Eocanthecona insularis ( Kirby, 1891 ), 2024

Brugnera, Ricardo, Grazia, Jocelia, Maynard, Andrew & Roca-Cusachs, Marcos, 2024, Delimiting Cantheconidea Schouteden 1907, with the description of a new genus (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae: Asopinae), European Journal of Taxonomy 947, pp. 191-215 : 207

Eocanthecona insularis ( Kirby, 1891) comb nov.

Figs 6k–m , 10

Canthecona insularis Kirby, 1981: 79 .

Cantheconidea insularis – Kirkaldy 1909: 13. –– Thomas 1994: 168.

Canthecona insularis – Roell et al. 2023: 50 .

Type material

Syntype

SRI LANKA • 1 ♀ “ Canthecona / insularis / Kirby, 1891: 79 / SYNTYPE // Pundaloya / Ceylon. // Ceylon / Green Coll / 91-26 // ♀ // SYNTYPE // TYPE // NHMUK / 010592158”; NHMUK; NHMUK 010592158 ( Fig. 6k–m ) .

Distribution

Sri Lanka.

Remarks about the new combinations in Eocanthecona Bergroth, 1915

By examining the photos of the type specimens of the three above mentioned species ( Fig. 6 ), it becomes evident that they lack the metasternal processes, which differentiate Eocanthecona from Cantheconidea . Based on this observation, we propose new combinations of these species within the genus Eocanthecona , now containing 25 species. Eocanthecona was originally described by Bergroth in 1915 to include species with a non-specialized metasternum. Initially, only E. furcellata and Eocanthecona eburnea Bergroth, 1915 were established as members of the genus, but the author noted that it was equivalent to Schouteden’s section B of Cantheconidea . Subsequently, Thomas (1994) transferred 19 species from Cantheconidea to Eocanthecona based on the metasternum characteristic.

In general, Eocanthecona are currently recognized by a combination of features: profemora armed, basal abdominal spine present, flat metasternum and crenulate anterolateral pronotal margin. It is important to emphasize the urgent need for a comprehensive systematic revision of Eocanthecona , which entails examining the type specimens to confirm the validity of the species, and to establish a robust diagnosis to contribute with its identification.

Figures

Fig. 6. Type specimens in dorsal and ventral view, and respective labels. a–c, g–h. Eocanthecona acuta (Vollenhoven, 1868) comb. nov. a–c. Paratype, ♀ (NHRS.GULI 000027280). g–h. Cotype, ♀ (RMNH. INS 1093147). – d–f, i–j. Eocanthecona variabilis (Vollenhoven, 1868) comb. nov. d–f. Paratype, ♀ (NHRS.GULI 000027290). i–j. Cotype, ♀ (RMNH.INS.1093148). – k–m. Eocanthecona insularis (Kirby, 1891), syntype, ♀ (NHMUK 010592158). Photos: a–f = ©Gunvi Lindberg 2019, Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet. g–j = ©Charlotte Hartong and Luc Willemse (2023–2024); k–m = ©Talita Roell 2019, Natural History Museum of the United Kingdom.

Fig. 10. Geographic distribution of Cantheconidea Schouteden, 1907 and Cantheconesia Brugnera & Roca-Cusachs gen. nov. The points marked for each species are for the type specimens, specimens examined in this paper, and for records retrieved from iNaturalist. The question mark (?) in Samoa indicates the absence of an exact location.