<p> <strong> A revision of <em> Metaleptobasis </ em> Calvert (Odonata: Coenagrionidae) with seven synonymies and the description of eighteen new species from South America </ strong> </ p>
Author
Ellenrieder, Natalia Von
text
Zootaxa
2013
2013-11-25
3738
1
1
155
http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3738.1.1
journal article
10.11646/zootaxa.3738.1.1
1175-5326
5270552
77D1A6F6-C320-442B-AF31-83324E5EAF3B
Metaleptobasis diceras
(
Selys, 1877
)
Figs. 1f
;
3f
;
4f
;
5f
;
6a
;
8f
;
9f
;
10f
;
11f
;
12f
;
13b
;
14d
Leptobasis diceras
Selys, 1877: 102–103
[8–9 reprint] (description
♂
♀
;
♂
missing S7–10).
Metaleptobasis diceras
Calvert (1907: 386
; inclusion in genus);—
Calvert (1909: 197–198
, Pl. VI, figs. 106–107; perhaps in part, illustrations of mesanepisternal horns of a possible
♂
torso from
Brazil
,
Bahia
, with distal abdominal segments of a
Telagrion longum
glued to it);—
Sjöstedt (1918: 21
; comparison with
M. amazonica
);—
Cumming (1954: 29–31
; inclusion in key to males, proposed grouping);—
Heckman (2008: 396–397
, fig. 3.1.456; in key, in part, illustration of
♂
mesanepisternal horns and genital ligula; illustrations from
Calvert 1909
correspond to
Telagrion longum
);—
Garrison & von Ellenrieder (2009: 48
; mention);—
Garrison
et al.
(2010: 284
, figs. 1828, 1832; mention, illustrations of
♀
posterior lobe of pronotum and mesanepisternal horns).
Metaleptobasis manicaria
Williamson, 1915: 603–608
; Pl. 38 figs. 13–18; Pl. 39 figs. 1–2 (description
♂
, illustrations mesanepisternal horns, S10, and wings);—
Ris (1918: 130
; comparison with
M. foreli
);—
Geijskes (1932: 260–261
; description
♀
, illustrations posterior lobe of pronotum and mesanepisternal horns);—
Cumming (1954: 29–31
; inclusion in key to males, proposed grouping);—
Rácenis (1955: 18
, fig. 2a; in key, illustrations posterior lobe of pronotum and mesanepisternal horns of
♀
);—
Michalski (1988: 46
; mention from
Trinidad
, inclusion in key);—De Marmels (1990: 327; mention);—
De Marmels (1992b: 64
, fig. 46; mention, illustration of
♀
posterior lobe of pronotum);—
Daigle (2004: 197
; comparison with
M. lillianae
);—
Lencioni (2006: 165
, figs. 103 A–H; mention, wing scan of
♂
, reproduction of drawings of
♂
S10, posterior lobe of pronotum and mesanepisternal horns of
♂
♀
);—
Heckman (2008: 402–403
, fig. 3.1.465; in key, illustrations from
Williamson 1915
of
♂
wings, mesanepisternal horns, and S10)—
Garrison & von Ellenrieder (2009: 49
; mention);—
Garrison
et al.
(2010: 284
, figs. 1824,1825, 1829, 1834, 1835, 1837, 1839; mention, illustrations of
♂
head, posterior lobe of pronotum, pterothorax, wings, genital ligula, and S10);—
Tennessen (2012: 95
; mention).
New synonymy.
Metaleptobasis fernandezi
Rácenis, 1955: 18
, fig. 2b (description
♀
, key, illustrations posterior lobe of pronotum and mesanepisternal horns);—De Marmels (1990: 327; mention);—
Heckman (2008: 399
; in key, in part; fig. 3.1.460 on page 398 from
De Marmels 1992b
corresponds to
M. bicornis
).
New synonymy.
Telagrion diceras
—
Lencioni (2006: 198
, figs. 132 A–D; in part, illustration of
syntype
♂
mesanepisternal horns and genital ligula).
