Pelidnota MacLeay, 1819
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.666.9191 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B3C377E8-BBB1-4F32-8AEC-A2C22D1E625A |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A833F206-98BD-25AD-6013-29F889334E2F |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Pelidnota MacLeay, 1819 |
status |
|
Pelidnota MacLeay, 1819 View in CoL Figs 2B View Figure 2 , 3B View Figure 3 , 53 View Figure 53 , 54 View Figure 54 , 55 View Figure 55 , 56 View Figure 56 , 57 View Figure 57 , 58 View Figure 58 , 59 View Figure 59 , 60 View Figure 60 , 61 View Figure 61 , 62 View Figure 62 , 63 View Figure 63 , 64 View Figure 64 , 65 View Figure 65 , 66 View Figure 66 , 67 View Figure 67 , 68 View Figure 68 , 69 View Figure 69 , 70 View Figure 70 , 71 View Figure 71 , 72 View Figure 72 , 73 View Figure 73 , 74 View Figure 74 , 75 View Figure 75 , 76 View Figure 76 , 77 View Figure 77 , 78 View Figure 78 , 79 View Figure 79 , 80 View Figure 80 , 81 View Figure 81 , 82 View Figure 82 , 83 View Figure 83 , 84 View Figure 84 , 85 View Figure 85 , 86 View Figure 86 , 87 View Figure 87 , 88 View Figure 88 , 89 View Figure 89 , 90 View Figure 90 , 91 View Figure 91 , 92 View Figure 92 , 93 View Figure 93 , 94 View Figure 94 , 95 View Figure 95 , 96 View Figure 96 , 97 View Figure 97
Type species.
Scarabaeus punctatus Linnaeus, 1758.
Species.
195 species and subspecies; length 11-37 mm.
From southeastern Canada to Argentina and the Caribbean, members of the genus Pelidnota are obvious members of the entomofauna with diverse forms (some with enlarged metafemora such as P. burmeisteri ), diverse colors (from metallic silver in P. teocuitlamayatli Delgado-Castillo, Deloya, and Morón to shiny red and blue in P. rubripennis riedeli [Ohaus]), and diverse maculations (striped green and tan in P. liturella [Kirby] or colorfully spotted in P. xanthospila [Germar]). Their large size, abundance, and beauty make them fairly recognizable. Some species are recognized as pests: P. filippiniae Soula, which defoliates plantations ( Lunz et al. 2011) and P. punctata that feeds on leaves in vineyards ( Ratcliffe and Paulsen 2008). Complete life cycle and representative larvae are described ( Ritcher 1945, 1966, Morón 1976, Morón and Deloya 2002, Rodriguez et al. 2012, Garcia et al. 2013).
Hardy (1975) revised the genus Pelidnota from North and Central America and provided a key to species. He geographically restricted his revision to North and Central American species due to the large size of the group. The work stabilized the classification of North and Central American taxa and provided the only method of accurately identifying species in this region. He did not discuss relationships among the subgenera of Pelidnota , although he noted that the classification and subgeneric concept (as proposed by Ohaus) were in need of study. Subsequent to Hardy’s revision ( Hardy 1975), many new species of Pelidnota have been described. Keys to the Mexican species (Delgado et al. 1988) and Costa Rican species ( Solís and Morón 1994) of Pelidnota are available. Soula (2006, 2008, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011) described 104 species and subspecies and provided difficult-to-use keys to many species.
Research on Pelidnota and its allies was initiated by one of us in the 1990s (MLJ). This research, however, became intractable when Soula began describing many pelidnotine taxa and depositing type specimens in his private collection where they were not accessible to other scientists. Additionally, Soula created many new species for North American morphotypes of P. punctata (see " Pelidnota punctata (Linnaeus) species hypothesis and synonyms" below). A comprehensive revision of the genus and its allies is needed, including identification resources for all species.
Molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses are necessary to unravel the evolutionary and ecological patterns within this interesting group. For over a century, taxonomy and nomenclature of the genus has been mired with several genus-level nomenclatural and classification conflicts (F. Bates 1904, Ohaus 1918, 1934b, Machatschke 1970, 1972, 1974, Krajcik 2008, Özdikmen 2009, Soula 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010a, 2011) (see Moore and Jameson 2013). Whereas the taxonomy and composition of Pelidnota (Pelidnota) is stable (ICZN 2003) and fairly homogeneous, other genus-level names are much less stable, the composition unknown, and identification is problematic (including Chalcoplethis , Epichalcoplethis , Strigidia , Odontognathus , Ganonota Ohaus). It is possible that Pelidnota sensu lato includes several natural groups (=genera), but to truly unravel the group, an unabridged systematic revision (taxonomy, phylogeny) must be undertaken and the group must be examined within a broad context of the Rutelini .
Due to possible paraphyly, diagnosis of the genus is difficult. For most species of Pelidnota , the pronotal basal bead is complete (obsolete in some); external margin of the mandible is bidentate; mesosternum with a transverse suture that separates the metasternum; prosternal projection more or less prominent and beaded; scutellum as wide as long; mesosternal projection not well-developed, not strongly produced anteriorly; elytral shoulder with a bead; metatrochanters sometimes protruding; claws simple in both sexes; male protarsal claw with or without inner tubercle; metatibia simple, gradually widening from base or corbeled.
Ohaus (1912) described the genus Heteropelidnota based on one, unusual male specimen ( Ohaus 1934b; Plate 2, Fig. 11 View Figure 11 ) (Fig. 72 View Figure 72 ). The color and form of the specimen (the holotype of P. kuhnti [Ohaus] and the only known representative of the taxon) (Fig. 72 View Figure 72 ) was compared with individuals of P. aeruginosa var. citripennis (valid name P. semiaurata citripennis ) ( Ohaus 1912). Examination of this specimen reveals that it is an aberrant, teratological specimen (see discussion of P. kuhnti in "Annotated Catalog"). In Ohaus’ (1934b) discussion of the genus Heteropelidnota , he compared the genus with Hoplopelidnota and Xenopelidnota , both of which possess a dense row of setae near the ventral apex of the elytra. Ohaus (1934b) stated that Hoplopelidnota and Xenopelidnota differ from Heteropelidnota based on the bidentate mandible and produced mesometasternal peg. It should be noted that the dense row of setae on the ventral side of the elytra is observed within many rutelines, but the position (subapically, anteapically, apically) and the density of setae varies widely. The function of this character is unknown (possibly functioning in flight or preventing water loss) and should be investigated. Ohaus included a new species in the genus, P. cribrata (Ohaus), and he transferred Pelidnota rostrata Burmeister ( Ohaus 1918) to the genus. Martínez (1967) described P. ustarani ( Martínez), also including it in the genus. After examination of the species included in the genus and based on lack of sufficient “collective” characters that support the genus, Soula (2008) transferred P. cribrata , P. ustarani , and P. rostrata to the genus Pelidnota ( Soula 2008). However, he retained H. kuhnti in the genus based on its many “singularities.” Indeed, Soula (2008) also seemed to imply that H. kuhnti was a member of the genus Pelidnota . Herein, we consider Heteropelidnota a new junior synonym of Pelidnota . Lacking certainty of the species association due to the extreme deformities, we retain the species name and transfer the species to the genus Pelidnota .
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.