Solenoptera michelii (Chemsak, 1979)

Micheli, Julio A. & Micheli, Charyn J., 2006, Reinstatement of Solenoptera michelii (Chemsak, 1979) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Prioninae: Solenopterini) as a valid species, Zootaxa 1161 (1), pp. 65-68 : 66-68

Reinstatement of Solenoptera michelii

Solenopterini present sexual dimorphism. In the Puerto Rican species of Solenoptera , this is most notable in the pronota of males, which present good characters for differentiating species. Pronota of females may be more difficult to differentiate.

Within the species of Puerto Rican Solenoptera , we have observed variation in size, color, punctation and density (or lack) of pubescence. However, there are some characters which remain constant and appear significant for differentiating S. thomae from S. michelii . These are the shape of the elytra, shape of pronotum and shape of metatibiae*. A list showing the differences between the two species follows:

Solenoptera thomae (Linnaeus)

(A) Elytra depressed­convex ( Fig. 2b ), with a moderate carina along margin of lateral

declivity ( Fig. 2a ) (males and females).

(B) Pronotum of males with apicolateral area deeply concave along an oblique line; disk with a deep wedge­shape depression frontally, gibbose on each side posteriorly ( Fig. 2d ).

(C) Pronotal disk of females with a deep wedge­shape depression frontally; gibbose on each side posteriorly ( Fig. 2e ).

(D) Metatibiae sinuate and expanded apically* ( Fig. 2c ).

Solenoptera michelii (Chemsak) , restored status

(A) Elytra convex ( Fig. 2g ), without carina along margin of lateral declivity ( Fig. 2f ),

(males and females).

(B) Pronotum of males with apicolateral area feebly, evenly concave; disk with a

shallow wedge­shape depression frontally, even posteriorly ( Fig. 2h ).

(C) Pronotal disk of females with a shallow wedge­shape depression frontally;

posteriorly surface even, feebly elevated ( Fig. 2i ).

(D) Metatibiae almost straight, feebly or not expanded apically* ( Fig. 2j ).

* Note: Metatibiae of females and those of unusually small specimens (either sex), show poor development in curvature and apical expansion, and so are less reliable for differentiation.

Figures

FIGURE 2. a–e, Solenoptera thomae (Linnaeus): a, dorsal view of elytra; b, posterior view of elytra; c, metatibia; d, detail of male pronotum; e, detail of female pronotum; f–j, Solenoptera michelii (Chemsak): f, dorsal view of elytra; g, posterior view of elytra; h, detail of male pronotum; i, detail of female pronotum; j, metatibia.