Scopadus Pascoe, 1857

Santos-Silva, Antonio & Nascimento, Francisco E. de L., 2019, On the true identity of Scopadus ciliatus Pascoe, reinstatement of Acanthomerosternoplini, and description of a new species (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae), Iheringia, Série Zoologia (e 2019003) 109, pp. 1-11 : 3-4

Scopadus Pascoe, 1857

Scopadus PASCOE 1857:100 ; THOMSON, 1861:366; 1864:131; BATES, 1866:195 (error of identification); LACORDAIRE, 1872:821 (error of identification); GEMMINGER, 1873:3171 (cat.); AURIVILLIUS, 1917:48 (key) (error of identification);1923:450 (cat.); BLACKWELDER,1946:620 (checklist); GILMOUR, 1965:624 (cat.); MONNÉ & GIESBERT 1994:270 (checklist); MONNÉ, 1995:5; MICHELI, 2003:199 (key); MONNÉ & HOVORE, 2006:240 (checklist); MONNÉ, 2005:373 (cat.); 2012:93; MONNÉ & CHABOO, 2015:101 (checklist); MONNÉ, 2018:504 (cat.).

Remarks. According to PASCOE (1857) on Scopadus : “Head large, eyes reniform, antennae longer than the body, ciliated beneath. Prothorax narrower than the head, vaulted above and rather longer than broad. Elytra crested at the shoulders, very convex at the apex and rounded. Legs with the femora thickened, the tarsi very short. Closely allied to Leptoplia [= Microplia Audinet-Serville, 1835 ], Dej., which, however, differs in its large globular thorax, and very compressed and lengthened femora.”

According to BATES (1866) on S. ciliatus (translated): “ Scopadus elongate-oblong, reddish, head and pronotum black opaQue, elytra purple-black velvety on posterior half; thorax convex dorsally, with acute tubercle at each side.”

Similarly, LACORDAIRE (1872) reported (translated): “Prothorax narrower than head, slightly longer than wide, convex dorsally, and with an acute tubercle on each side.”

AURIVILLIUS (1917) provided a key to genera of Cyrtinini and included Omosarotes and Scopadus as genera having the prothorax tuberculate laterally. However, he did not mention the shape of the lateral tubercles.

TIPPMANN (1955) was the first who established the current wrongly interpretation of S. ciliatus (translated): “Pascoe seems to have described Scopadus ciliatus based on only 1 male from Amazonas, though he makes no indulgence about the sex of the species he described; the long antennae, however, necessarily point to a male. Bates…, reported on 3 examples… but he also gives no sex for his animals, but emphasizes that “its antennae are much elongated”, so they can only be males. But incomprehensibly his animals remark that the antennomeres are “nearly naked,” while Pascoe (l.c.) expressly refers to “ciliated beneath” and, according to his picture, the setae are long and denser. The female has hitherto not been treated in the literature …; in my collection I also have a female of this very rare species from the Chanchamayo Valley (East Peru), …; the antennae of the female are therefore much shorter, only a little longer than the body; the first 7 antennomeres are bristled as in the male, but the last 4 antennomeres are very conspicuously dense and long, fasciculate and brush-shaped. Otherwise there is complete agreement with the male.”

HOWDEN (1959) correctly indicated that the prothorax in Scopadus ciliatus lacks a lateral spine. JULIO & MONNÉ (2001) described the male of Scopadus ciliatus . Yet, according to these authors, the antennae in males of S. ciliatus surpass elytral apex by three antennomeres.

Finally, MICHELI (2003) provided a key to genera of Cyrtinini in the Western Hemisphere, characterizing Scopadus as having eyes not completely divided, and prothorax with sides lacking “teeth”.

The first author who incorrectly identified the species of Scopadus was BATES (1866). According to him, in this genus, the “antennae [are]… nearly naked”. Actually, the antennomeres in Scopadus have long and erect setae as in Omosarotes . Furthermore, there is no acute tubercle on the sides of the prothorax of S. ciliatus , and Bates affirmed that they are present in S. ciliatus . Accordingly, the three specimens from Brazil (Amazonas) examined by Bates belong to a different species, and only examination of the specimens will allow us to know which species is involved and if it really is a Cyrtinini . Currently, only the species of Omosarotes have acute lateral tubercles on prothorax; BATES (1866) was not talking about a species of that genus, because he wrote about it in the same paper, and was apparently correct..