Types.
Lectotype
♂
* designated here:
BRAZIL
,
Pará
{
1°27'S
,
48°29'W
},
Bates
leg., [
IRSNB
];
1 ♀
paralectotype
*: same data [
IRSNB
].
Specimens examined.
Total:
66 ♂
,
15 ♀
:
1
♂
lectotype
,
1
♀
(he)
paralectotype
;
TRINIDAD
,
St. Andrew County
:
17 ♂
,
2 ♀
(he), forest cut and forest
2 mi
SE of Valencia on Eastern Main
road (
10°37'26''N
,
61°10'55''W
,
42 m
),
7 iv 1980
, J.A. & RWG leg. [
RWG
];
2 ♂
, same but [NE];
2 ♂
, same but [
USNM
];
1 ♂
, same but [
FSCA
];
1 ♂
,
7 mi
E
Valencia
(
10°39'36''N
,
61°7'48''W
)
,
7 iv 1965
, TWD [
TWD
];
1 ♂
, same but [
DRP
];
1 ♂
,
Manzanilla Ward
,
Tributary Oropuche River
,
7 mi
E Valencia
{
10°38'N
,
61°6'W
,
20 m
},
15 iv 1965
, TWD leg. [
FSCA
];
2 ♂
, same but
16 iv 1965
, [
RHMN
];
1 ♂
, same but [
RWG
];
8 ♂
paratypes
of
M. manicaria
, Cumuto
{
10°35'N
,
61°12'W
,
57 m
},
8 iii 1912
,
E.B. Williamson
,
L.A. Williamson
&
B.J. Rainey
leg. [
UMMZ
];
18 ♂
paratypes
of
M. manicaria
, same but
10 iii 1912
[
UMMZ
];
2 ♂
paratypes
of
M. manicaria
, same but [
USNM
];
4 ♂
paratypes
of
M. manicaria
, same but [
FSCA
];
1 ♀
(he), swamp just
N of Sangre Grande
, on
Eastern Main
road (
10°34'N
,
61°8'W
,
44 m
)
,
13 i 1981
, RWG leg. [
RWG
];
VENEZUELA
:
1 ♀
(he), no locality
,
xii 1941
,
P.J. Anduze
leg. [
FSCA
];
Delta Amacuro State
:
1 ♀
(he)
holotype
of
M. fernandezi
, Jotacuay
, shaded forest along swamps and small streams
,
18 xii 1952
,
F. Fernández
Y. &
J. Rácenis
[
MIZA
];
GUYANA
,
Barima-Waimi Region
,
1 ♀
(an),
Mabaruma
{
8°12'N
,
59°47'W
,
13 m
},
27 xii 1945
[
BMNH
];
Potaro-Siparuni Region
,
1 ♀
(an),
Kamana
{
4°50'N
,
59°56'W
,
1002 m
},
6 i 1946
[
BMNH
];
SURINAM
,
Sipaliwini
Dis.
:
1 ♂
,
Sipaliwini
, large savannah,
Mauritia
swamp {
2°6'N
,
56°2'W
},
11 vi 1972
,
D.C. Geijskes
leg. [
RMNH
];
2 ♂
, same but
,
30 vi 1972
[
RMNH
];
1 ♀
(he), same but
15 vi 1972
[
RMNH
];
1 ♂
, same but small pool in forest
,
11 iii 1961
,
D.C. Geijskes
[
RMNH
];
BRAZIL
,
Pará State
:
1 ♀
(he),
Floresta Nacional de Carajás
,
Parauapebas
,
Buritizal I
(
6°5'13''S
,
50°8'50''W
,
682 m
)
,
7 ix 2006
,
N. Ferreira
,
Jr. & L.L. Dumas
leg. [
DZRJ
];
2 ♂
, same but
23 ix 2007
,
N. Ferreira
,
Jr. & V. Alecrim
leg. [
DZRJ
];
1 ♀
(he), same but (
6°4'57''S
,
50°8'5''W
,
682 m
)
,
25 iii 2006
,
N. Ferreira
,
Jr.
