Demotispa Baly, 1858

Sekerka, Lukáš, 2014, Review of Imatidiini genera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 54 (1), pp. 257-314 : 276-280

Demotispa Baly, 1858

( Figs 14–15 )

Demotispa Baly, 1858: 65 . Type species: Demotispa pulchella Baly, 1858 by original designation.

Demothispa Gemminger & Harold, 1876: 3599 (unjusti¿ed emendation).

Stilpnaspis Weise, 1905b: 298 , syn. nov. Type species: Stilpnaspis marginata Weise, 1905 by monotypy.

Rhodimatidium Aslam, 1966: 690 , syn. nov. Type species: Himatidium coccinatum Boheman, 1862 by original designation.

Distinguishing characters. Demotispa species can be easily recognized by the prognathous and slightly projecting mouthparts, the semicircular pronotum, having the interantennal area broad, convex and without a carina, having a stout body with broadly explanated margins, and having ¿liform antennae ( Figs 14–15 ). Some Demotispa might be misidenti¿ed as members of Pseudostilpnaspis , but the latter differs in having shorter, thicker antennae, with the ¿rst two antennomeres globose, and the body with narrow explanate margins. Demotispa has long, ¿liform antennae with ¿rst two antennomeres elongate, and the body with broadly explanate margins. Most of the Demotispa species have smooth lateroapical margins of the elytra, but a few have minute but distinct serrulation like Windsorispa gen. nov. but the latter differs in having a very narrow pronotum which is about 1.5 times wider than long while Demotispa has the pronotum at least two times wider than long. Windsorispa also has weakly convex elytra with a flat disc, while Demotispa is weakly to moderately convex. Moreover, Windsorispa has the mouthparts not visible from above.

Remarks. BALY (1858) clearly designated D. pulchella as the type species at the end of the genus description. Despite this fact MONRÓS & VIANA (1947) designated D. pallida Baly, 1858 as the type species. UHMANN (1957a) considered D. pulchella as the type species thus was in accordance with the original description. However, STAINES (1992) listed the species originally included in Demotispa and stated that ‘There was no type species designation. [in BALY (1858)]’. He considered the designation by MONRÓS & VIANA (1947) as valid because it was older than Uhmann’s, despite the fact that UHMANN (1957a) did not provided any designation as all such new acts made in his catalogue had ‘Uhmann, hoc loco’ instead of a reference. MONRÓS & VIANA (1947) designation is invalid as Baly himself designated the type species thus the type species is here corrected to D. pulchella .

This change renders quite a few taxonomic modi¿cations because the whole generic concept has to be changed as the type species, D. pulchella ( Fig. 14 ), is not congeneric with D. pallida . Moreover, Demotispa was always used as collective genus for species which did not ¿t to other Imatidiini genera.

Demotispa , sensu the type species, agrees with the ¿rst group of SPAETH’ s (1938) system of Himatidium . ASLAM (1966) erected the genus Rhodimatidium for these species, unaware of the existence of Stilpnaspis , which has the same generic characters. BOROWIEC (2000) studied the type species of Stilpnaspis and synonymized Rhodimatidium with it. However, as D. pulchella agrees also with this generic concept, thus both genera are synonymized here with Demotispa .

Of all species previously included in Demotispa only the type, D. pulchella , and two other species remain in that genus, while others are here transferred to various other genera (see Table 1 summarizing the history of Demotispa-Stilpnaspis-Himatidium complex). On the other hand all species previously included in Stilpnaspis (see BOROWIEC 2000) are transferred here to Demotispa .

placement based on primary description only.

Species transferred from/to Demotispa . See Table 1.

Number of species. 18 (present paper).

Key to species. SPAETH (1938) covering eight presently valid species.

Biology. Biology of all species is unknown except for D. panamensis ( Borowiec, 2000) which was observed feeding on two Arecaceae species ( MESKINS et al. 2008). Based on our observations, it seems that most species are associated with various palms, preferably understorey or subcanopy species (Windsor & Sekerka, unpubl. data).

Distribution. Costa Rica to Brazil.

Figures

Figs 12–24. Dorsal habitus. 18 – Katkispa insignis (Pic, 1934), syntype, Venezuela: Colonia Tovar; 13 – Weiseispa angusticollis (Weise, 1893), Ecuador: Río Palenque; 14 – Demotispa pulchella Baly, 1858, lectotype, Peru; 15 – Demotispa rubiginosa (Boheman, 1862), Panama: Chiriquí; 16 – Parimatidium rubrum (Boheman, 1850), French Guyana:St. Laurent du Maroni;17 – Pseudostilpnaspis lata (Baly, 1885), Panama:Santa Clara; 18 – Pseudimatidium elaeicola Aslam, 1966, Colombia: Calima area; 19 – Windsorispa latifrons (Weise, 1910), Colombia: SantoAntonio; 20 – Cephaloleia Àavipennis Baly, 1869, Ecuador: Río Hollín; 21 – Melanispa sp., Guadeloupe; 22 – Parentispa formosa (Staines, 1996), Panama: La Fortuna; 23 – Stenispa attenuata Baly, 1875, Panama: Gamboa; 24 – Lechispa parallela (Pic, 1930), syntype, Argentina: Rosas. All scale bars = 2.5 mm.