Monteithophila fijiensis Schuh, Štys, and Cassis, 2015
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.1206/3825.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F14CA742-0BA5-48D3-ACF7-0A24A4939DE1 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5460508 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/593B93E1-FEC7-4A93-8B8B-036D532C5CE8 |
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:593B93E1-FEC7-4A93-8B8B-036D532C5CE8 |
treatment provided by |
Carolina |
scientific name |
Monteithophila fijiensis Schuh, Štys, and Cassis |
status |
sp. nov. |
Monteithophila fijiensis Schuh, Štys, and Cassis , new species
DIAGNOSIS: Recognized by the features listed in the generic description, the partially castaneous coloration with a pale antennal segment 1 and most of legs, and its occurrence in Fiji. Distinguished from M. queenslandana by the more intensely castaneous coloration and relatively larger eyes in that species, as well as its occurrence in northeastern Australia.
DESCRIPTION: Thorax, including pronotum, scutellum, coxae, and antennal segments 2–4 largely castaneous; hemelytron not as heavily castaneous as in M. queenslandana . Head, antennal segment 1, and remaining leg segments pale or nearly so (fig. 6). Eyes apparently smaller in M. fijiensis than in M. queenslandana (see also Discussion below).
Measurements, holotype female: total length 2.33, length head 0.26, length pronotum 0.34, width head 0.32, interocular distance 0.18, width pronotum 0.56.
ETYMOLOGY: Named for its occurrence in Fiji.
DISCUSSION: Our description of this taxon is based on a single adult female from Fiji; we have also seen two middle-instar nymphs. The female appears to be somewhat teneral, judging from the transparency of the cuticle on the head and abdomen, which may influence our conclusions concerning the size of the eyes, a perception that may be further influenced by observation of the specimen in alcohol as opposed to being pinned and dry. We have chosen to leave the available specimen in alcohol rather than dry mount it, because we believe most necessary observations of morphology would be impaired when dealing with a dry-mounted specimen.
One of us (P. Štys) remembers having examined two additional specimens whose color was metallic dark blue-violet, similar to the various metallic Chrysomelidae or Cydnidae of the genus Canthophorus Mulsant and Rey , involving sclerotized parts of the dorsum, head, pronotum, scutellum, corium, clavus, the suggestion of which can be seen in figure 6.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.