elmidae: Elminae) from Southeastern Brazil with new definition of species groups to the genus
Author
Passos, Maria Inês Silva Dos
Author
Miranda, Gustavo Silva De
Author
Nessimian, Jorge Luiz
text
Zootaxa
2015
4058
2
195
210
journal article
39260
10.11646/zootaxa.4058.2.3
aef58d69-0e0c-4ad8-8e27-3a00ea2bc448
1175-5326
241270
7BF705F4-BB24-4BC4-9430-A2AB8A990DDF
granigera
species group
Hinton 1940
Diagnostic character
: aedeagus with truncated apex, and with a constriction two thirds before the apex (
Figs. 4A
–
C
).
Species:
Macrelmis granigera
,
M. scutellaris
and
M. shoemakei
.
Distribution
(
Fig. 7
):
Costa Rica
: Cache (
Sharp 1882
).
Mexico
: Temascaltepec (
Hinton 1934
;
Hinton 1940
), Coahuila (
Brown 1971
).
USA
: Texas (
Brown 1971
).
History of the group
:
Hinton (1940)
stated that
M. granigera
and
M. scutellaris
form a group characterized by pronotum with a prominent gibbosity in front of the scutellum. Additionally,
Hinton (1940)
described some larval characters that supported the group, such as "a short but prominent median longitudinal carina on the base of both the metasternum and the first abdominal sternite".
Hinton (1945)
added
M. germaini
,
M. peruviana
and
M. amazonica
to the group and emmended that all species have elytron apex obliquely truncate, except for
M. scutellaris
.
Manzo (2003)
included one more species,
M. saltensis
, which also has pronotum with gibbosity.
M. bispo
was the last species added to this group due its "obovate gibbosity near the middle of pronotal base" (
Barbosa
et al
. 2013
). Despite the external similarities of these species (gibbosity on pronotum), the male genitalia of most of them is completely different, so, according to the current definition, species with different shape of genitalia should not be included in the group.
M. peruviana
was described based on a female and a redescription was never carried out; so, according to our proposed organization of the groups, it cannot be placed in any of them.
M. saltensis
has a unique aedeagal morphology and should be considered as belonging to its own group, also taking into account its tibia unusual shape, which is unique in the genus.
M. bispo
has an unusual shape of male aedeagus as well and should have its own group.
M. germaini
does not have description and illustration of the male genitalia, so, according to our organization, it should not be included until its proper publication.