Montina lobata Stål, 1859

Mejía-Soto, Andrés, Forero, Dimitri & Wolff, Marta, 2022, Taxonomic revision of Montina (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Reduviidae) from Colombia with description of three new species, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 62 (2), pp. 325-381 : 348-350

Montina lobata Stål, 1859

( Figs 15 ; 16 ; 25B ; 27B ; 29B ; 34 ; 41 )

Montina lobata Stål, 1859: 197 (new species).

Montina lobata: WALKER (1873) : 91 (checklist); LETHIERRY & SEVERIN (1896): 195 (catalog); GIL- SANTANA (2019): 516 (new record).

Montina (Montina) lobata: STÂL (1872) : 73 (checklist, subgeneric placement).

Montina lobata: LETHIERRY & SEVERIN (1896) : 195 (catalog); MALDONADO (1990): 234 (catalog).

Type locality. Brazil, Bahia.

Type material. LECTOTYPE (here designated):[ BRAZIL – BAHIA?]: 1♂, (green label) “Bahia Gomez” / (red label) paratypus / “2560” / “* Montina lobata Ô Stål Paratypus” / (QR code) http://coll.mfn-berlin.de/u/e0b9ee / Lectotype Montina lobata Stål, 1859 Desig. by A. Mejía-Soto & D. Forero ( ZMHB). PARALECTOTYPES: [ BRAZIL – BAHIA?]: 1 ♀, 2560 / (green label) “ Bah. Tello Gomez ” / (green label) “Lobatus” / “ lobata Stål ” / (red label) Typus / (QR code) http://coll.mfn-berlin.de/u/e0b9cb ( ZMHB) ; 1 ♂, (green label) “ Bahia Gomez ” / (red label) Paratypus / “ 2560 ” / “* Montina lobata Ô Stål Paratypus” / (QR code) http://coll. mfn-berlin.de/u/e0ba15 ( ZMHB); 1 ♀, (green label) “ Bahia Gomez ” / (red label) Paratypus / “ 2560 ” / “* Montina lobata ♀ Stål Paratypus” / (QR code) http://coll.mfn-berlin.de/u/e0bb9f ( ZMHB) ; 1 ♀, (green label) “ Bahia Gomez ” / (red label) Paratypus / “ 2560 ” / “* Montina lobata ♀ Stål Paratypus” / (QR code) http://coll.mfn-berlin.de/u/e0bb16 ( ZMHB). [ BRAZIL]: 1 ♀, Brazil / “ lobata Stål ” / (red label) Typus / (red label) 384 “82” / NHRS-GULI 000000609 ( NHRS).

Other specimens examined. COLOMBIA: BOYACǠ: 1 ♀, Ventaquemada; 2630 m; 17 Sep 1994; Vargas leg.; UNAB No. 4859 ( UNAB); 1 ♀, Santa María, sendero; 1200 m; Abr 1997; G. Amat leg. ( ICN); 1 ♂, Santa María, La Cristalina, ~1.8 Km SWbS de Santa María; 04.8480°N, 73.2718°W; 850 m; 18 Sep 2015; J. Cruz, M. Piña, C. Pérez leg.; [colecta] manual, borde de bosque, sobre vegetación; MPUJ _ENT0040910 ( MPUJ); 1 ♀, Santa María, sector La Almenara, ~1.7 Km NNE de Santa María; 04.8748°N, 73.2550°W; 1123 m; 13–17 Mar 2016; P. Erazo, C. Lesmes, L. López leg.; [colecta] manual, borde de bosque, sobre vegetación; MPUJ _ENT0050058 ( MPUJ). CUNDINAMARCA: 1 ♂, Guayabetal; 4°13′40″N, 73°48′59″W; 1200 m; 4 Sep 1969; J. Sarmiento leg.; UNAB No. 4859 ( UNAB). RISARALDA: 1♂, Pueblo Rico, corregimiento de Santa Cecilia, área Amurrupá, ~1.1 Km WSW de Santa Cecilia; 05.3378°N, 76.1553°W; 402 m; 19–23 Feb 2018; V. Casallas, S. Mayorga leg.; [colecta] manual; MPUJ _ENT0059620 ( MPUJ). UNKNOWN DEඉARTMENT: 1 ♀, no data; cerca de cultivos de cacao; UNAB No. 4859 ( UNAB).

