Leiopus (Leiopus) Audinet-Serville, 1835

Bezark, Larry G. & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2023, New species, synonymies and transfers in Neotropical Lamiinae (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), Insecta Mundi 2023 (993), pp. 1-26 : 4-7

Leiopus (Leiopus) Audinet-Serville, 1835

Remarks. Currently, six species of Leiopus (Leiopus) are known in the New World, all of them from South America:

1. Leiopus convexus Melzer, 1934 ( Fig. 6–10 ), described from Brazil (Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul), and now also known from the Brazilian states of Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo, and Paraná, and from Paraguay ( Bezark 2022; Tavakilian and Chevillotte 2022; Monné 2023).

2. Leiopus floccidus Erichson, 1847 , described and known only by the holotype from Peru.

3. Leiopus histrionicus Gistel, 1848 , described and known only by the holotype from Brazil.

4. Leiopus marcelamonneae Audureau and Demez, 2015 , described from Peru and now known from Ecuador ( Galileo et al. 2016), Colombia ( Nascimento and Botero 2018), and Paraguay ( Bezark and Tyson 2020).

5. Leiopus pleuriticus White, 1855 ( Fig. 11–12 ), described from Brazil and now known from Bolivia (Cochabamba, Santa Cruz), Brazil (Bahia, Espírito Santo, Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Santa Catarina), and Paraguay.

6. Leiopus soricinus Fairmaire and Germain, 1859 , described and known only by the holotype from Chile.

Comparing these species with the type species of Leiopus (Leiopus) Audinet-Serville, 1835 , Cerambyx nebulosus Linnaeus, 1758 ( Fig. 13–14 ), it is evident to us that they belong to different genera, especially by the prothoracic shape. Below is a summary of the prior taxonomic actions, with transferences, synonymy, and com-

ments on each American species currently included in Leiopus (Leiopus) .

1. Melzer (1934) included his species in Leiopus , but reported (translated): “The systematic position of this species is uncertain, although general characters more or less agree with the genus Leiopus . This genus has its representatives in North America and Europe. Unfortunately, I do not have comparative material available to clarify the issue. Due to the coloration, the species differs a lot from the species currently known. By the shape of the body, it also resembles the species of Atrypanius ; but the short, quadratic frons, the different formation of the lower eye lobes, the narrow pro- and mesoventral processes, do not allow its placement in this genus. There are also relationships with the genus Carphontes , but even in this genus the sternal processes are wider. I provisionally place the new species, with reservation, in the indicated genus.” However, after examination, we conclude that the prothoracic shape, especially sides and lateral tubercles, as well as the presence of a moderately well-marked humeral carina, allow including L. convexus in Hyperplatys Haldeman, 1847 , creating the new combination Hyperplatys convexus (Melzer) .

2. Gilmour (1965) listed Leiopus floccidus in Eleothinus Bates, 1881 , but he did not formalize the transference. Therefore, we think that the species remains formally included in Leiopus (Leiopus) . The holotype photograph suggests that L. floccidus is very likely a female of Anisopodus conspersus Aurivillius, 1922 . Therefore, we transfer L. floccidus to Anisopodus White, 1855 . However, as we did not have access to good photographs of the holotype of L. floccidus ( Fig. 75 ) and specimens of Anisopodus conspersus ( Fig. 74 ) (examined only through photograph), we are not formalizing the synonymy.