leg. [
DZRJ
];
Maranhão State
:
1 ♂
,
Carolina
,
Serra Grande
(
7°42'8''S
,
47°24'12''W
),
malaise trap
,
13 xii 2001
,
F.L. Oliveira
&
J. Vidal
leg. [
INPA
];
Rondônia State
:
1 ♂
,
Porto Velho, T
5 aleatorio (
8°46'S
,
63°54'W
,
86 m
)
,
13 v 2010
,
Nogueira
&
Mendes
leg. [
MZUSP
];
1 ♂
,
1 ♀
(he),
Abuná
{
9°42'S
,
65°23'W
,
112 m
},
25 iii 1922
,
J.H. Williamson
&
J.W. Strohm
leg. [
USNM
];
1 ♂
,
1 ♀
(he), same but [
FSCA
];
1 ♀
(he), same but
10 iii 1922
[
UMMZ
];
Bahia State
:
1 ♀
(he),
Bahia
{
12°59'S
,
38°31'W
},
M. Berol
leg. [
RMNH
];
Mato Grosso State
:
1 ♂
,
Barra do Tapirape
{
14°51'S
,
57°45'W
,
187 m
},
xii 1965
,
B. Malkin
leg. [
RMNH
];
PERU
,
Madre De Dios
Dep.
:
1 ♂
,
Manu
,
Parque Nacional Manu
,
Pakitza
,
Radial II
, saw grass bog {
11°55'S
,
71°15'W
,
250 m
),
17 ix 1989
,
J. Gelhaus
[
USNM
];
1 ♀
(he),
Explorer's Inn on Río Tambopata
,
39 km
SW Puerto Maldonado
, main trail (
12°50'18''S
,
69°17'59''W
,
300 m
)
,
21 vii 2002
, DRP &
N. Smith
leg. [
DRP
];
3 ♂
,
Pakitza
,
Reserved Zone
,
Parque Nacional Manu, T
2 to R2 to T1 to base camp (
11°55'48''S
,
71°15'18''W
,
250 m
)
,
17 ix 1989
,
J.A. Louton
leg. [
USNM
]
.
Lectotype
designation for
Metaleptobasis diceras
.
To establish the correct application of the name I examined the male and female
syntypes
from IRSNB, and in order to preserve stability of nomenclature and ensure a consistent application of the name, I hereby designate the male
syntype
illustrated here (
Figs. 1f
i
;
3f
i
;
4f
i
;
5f
i
;
6a
i
;
8f
i
) as
lectotype
of
Metaleptobasis diceras
to act as the unique name-bearing type of this taxon. Original type labels accompanying
lectotype
are as follows (handwriting in italics): [
Pará
] [
Bates
]. Thorax is pinned, head and S4-6 are glued to a card, and S1–3 placed inside a small vial. Additional labels accompanying the specimens include: [
Syntype
/
Leptobasis diceras Selys
/1877
♂
] [Desseiné par /Santos
2–x–1964
] [
Lectotype
/designated 10/2012 /by N. von Ellenrieder].
Characterization.
Head
. Labrum mostly pale; extension of black on dorsum of head limited; postocular lobes slightly angled (
Fig. 1f
); eyes in life green dorsally and brown ventrally (
Fig. 13b
).