Diagnosis. Total length, females 28.0– 28.2 mm (n = 2), male 19.8 mm (n = 1). General coloration dark brown and black with pale yellow areas ( Figs 15B, D ); head, legs, scutellum, and abdomen black, pronotum yellow to dark yellow; corium reddish brown to dark brown, membrane dark ( Figs 15B, D ); tubercle of the anterior pronotal lobe subconic, obtuse apically, slightly curved anteriad; elevation of the carina of the posterior pronotal lobe very prominent, with posterior margin slightly rounded ( Fig. 15E ); margin of posterior half of each connexival segment with a yellow oblique band on segments 2–6, on segments 4–6 the band can extend slightly to anterior margin of following segment ( Figs 15A, C ), margin deeply lobed on segments 3–5, with a subangular process on posterior half of each segment, giving the appearance of a notch ( Figs 15A, C ).

Differential diagnosis. Montina lobata is similar to M. ruficornis due to the coloration of the connexival segments, in which each segment has a posterior pale band contrasting with the dark segment. The two species can be separated by the larger size of M. lobata (females 28.0 mm, males 19.8 mm), the yellow pronotum contrasting with the dark body ( Figs 15B, D ), the deeply lobed connexival segments ( Figs 15A, C ), and the carinae on the posterior pronotal lobe markedly prominent ( Fig. 15E ). In M. ruficornis the total size is smaller (females 20 mm, males 15 mm), the pronotum is brown, similar to the rest of the body ( Figs 17B, D ), the connexival segments are not as lobed as in M. lobata ( Figs 17A, C ), and the posterior pronotal lobe has low carinas ( Figs 17E–F ).

Because of the general dark coloration, M. lobata might be confused with M. sinuosa ( Fig. 38 ). Nevertheless, M. sinuosa has not been found in Colombia, and the two can be differentiated by the coloration of the pronotum, which is dark in M. sinuosa and yellow in M. lobata .

The aedeagus of the male genitalia ( Figs 18D–F ) does not show any particular characteristic except that the distal lateral lobes (dll) of the endosoma are poorly sclerotized in contrast to other species ( Figs 14D ; 12D ). Female genitalia ( Fig. 25B ) show the curvature, not too deep, in the distal portion of the anterolateral area of gonocoxa 8.

Distribution. Brazil ( LETHIERRY & SEVERIN 1896, STÂL 1859), Ecuador (GIL- SANTANA 2019), and Colombia (Boyacá, Cundinamarca, Risaralda), with records between 400–2600 m ( Fig. 41 ).

Remark on types. STÂL (1859) described M. lobata based on an unknown number of male and female specimens deposited at “Mus. Berol.” (ZMHB). At ZMHB five specimens fitting the description and data from STÂL’ s (1859) description were found. In addition, a female from NHRS bears an identification label in handwriting that seems to be from Stål, and thus, we are considering it as a syntype. All ZMHB specimens bear labels indicating they are from “Bahia”. These labels seem to have been affixed only for curatorial purposes since they bear “typus” or “ paratypus ” labels although in the literature there has never been a formal lectotype designation. From this batch of specimens, we have selected a male as the lectotype because besides the structural characters on the pronotum matching those indicated above for this species, it has the characteristic pale posterior band on each connexival segment. The paralectotypes apparently do not exhibit the pale coloration on the posterior margin of the connexival segments. We are interpreting this as intraspecific variation for M. lobata . Given that specimens of M. lobata in Colombia exhibit low intraspecific variation with respect to the color pattern on the connexivum, even when comparing high and lowland specimens, we propose that the color difference between the Colombian specimens and the paralectotype series is due to an east-west clinal variation on the connexival coloration, being a pale band on the connexivum wider on specimens from Colombia, and very narrow to almost non-existent in specimens from Brazil. Further assessment of color variation with Brazilian specimens should be explored in the future.

