Pothea lugens ( Fabricius, 1803 )

Gil-Santana, Hélcio R., 2020, A new species of Pothea, with new records and taxonomic notes on other species of the genus (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Reduviidae), Zootaxa 4778 (3), pp. 439-470 : 463-467

Pothea lugens ( Fabricius, 1803)

( Figs. 73–75 , 78–83 )

Reduvius lugens Fabricius (1803: 269) (description), Zimsen (1964: 335) (catalog of type material of I.C. Fabricius, entry 1012).

Pothea lugens: Stål (1859: 184) (checklist), Stål (1868: 119) (redescription, varieties), Stål (1872: 104) (checklist, diagnosis), Walker (1873: 63) (catalog), Lethierry & Severin (1896: 131) (catalog), Champion (1899: 221, footer, 222, Tab. XIII, fig. 14) (key, as a senior synonym of P. centralis , geographical distribution, comments on coloration, drawing of a female in dorsal view), Distant (1902: 294) (list of synonyms, stated as senior synonym of P. centralis ), Haviland (1931: 145) (citation), Wygodzinsky (1949: 23) (catalog), Carpintero (1978: 204) (checklist), ( Maldonado (1990: 66–67) (catalog), Dougherty (1995: 212) (citation, geographical distribution).

Distribution. Guatemala, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Trinidad, Guyana, Surinam, French Guiana (New record), Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil.

Discussion. Zimsen (1964) recorded two type specimens of Reduvius lugens as being deposited in the ZMUC; photos of the two specimens, a male (catalogue number ZMUC 00102619) ( Figs. 73–74 ) and a female (ZMUC 00102620) ( Figs. 76–77 ), were examined in course of the present study by courtesy of Dr Henrik Enghoff (ZMUC). The male has an attached old label in which the first line reads “ R. lugens ” ( Fig. 75 ), whereas the female does not have any label attached to it. The male ( Figs. 73–74 ) agrees well the descriptions and diagnosis of P. lugens ( Fabricius 1803, Stål 1868, 1872, Champion 1899) and is also entirely in accordance to the characteristics assigned to the genus Pothea (e.g. Amyot & Serville 1843, Stål 1868, 1872, Champion 1899, Carpintero 1978, Dougherty 1995, Carpintero & Maldonado 1996, Forero 2004, Gil-Santana et al. 2015). Nevertheless, the female ( Figs. 76–77 ), although superficially similar in general coloration with the male, pertains to an unrelated genus and species, as it is evident from its strikingly different head, prothorax, legs and short labium. Accordingly, the male is considered as a syntype and hereby designated as the lectotype of Reduvius lugens Fabricius, 1803 . The female is regarded as potential syntype not conspecific with the male syntype designated above as lectotype; there seems considerable chance that is not part of the original syntype series but was pinned together with the male subsequently.

The non-types males of P. lugens from French Guiana examined ( Fig. 78–80 ) are very similar to the male lectotype (here designated) ( Figs. 73–74 ). The female from French Guiana ( Figs. 81–83 ) is generally similar to the males. The comparison between the males and the female from French Guiana showed small differences in the length and maximum width of the abdomen and dimensions of the head, which were somewhat larger in the female ( Table 2). The antennae of the males showed to be covered with long setae, while in the females, the first and the base of the second segment are almost bare, and the remaining of this segment with numerous short setae and other segments with sparse somewhat longer setae besides the short pubescence formed by numerous short setae. These differences are due to sexual dimorphism, as it is the case in many Ectrichodiinae ( Dougherty 1995) . However, the intraspecific variability of this species is still imperfectly known and should be examined on a larger material of P. lugens .

Ectrichodia lugens , a combination proposed by Stål (1860), was subsequently recognized by himself ( Stål 1868) as being conspecific with Pothea aenescens Stål 1868 , and not to R. lugens Fabricius , thus representing a misidentification. Walker (1873: 59) also cited Ectrichodia lugens as valid; Maldonado (1990) listed Walker’s citation under the synonymic list of P. lugens . Both of these, however, are misidentifications as well, and only Walker’s citation of Pothea lugens ( Walker 1873: 63) was considered here as pertaining to this species.

Stål (1868) recognized three varieties to P. lugens (vars. a, b and c). While the first (var. a) seems to correspond well with the description and the coloration of the lectotype (here designated) ( Figs. 73–74 ), Stål (1868) recorded a diverse general coloration (“picea” to var. a and “nigra” to vars. b and c), and some differences in the coloration of the abdomen of the other varieties (b and c). Only future examination of larger series of specimens will allow to determinate if these differences are part of intraspecific variation or point to interspecific features.

Despite the large geographical distribution previously recorded to P. lugens , the reference from French Guiana is being given here for the first time.

Pothea centralis Walker, 1873 was downgraded to a junior synonym of P. lugens by Champion (1899) and subsequently again by Distant (1902), and cited as such by Wygodzinsky (1949) and Maldonado (1990); the latter author attributed the synonymy to Distant (1902), omitting the fact that it was already proposed by Champion (1899). A re-examination of the holotype of P. centralis , deposited in the BMNH ( Figs. 84–85 ) revealed that it differed from P. lugens in the coloration of the abdomen ( Fig. 84 ). In P. centralis the abdomen is “luteous, with a black stripe on each side above and beneath” ( Walker 1873), in P. lugens it has a reddish general coloration decorated with transverse blackish stripes on the sternites. This indicates that they potentially represent different species, and accordingly their synonymy proposed by Champion (1899) and Distant (1902) is disregarded here. However, because the taxonomical situation of P. centralis will be the subject of a further work (M. D. Webb, pers. comm.), a possible revalidation of this species is not proposed or discussed at this time.

Material examined. FRENCH GUIANA, Bélizon , vii.2001, leg. H. Gaspard (2 males, 1 female; MNRJ) .

Type material of Pothea centralis Walker, 1873 . Male holotype: Pothea . / centralis. / Walker’s Catal. // ♂ // Holo- / type [rounded label with red circle] // Archidona [opposite side of same rounded handwritten label]: 58 / 12 // [QR code] / NHMUK 013588141 ( BMNH) .

Figures

FIGURES 73–75. Pothea lugens (Fabricius, 1803). Male lectotype (here designated) deposited in ZMUC (catalogue number ZMUC 00102619), scale bar for Figs. 73–74 1.0 mm. 73, dorsal view; 74, ventral view; 75, labels.

FIGURES 78–83. Pothea lugens (Fabricius, 1803), non-type specimens from French Guiana. 78–80, male; 81–83, female; 78, 81, dorsal view; 78, scale bar 4.0 mm, 81, scale bar 5.0 mm; 79, 82, head, lateral view, scale bar 1.0 mm; 80, 83, abdomen, ventral view, scale bar 2.0 mm.

FIGURES 76–77. Reduvius lugens Fabricius, 1803, female potential syntype deposited in ZMUC (catalogue number ZMUC 00102620), scale bar for Figs. 76–77 1.0 mm; 76, dorsal view; 77, ventral view.

FIGURES 84–85. Pothea centralis Walker, 1873, male holotype deposited in BMNH. 84, dorsal view, scale bar 5.0 mm; 85, labels. (© The Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London).