LACORDAIRE (1872) did not examine specimens of S. ciliatus , and provided his description based on the original description, and details by BATES (1866). ConseQuently, he made the same mistakes regarding the identification of the genus and species. As AURIVILLIUS (1917) did not describe the shape of the lateral tubercles of the prothorax in Scopadus , it is impossible to know if he really recognized the true S. ciliatus (lateral tubercles present, but rounded), or if he also was following BATES (1866) (acute lateral tubercles).

It is difficult to understand how the true identity of S. ciliatus ( BATES, 1866; LACORDAIRE, 1872) was confused, because PASCOE (1857) provided a very good figure of the species, clearly showing the absence of acute lateral tubercles in the prothorax, which was also not mentioned in the description of the genus or species.

The affirmations by TIPPMANN (1955) also make no sense. He did not see that the specimens described by BATES (1866) could not be the true S. ciliatus because they have acute lateral spines in the prothorax. Furthermore, he assumed that a specimen with different prothoracic shape, different distribution of the setae on the distal antennomeres, and without erect setae on elytra, was the female of S. ciliatus . The female figured by TIPPMANN (1955) ( Figs 15-19 ) is a specimen of S. charynae sp. nov.

HOWDEN (1959) did not examine specimens of S. ciliatus . As there are more than one species currently considered as S. ciliatus , it is impossible to know what Howden meant by his S. ciliatus . Thus, we need to assume that he was correct, although he was probably not talking about S. ciliatus , since the eyes are distinctly not divided in this species. The same reasoning applies regarding the key from MICHELI (2003).

JULIO & MONNÉ (2001), evidently following TIPPMANN (1955), described the male of a species that they mistakenly believed to be S. ciliatus . According to them (translated): “ Tippmann (1955) illustrated a specimen of Scopadus ciliatus from Peru, considering it female, based only on the antennal length, since PASCOE (1857) and BATES (1866) did not inform the sex of the specimens, but hat described their antennae as long.” From what we can deduct from this statement, for JULIO & MONNÉ (2001), the specimen figured by TIPPMANN (1955) is a male, and the specimen described and illustrated by PASCOE (1857) is a female. In summary, for TIPPMANN (1955) the presence of dense and long setae on distal antennomeres is a sexual feature of females (holotype would be a male), while for JULIO & MONNÉ (2001), it is a sexual feature of males (holotype would be a female). However, both the specimen figured by TIPPMANN (1955) and those figured and described by JULIO & MONNÉ (2001) are not S. ciliatus . The antennae in the male figured by JULIO & MONNÉ (2001) surpass the elytral apex by about four segments, and not three as pointed out. In the same way, the antennae in the specimen figured by TIPPMANN (1955) are shorter than in that male (surpassing elytral apex by about three segments), suggesting that it is actually a female. Furthermore, the specimen from Bolivia listed by JULIO & MONNÉ (2001) as being a male of S. ciliatus , is very different from the true female of S. ciliatus .

In conclusion, upon examination of specimens, description, redescriptions, and figures at our disposal, Scopadus ciliatus (sensu auctorum) encompass, at least, three species (not considering the specimens mentioned by BATES, 1866). One of these species is S. charynae sp. nov., described herein. The other is probably an undescribed species (specimen listed in BEZARK, 2013, and figured in 2018a).

Figures

Figs 15-22. Scopadus charynae sp. nov., paratypes: 15, dorsal habitus, female (USNM); 16, ventral habitus, female (USNM); 17, metatarsus, dorsal view, female (USNM); 18, metatarsus, lateral view, female (USNM); 19, labels, female (USNM); 20, dorsal habitus, male (PHDC); 21, lateral habitus, male (PHDC); 22, dorsal habitus, female (JLGC). Figures 20 and 21 by Pierre-Henri Dalens; figure 22 by Jean-Louis Giuglaris.