Figures

Fig. 15. Montina lobata Stål, 1859. A – male, lateral view. B – male, dorsal view. C – female, lateral view. D – female, dorsal view. E – pronotum, male, lateral left view. Scale bar: 1 mm. Scale bar: 1 mm.

Fig. 16. Montina lobataStål, 1859, male genitalia.A – pygophore, dorsal view. B – pygophore, lateral right view.C – pygophore, caudal view. D – phallus, ventral view. E – phallus, lateral right view. F – phallus, dorsal view. Scale bar: 1 mm.

Fig. 25. Montina spp., external female genitalia, ventral view.A – M. gladiator Mejía-Soto & Forero sp. nov.; B – M. lobata Stål, 1859; C – M. ruficornis (Fabricius, 1803); D – M. scutellaris Stål, 1859; E – M. testacea (Stål, 1859); F – M. tikuna Mejía-Soto & Forero sp. nov. Scale bar: 1 mm.

Fig. 27.Montina spp., bursa copulatrix, dorsal view.A – M. gladiator Mejía-Soto & Forero sp. nov.; B – M. lobata Stål, 1859; C – M. ruficornis (Fabricius, 1803); D – M. scutellaris Stål, 1859; E – M. testacea (Stål, 1859); F – M. tikuna Mejía-Soto & Forero sp. nov. Scale bar: 1 mm.

Fig. 29. Montina spp., detail of the anterior portion of the bursa copulatrix, dorsal view. A – M. gladiator Mejía-Soto & Forero sp. nov.; B – M. lobata Stål, 1859; C – M. ruficornis (Fabricius, 1803); D – M. scutellaris Stål, 1859; E – M. testacea (Stål, 1859); F – M. tikuna Mejía-Soto & Forero sp. nov. Scale bar: 1 mm.

Fig. 34. Male lectotype of Montina lobata Stål, 1859, deposited at ZMHB. A – lateral view; B – dorsal view; C – labels. Scale bar: 10 mm.

Fig. 41. Distribution map of Montina fumosa (Stål, 1867), M. gladiator Mejía-Soto & Forero sp. nov., and M. lobata Stål, 1859 in Colombia.

Fig. 17. Montina ruficornis (Fabricius, 1803). A – male, lateral view. B – male, dorsal view. C – female, lateral view. D – female, dorsal view. E – pronotum, female, lateral left view. F – pronotum, male, lateral left view. Scale bar: 1 mm.

Fig. 38. Reduvius sinuosus Lepeletier & Serville, 1825 [now Montina sinuosa (Lepeletier & Serville, 1825)], deposited at NHMW. A – male lectotype, dorsal view; B – male lectotype, lateral view; C – male lectotype, labels; D – male paralectotype, dorsal view; E – male paralectotype, lateral view of thorax. Images taken without scale.

Fig. 18. Montina ruficornis (Fabricius, 1803), male genitalia.A – pygophore, dorsal view. B – pygophore, lateral right view. C – pygophore, caudal view. D – phallus, ventral view. E – phallus, lateral right view. F – phallus, dorsal view. Scale bar: 1 mm.

Fig. 14. Montina gladiator Mejía-Soto & Forero sp. nov., male genitalia, holotype. A – pygophore, dorsal view; B – pygophore, lateral right view; C – pygophore, caudal view; D – phallus, ventral view; E – phallus, lateral right view; F – phallus, dorsal view. Scale bar: 1 mm.

Fig. 12. Montina fumosa (Stål, 1867), male genitalia.A – pygophore, dorsal view; B – pygophore, lateral right view; C – pygophore, caudal view; D – phallus, ventral view; E – phallus, lateral right view; F – phallus, dorsal view. Scale bar: 1 mm.