3. Gilmour (1965) considered L. histrionicus as “GEN. Incertae [ex Leiopus .].” According to Gistel (1848a; b) (translated): “Dark brown, antennomeres with grayish ring. Prothorax with grayish-white bands and 2 brown narrow bands centrally on them. Elytra with grayish-white and yellowish longitudinal pubescent bands, from humerus to middle, where the two bands (one each) diverge enclosing a triangular brown macula near the elytral apex, the tips of which are brown, bordered with white pubescence in the middle.” According to Bousquet (2016) on the Gistel collection: “his collection was acquired by the Zoologische Staatssammlung München in 1877 but most of his specimens were lost through neglect or mislaid for lack of labelling and fire during WWII.” We do not know if the holotype survived or if it survived and has no label identifying it. According to Herbert Schmid (personal communication), the holotype was not found in the Zoologische Staatssammlung München. The work where L. histrionicus was published is also problematic: it is not clear if it was published in Gistel (1848a) or Gistel (1848b). Sherborn (1927) listed the page as 430 ( Gistel 1848b); Monné (2023) listed the page as 130 ( Gistel 1848a; in fact, the correct page is 131). According to Bousquet (2016), on the date of Gistel (1848a): “ June 1848 ( Isis, Heft VI :[2]), 15 August 1848 (Intell Serapeum), 17 August 1848 (Allg Bibl Deutsch; Lit Ztg), 17 November 1848 (Leip Reper), 11 December 1848 (Allg Ztg).” Still according to Bousquet (2016) on Gistel (1848b): “(pp. 161–480 + 16 pls) 20 July 1848 (Allg Bibl Deutsch), 29 July 1848 (Deutsch Ztg).” As the earliest probable date is “ June 1848,” we chose to assume that L. histrionicus was published in Gistel (1848a). Based on the original description of Leiopus histrionicus , it was possible to conclude that it is a junior synonym of Eutrypanus dorsalis (Germar, 1823) , since it agrees very well with this species.

4. Audureau and Demez (2015) did not provide some important information to allow the correct generic allocation of L. marcelamonneae . As they compared the new species with L. pleuriticus , it is evident that the inclusion was based on the similarity of the two species. Therefore, as L. pleuriticus now belongs to Atrypanius Bates, 1864 , the features of L. marcelamonneae also allow the transference of this species to Atrypanius . The prosternal and mesoventral processes are considerably variable in size in the species of Atrypanius . Although we do not know the shape of the prosternal and mesoventral processes in L. marcelamonneae , they are probably similar to those of L. pleuriticus , which are very similar to Atrypanius haldemani (LeConte, 1852) (see Monné et al. 2020a). Therefore, we transfer L. marcelamonneae to Atrypanius , new combination.

5. The features of L. pleuriticus , e.g. body shape, shape of prosternal and mesoventral processes, allow including it in Atrypanius . Therefore, we formally transfer L. pleuriticus to Atrypanius , new combination.

6. Gilmour (1965) formally transferred Leiopus soricinus to Lepturges (Lepturges) Bates, 1863 : “ soricinus Fairm. and Germ. (1859, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., (3) VII, p. 512) COMB. NOV. ” However, this formal transference was not followed in catalogs and checklists as, for example, Cerda (1986), Monné and Giesbert (1994), and Monné (2023), who continue to include the species in Leiopus . The species appears in Lepturges (Lepturges) only in Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2022). As there is no reason or formal publication transferring the species from Lepturges (Lepturges) to Leiopus , we consider it mandatory to keep it in Lepturges (Lepturges) . Unfortunately, we did not examine specimens of this species and have no access to a photo of the holotype to verify the genus. The description of the prosternal and mesoventral processes suggests that it really does not belong to Atrypanius or Leiopus , but it is not possible to be sure if it is a true species of Lepturges (Lepturges) ;

7. The result of the above actions is that no species of Leiopus occur in the New World, and the genus with its 30 species and subspecies in two subgenera ( Tavakilian and Chevillotte 2022), is now restricted to the Old World.

Figures

Figures 6–14. Acanthocinini. 6–8) Hyperplatys convexus (Melzer, 1935), female from Brazil (São Paulo, Santo Amaro).6) Dorsal habitus. 7) Ventral habitus. 8) Oblique habitus. 9–10) Hyperplatys convexus, male from Brazil (São Paulo, Caraguatatuba). 9) Dorsal habitus. 10) Ventral habitus. 11–12) Atrypanius pleuriticus (White, 1855), male from Brazil (São Paulo, Barueri). 11) Dorsal habitus. 12) Ventral habitus. 13–14) Leiopus (Leiopus) nebulosus (Linnaeus, 1758). 13) Male from Slovakia, dorsal habitus. 14) Female from Italy, dorsal habitus.

Figures 74–75. Dorsal habitus. 74) Anisopodus conspersus Aurivillius, 1922, syntypes, (photo by Jesus Santiago Moure). 75) Leiopus floccidus Erichson, 1847, holotype, (photo by John Chemsak).