Thorax
. Pronotum anterior lobe (
Figs. 4f
;
5f
) smooth; anterior area of propleuron with a sub-vertical crest (l.c.), prominent and denticulated (in all examined specimens from
Trinidad
,
Venezuela
,
Guyana
,
Surinam
,
lectotype
and
paralectotype
from
Pará
,
Brazil
, and some specimens from
Peru
) to low and smooth with denticulation restricted to ventral portion of crest to absent (in remaining specimens from
Brazil
and
Peru
); propleuron with a sub-vertical crest parallel and posterior to the denticulated crest (l.c.); anterior and middle lobes of pronotum separated dorso-laterally by a groove (g.); anterior margin of middle lobe of pronotum smooth; pronotum posterior lobe in males and andromorphic females trilobed, with median lobe with a short conical dorsal prominence, and in heteromorphic females bilobed or trilobed with median lobe directed dorsally with margin sinuous antero-dorsally, lateral lobes shorter than medial lobe; mesanepisternal horns with bases adjacent (
Fig. 4f
); in males and andromorphic females (
Figs. 4f
i
–
iii; ix
; 5f
i–v; x
) horns as long as about 1.5 times mesostigmal plate width, of medium thickness, slightly compressed antero-posteriorly, directed antero-dorsally at an angle of about 45° with dorsum, with tips rounded, in heteromorphic females (
Figs. 4f
iv–viii
; 5f
vi–ix
) horns limited to transverse bases with antero-lateral free portion short or absent; mid-dorsal dark stripe as wide as about 0.25 of mesanepisterna, with sides about straight, slightly widening posteriorly (
Fig. 3f
); Pt sub-rectangular, with anterior and posterior sides longer than distal side (
Fig. 6a
).
Abdomen
. Male genital lobe short, less than 0.50 of anterior hamule height, smoothly curved (
Fig. 8f
); male posterior hamule digit-like and small, with at most only tip surpassing ventral margin of genital fossa in lateral view; curvature of basal segment of genital ligula marked by a slight concave depression; genital ligula distal segment pear-shaped, distinctly widened sub-apically, apex with a shallow u- or v-shaped incision, with a narrow ectal fold (e.f.,
Fig. 8f
); posterior margin of female S8 sternum smooth, lacking any denticles, spines, or processes, distal end of ovipositor reaching apex of cercus to slightly longer than cercus (
Fig. 9f
); medial portion of male S10 posterodorsal margin (
Figs. 10f
;
11f
;
12f
) projected posteriorly, with a longitudinal slit, and dorsal prominence curved surrounding slit, with margins thickened and apressed; male cercus cylindrical at base, then depressed dorsoventrally, in dorsal view (
Fig. 10f
) curved medially gradually forming an arch of about uniform width, slightly widened sub-apically and then constricted proximally to apex; cercus tip rounded in dorsal view (
Fig. 10f
), with a small point directed ventrally on medial end (
Figs. 11f
;
12f
); ratio of male cercus length to S10 maximum length in lateral view 1.3–1.5; ratio of male cercus length to paraproct length in lateral view 0.60–0.70; male paraproct in lateral view (
Fig. 12f
) with sides about parallel along medial third and slightly widened at sub-quadrate tip; tip with a transverse subapical ridge on medial surface ending on a ventral bicuspidate apical tooth directed medially (
Figs. 10f
;
11f
).
Dimensions.
Males (
n
10): Hw 20.9 ± 0.5 [19.8–21.4]; abdomen 36.2 ± 0.8 [35–37.8]; total length 43.7 ± 1 [41.9–45.1]. Females (
n
10): Hw 22.2 ± 0.7 [21.2–23.5]; abdomen 35.9 ± 0.6 [35–36.8]; total length 43.5 ± 0.5 [42.9–44.2].
Diagnosis.
Metaleptobasis diceras
shares head dorsum with black pattern limited to isolated stripes, base of mesanepisternal horns adjacent, and presence of two sub-vertical crests on anterior portion of propleuron with
M. lillianae
,
M. longicauda
,
M. silvicola
, and
M. truncata
.
In
M. diceras
and
M. lillianae
the anterior crest originates as a continuation of a longitudinal latero-ventral crest on propleuron extending dorsally, separated from anterior margin of anterior lobe of pronotum, while in
M. longicauda
,
M. silvicola
, and
M. truncata
it originates as a ventral extension of anterior margin of anterior lobe of pronotum.
