Papuandra norfolkensis, Santos-Silva & Heffern & Matsuda, 2010
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.5164485 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8400203 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/975887B7-FF9D-FFA1-66D0-F9F811FB3396 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Papuandra norfolkensis |
status |
sp. nov. |
Papuandra norfolkensis View in CoL sp. nov.
( Fig. 7, 8 View Figure 1-44 , 89 View Figure 75-89 , 148, 149, 150 View Figure 148-176 , 230 View Figure 218-234 , 273 View Figure 252-276. 252-257 , 341 View Figure , 397-399 View Figure 397-402 )
Parandra species ; Holloway 1977: 272.
Parandra frenchi View in CoL ; Webb 1987: 5 (part).
Parandra araucariae View in CoL ; Webb 1994: 325.
Parandra? araucariae View in CoL ; Smithers 1998: 19 (cat.).
Etymology. The name refers to the Australian Norfolk Island.
Type material. Holotype M, from AUSTRALIA, Norfolk Island : XII.1984, M. Jowett coll. ( ANIC) . Paratypes (1 M, 5 F), as follows: Norfolk Island : M (in lichens), II.7.1980, R. Paton coll. ( MZSP) ; F, III.1971, donated by residents of the island ( ANIC) ; F (in Araucaria log), II.7.1980, R. Paton coll. ( ANIC); F (29 o 02’S, 167 o 57’E; Burnt Pine ), 1984, B. Evans coll. ( ANIC) GoogleMaps ; F (at light), II.5.1980, R. Paton coll. ( ANIC); (Botanic Garden) , F, V.1984, L. Hill ANPWS coll. ( ANIC) .
Description. Integument shining, brown; parts of head and mandibles blackish; margins of pronotum and scutellum, and elytral suture, dark-brown.
Male ( Fig. 397 View Figure 397-402 ). Dorsal face of head very finely, sparsely punctate; gibbosities separated by shallow and wide furrow, and with projection in posterior part near longitudinal furrow; area between gibbosities and ocular carina with narrow depression; ocular carina narrow, without bifurcation in “Y” near posterior edge of eyes; area behind eyes finely, sparsely punctate. Eyes ( Fig. 89 View Figure 75-89 ) moderately narrow; posterior ocular edge ( Fig. 397 View Figure 397-402 ) distinct, but without abrupt declivity towards posterior part of head. Central area of clypeus oblique. Central projection of labrum ( Fig. 7 View Figure 1-44 ) wide and truncate at apex. Submentum slightly depressed; punctures coarse, shallow and sparse; pilosity short and sparse, with some long hair at anteromedian region; anterior margin narrow, elevated throughout extension. Mandibles not falciform; inner area of left mandible ( Fig. 148 View Figure 148-176 ) larger than in right mandible ( Fig. 149 View Figure 148-176 ); inner margin with two large teeth together protracted, with the projection of teeth of left mandible wider than in right mandible. Dorsal carina notably elevated. Ventral sensorial area of antennomeres III-XI visible from side ( Fig. 230 View Figure 218-234 ) and divided by distinct carina; dorsal sensorial area of antennomere XI moderately wide; pilosity of antennomeres III-XI long and abundant ( Fig. 230 View Figure 218-234 ).
Pronotum finely, sparsely punctate at central area, and coarser and more abundantly punctate laterally; anterior edge slightly concave at central area; anterior angles clearly projected forwards. Elytra moderately coarsely, abundantly punctate (coarser and more abundant at lateral and anterior two-thirds); each elytron with two carinae visible. Metasternum glabrous, with some shallow and fine punctures laterally. Metafemur ( Fig. 398 View Figure 397-402 ) short and wide. Dorsal face of metatibiae longitudinally sulcate on apical half. Tibiae with pilosity moderately abundant. Metatarsomere V (without claws) clearly shorter than I-III together ( Fig. 273 View Figure 252-276. 252-257 ).
Female ( Fig. 399 View Figure 397-402 ). Central projection of labrum ( Fig. 8 View Figure 1-44 ) narrow and rounded apically. Mandibles ( Fig. 150 View Figure 148-176 ). Punctation of head, pronotum and elytra as in males.
Variability. Integument varies from medium to dark brown; pronotal margins and elytral suture blackish.
Dimensions in mm (M / F). Total length (including mandibles), 9.5-12.2/10.1-15.5; prothorax: length, 2.1-2.8/2.3-3.4; anterior width, 2.4-3.3/2.6-3.7; posterior width, 2.3-3.1/2.5-3.7; humeral width, 2.5-3.3/ 2.8-4.1; elytral length, 5.7-7.3/6.5-9.9.
Comments. Papuandra norfolkensis is very similar to P. araucariae , but differs by the: dorsal carina of the mandible of male more elevated throughout extension, including after the middle of the length of the mandible, where the declivity is abrupt at the base; inner face of the right mandible of male narrower and clearly different from that of the left mandible; pilosity of antennae ( Fig. 230 View Figure 218-234 ) obviously more abundant in both sexes; pilosity of tibiae more abundant in both sexes. In P. araucariae , the dorsal carina of the male mandible is elevated only at basal third, and clearly lower after the middle, where the declivity is less abrupt; the inner face of the right mandible of the male is very similar to that of the left mandible and is wide; the pilosity of antennae ( Fig. 226 View Figure 218-234 ) and of tibiae is obviously shorter and sparser in both sexes.
Holloway (1977) was the first to record Parandrinae from Norfolk Island: “Mrs. Jowett has also added a Parandra species , resembling the New Guinea araucariae Gressitt and New Caledonian species ( Parandrinae )”. Afterwards, Webb (1994), based on the identification of Arigony, recorded Parandra araucariae from Norfolk Island, but he was in doubt: “This lack of previous evidence of its presence on Norfolk Island, the geographical distance from its previously known distribution and the absence of P. araucariae and other group 1 Parandra (Parandra) (sensu Arigony 1984) from other islands of the New Zealand block invites some suspicion about its status on Norfolk Island. Parandra araucariae may have been accidentally introduced to Norfolk Island in timber (although there is no clear evidence of this). Alternatively, it may represent a relict population of P. araucariae which may have been more widespread in the past (although there is no fossil evidence to support this either) or it may represent a new species closely allied to P. araucariae .
Webb (1994) listed only females in “material examined”, and wrote: “Further study on a larger sample (including males) is required”. However, one of the specimens examined by him is a small male and not a female: “R. Paton, 7 Feb 1980, in fungus, F, ANIC”. Probably, the specimen recorded in Webb (1987) is the same recorded in Webb (1994), respectively: “R. Paton; 1980; Norfolk Island; Araucariae excelsa (3); ANIC”; “R. Paton, 7 Feb 1980, in Araucaria log, F, ANIC”.
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Papuandra norfolkensis
Santos-Silva, Antonio, Heffern, Daniel & Matsuda, Kiyoshi 2010 |
Parandra? araucariae
Smithers, C. N. 1998: 19 |
Parandra araucariae
Webb, G. A. 1994: 325 |
Parandra frenchi
Webb, G. A. 1987: 5 |
Parandra species
Holloway, J. D. 1977: 272 |