Spalacopsis macilenta Lacordaire, 1876

Santos-Silva, Antonio, Bezark, Larry G. & Botero, Juan Pablo, 2025, The Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) from the James Cope collection: New species, synonymy, and taxonomical and geographical notes, Zootaxa 5723 (3), pp. 384-400 : 388-390

Spalacopsis macilenta Lacordaire, 1876 , revalidated

( Figs 8 , 10–13 )

Spalacopsis macilenta Lacordaire, 1876 : pl. 105, fig. 5.

Spalacopsis phantasma Bates, 1885: 371 . Syn. nov.

Remarks. Lacordaire (1876) illustrated S. macilenta ( Fig. 8 ) attributing the species to Ernest Charles Auguste Candéze and recorded it from Guatemala. We were unable to find any work by Candèze in which he described this species. Therefore, we agree with previous authors who attribute the authorship to Lacordaire ( e.g. Aurivillius 1923). According to Bousquet (2016): “ Atlas . 47 + 1 (Errata) pp. + 134 pls. [DP: n.d. (title page)]. The plates were issued by livraisons but no publication dates were found for them during this study. Scientific names are provided for the illustrations on each plate.” Aurivillius (1923), Blackwelder (1946), and Breuning (1961) listed the species as published in 1872. The date 1876 is adopted here in accordance with Monné (2024b) and Tavakilian & Chevillotte (2025).

Breuning (1962) synonymized S. macilenta with S. filum , but did not indicate whether he examined the holotype. According to Alain Drumont (pers. comm.), there is only one specimen of Spalacopsis in the Candèze collection (ISNB) ( Figs 10–13 ), identified as S. protensa (Pascoe, 1871) . We consider impossible that S. macilenta is a synonym of S. filum filum ( Fig. 7 — holotype of S. stellio , junior synonym) because the elytra are widened about middle and the apex is distinctly acuminate. According to Tyson (1970), his S. howdeni ( Fig. 9 ) “differs from all examined forms of Spalacopsis in the shape and size of the scutellum;” and that it differs from S. phantasma Bates, 1885 “by the less dense fimbriations of the antennal segments and the presence of dark integumental markings.” Spalacopsis phantasma has the central area of the elytra more distinctly widened. In the available photographs of the holotype of S. phantasma (see Bezark 2025) the dark integumental areas on the elytra appear to be present. Additionally, we observed that the number of erect setae on the antennae is highly variable in S. filum , suggesting that similar variation likely occurs in other species of the genus. Tyson (1973) did not include in his key S. howdeni , S. fusca Gahan, 1892 , S. protensa (Pascoe, 1871) , S. similis Gahan, 1892 , and S. variegata Bates, 1880 , species described from central to southern Mexico, and S. lobata Breuning, 1942 , a species known from Mexico without detailed locality, merely noting that he examined photographs of them. This is because, of the Mexican species, he only dealt with the species that occurred in the north of that country.

By comparing the photograph (see photographs on Bezark 2025) and the original description of the holotype of S. phantasma —a species described from Guatemala, as is S. macilenta —with the drawing from Lacordaire (1876) ( Fig. 8 ) and the photographs of the specimen we believe to be the holotype of S. macilenta , we conclude that the S. phantasma is a junior synonym of S. macilenta .

Figures

FIGURES 7–9. Spalacopsis spp. 7) S. stellio Newman, 1842, dorsal habitus, by Jesus Santiago Moure. 8) S. macilenta, from Lacordaire (1876). 9) S. howdeni Tyson, 1970, from Tyson (1970).

FIGURES 10–13. Spalacopsis macilenta Lacordaire, 1876, holotype: 10) Dorsal habitus; 11) Lateral habitus; 12) Head, frontal view; 13) Labels.