Metaleptobasis diceras
differs from all of them by genital ligula distal segment pear-shaped in ventral view (
Fig. 8f
; vs. subrectangular,
Figs. 8p–q
, aa, ad), and further from
M. lillianae
by distal free portion of horns directed anterodorsally or reduced (
Figs. 4f
;
5f
; directed laterally in
M. lillianae
,
Figs. 4p
;
5p
), pterothoracic mid-dorsal stripe about as wide as 0.25 of mesepisterna (
Fig. 3f
; vs. about as wide as
0.33 in
M. lillianae
,
Fig. 3p
), and by male cercus in dorsal view curved medially and slightly widened sub-apically (
Fig. 10f
; about straight and narrowing to tip in
M. lillianae
,
Fig. 10p
). It can be further distinguished from
M. longicauda
,
M. silvicola
, and
M. truncata
by anterior and middle lobes of pronotum separated dorso-laterally by a groove (g.,
Fig. 5f
), vs. separated by a narrow fissure (f.,
Figs. 5q
, aa, ad); from
M. longicauda
and
M. truncata
by its rectangular Pt, with anterior and posterior sides clearly longer than distal side (
Fig. 6a
), and by its male cercus tip depressed dorso-ventrally (
Fig. 12f
; in
M. longicauda
and
M. truncata
Pt
is trapezoidal, with anterior side shorter than distal side, and male cercus tip is sub-cylindrical,
Figs. 6b, c
;
12q
, ad), and from
M. silvicola
by mesanepisternal horns of males and andromorphic females about as long as 1.5 times the width of a mesostigmal plate (
Fig. 5f
; vs. about twice as long the width of mesostigmal plate,
Fig. 5
aa), pterothoracic mid-dorsal stripe about as wide as 0.25 of mesepisterna (
Fig. 3f
; vs. about as wide as 0.16,
Fig. 3
aa), male cercus slightly widened sub-apically and constricted in dorsal view, and tip of male paraproct with ventral bicuspidate tooth pointed medially and with an inner transverse sub-apical ridge (
Figs. 10f
;
11f
; vs. male cercus of uniform width sub-apically in dorsal view, and tip of male paraproct with a single triangular medio-ventral tooth and with two sub-apical ridges,
Figs. 10
aa; 11aa).
Andromorphic females (about 15%), share with males the trilobed pronotal posterior lobe (
Fig. 4f
ix
) and mesanepisternal horns as long as about 1.5 times mesostigmal plate width, of medium thickness, slightly compressed antero-posteriorly, directed antero-dorsally at an angle of about 45° with dorsum, with tips rounded (
Fig. 5f
x
). Heteromorphic females (about 75%) differ from males in morphology of both pronotal posterior lobe (bilobed or trilobed with margin sinuous antero-dorsally and posterior margin of median lobe directed dorsally;
Figs. 4f
iv–viii
), and mesanepisternal horns (limited to their transverse bases with antero-lateral free portion short to absent; 5f
vi–ix
).
Remarks.
Calvert (1909: 197–198)
described the distal abdominal segments of a male, missing from Selys’s
syntype
male, from
Bahia
in
Brazil
as those of
M. diceras
. His illustrations of the mesanepisternal horns agree with those of a
Metaleptobasis
, but the description and illustrations of the male caudal appendages do not fit within those of any known species in the genus, and match those of
Telagrion longum
instead. The specimen is deposited at the Museum of Comparative Zoology and unfortunately was not available for loan as per Museum’s policy. During his visit to this institution, F. Palacino-Rodriguez kindly examined the specimen at my request and observed (Palacino-Rodriguez
in litt
.): ‘the abdomen is joined to the rest of the body by a thin piece of wood and the last four segments are different in coloration from the remainder of the abdomen, light brown whereas the remainder of the abdomen is red dorsally. It is evident that S8–10 have been glued to the rest because they are not aligned with the remainder of the abdomen and there are traces of glue.’ I believe that this exemplar represents a chimera, with the abdomen of a specimen of
Telagrion longum
mistakenly attached to the torso of a
Metaleptobasis
specimen. Calvert did not provide descriptive notes of the head and thorax of this specimen other than mentioning the width of the pterothoracic mid-dorsal dark stripe, and without direct examination I am unable to determine the identity of that portion of the chimera. However, if Calvert’s drawings of the horns are accurate, it does not correspond to
M. diceras
because it shows horn bases as separated (1909: Pl. VI, fig. 106), and in
M. diceras
horn bases are adjacent (
Fig. 4f
), and the torso of this specimen could possibly correspond to
M. selysi
instead.
Williamson (1915)
expressed doubts about the name association made by
Calvert (1909)
for the specimen from Bahia as
M. diceras
. However, based on some minor differences of the color of the head and the proportions of the quadrangle between a series of males he collected in
Trinidad
with Selys’s description of
Leptobasis diceras
, he considered his species to be different and described it as a new species,
M. manicaria
. After examining large series of specimens I established that the color of the paler areas of the head of
M. diceras
can be variable depending on age and preservation, ranging from pale brown to blue or dark brown, and that the proportions of the male quadrangle of the male
syntype
of
M. diceras
noted by Selys were in error and actually match the measurements of Williamson (ratio of anterior side of quadrangle to posterior side in the
lectotype
is
0.42 in
FW and
0.66 in
HW). My examination and comparison of the male types of
M. diceras
and
M. manicaria
allows me to conclude that they are conspecific, sharing all diagnostic characters of head, thorax, and genital ligula, and therefore I consider
M. manicaria
to be a junior subjective synonym of
M. diceras
.
Rácenis (1955)
described the female of
M. manicaria
based on specimens from Jotacuaro,
Delta Amacuro
,
Venezuela
, which he identified by comparing associated males with
paratypes
of
M. manicaria
. Even though in his key for females he states that the mesanepisternal horns are ‘separated at base’, in the description he mentions that they are as in the male and his illustration also seems to indicate that their bases are adjacent. In the same publication he described
M. fernandezi
, based on a single female collected together with the
M. manicaria
series. I believe that
Rácenis (1955)
described the andromorphic female of
M. diceras
as the female of
M. manicaria
, and the heteromorphic female of the same species, already described by
Geijskes (1932)
as
M. manicaria
, as
M. fernandezi
. Comparison of the
paralectotype
female of
M. diceras
, also a dimorphic female, with the
holotype
of
M. fernandezi
, confirms that they correspond to the same species, and I consider
M. fernandezi
a junior subjective synonym of
M. diceras
.
Based on
Calvert’s (1909)
description of a chimera including the abdomen of a male
Telagrion longum
as representing a complete male of
M. diceras
,
Lencioni (2006)
transferred
Leptobasis diceras
to
Telagrion
. Selys’s (1877)
Leptobasis diceras
, described based on an incomplete male and a complete female from ‘Para’,
Brazil
, is with no doubts a
Metaleptobasis
, since both
lectotype
male and
paralectotype
female show the diagnostic characters of this genus, including an angulate frons (rounded in
Telagrion
), no pale postocular spots (present in
Telagrion
), pterothorax pale orange with dark color limited to a mid-dorsal dark stripe with metallic reflections (olive green-blue lacking metallic reflections in
Telagrion
), vein descending from quadrangle forming an unbroken line to wing margin (broken in
Telagrion
), Fw CuA extending for ten or more cells (for less than nine in
Telagrion
), and male genital ligula lacking a well developed inner fold (with a well developed inner fold in
Telagrion
). Examination of further specimens from Pará State in
Brazil
and elsewhere allowed me to associate numerous complete males matching all diagnostic characters of the incomplete
lectotype
male, leaving no doubts about the male appendages illustrated by
Calvert (1909)
as those of
M. diceras
representing a misidentification.
Habitat.
Forest near rivers, small streams, swamps, small pools, and bogs.
Distribution.
Trinidad
and
Venezuela
south to N
Brazil
and E
Peru
(
Fig. 14d
).