Arhaphe arguta ( Bliven, 1956 )

Stehlík, Jaroslav L. & Kment, Petr, 2011, Redescription of Pararhaphe and review of Arhaphe (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Largidae) of America north of Mexico, Zootaxa 3058, pp. 35-54 : 38-43

Arhaphe arguta ( Bliven, 1956) comb. restit.

( Figs. 1 , 3 , 8–10)

Araphe [sic!] carolina (?misidentification): Uhler (1871): 471 (faunistics).

Arhaphe carolina (?misidentification): Snow (1904): 348 (faunistics).

Arhaphe carolina (?misidentification): Snow (1906): 179 (faunistics).

Arhaphe carolina (?misidentification): Snow (1907): 159 (faunistics).

Arhaphe cicindeloides (misidentification): Barber (1910): 38 (diagnosis, biology, habitat, faunistics).

Araphe [sic!] cicindeloides (misidentification): Barber (1911): 28 –29 (differential diagnosis from A. mimetica , key, habitat, faunistics: Arizona).

Arhaphe carolina (partim,?misidentification): Van Duzee (1917): 205 (catalog, distribution).

Arrhaphe [sic!] cicindeloides (misidentification): Bergroth (1921): 69 –70, pl. II: Fig. 5 (description and illustration of 5th larval instar).

Arhaphe cicindeloides (misidentification): Barber (1924): 227 (differential diagnosis from A. breviata , key).

Araphe [sic!] carolina (?misidentification): Schmidt (1931): 45 (faunistics).

Arhaphe cicindeloides (misidentification): Torre-Bueno (1941): 114 (key to species, distribution).

Arhaphe cicindeloides (misidentification): Torre-Bueno (1942): 68 –69 (ecology, faunistics).

Arhaphe cicindeloides (misidentification): Lattin (1958): 217 –219 (morphology, description of stridulatory apparatus, figures).

Arhaphe cicindeloides (misidentification): Halstead (1972): 2, 6 (taxonomy, key, diagnosis, distribution).

Arhaphe cicindeloides (misidentification): Brailovsky & Marquez (1974): 102 (distribution).

Arhaphe cicindeloides (misidentification): Brailovsky (1981): 85, 87, 105, 107 (key, figure, host plant, distribution, faunistics).

Arhaphe cicindeloides (misidentification, partim): Henry (1988): 160 (catalog, distribution).

Jarhaphetus argutus Bliven, 1956: 11 , 22–23, pl. I: Fig. 12 (description, habitus photo). Holotype: 3, USA: Arizona, Chiricahua Mts., Rustler Park Road, 23.iv.1950 (CASC).

Jarhaphetus argutus: Halstead (1972): 2 (as synonym of Arhaphe cicindeloides ).

Jarhaphetus argutus: Bliven (1973): 127 –128 (valid species).

Jarhaphetus argutus: Henry (1988): 161 (catalog, distribution).

Arhaphe snowi Bliven, 1973: 127 . Proposed as new name for A. cicindeloides sensu Torre Bueno (1941) . Syntypes: “specimens agreeing with Torre-Bueno‘s diagnosis in his Synopsis will be found in his collection in the Francis Huntington Snow Museum at the University of Kansas and may be considered the type series“ (SEMC). New synonymy.

Arhaphe snowi: Henry (1988): 160 (synonymised with A. cicindeloides ).

Material examined (274 specimens: CISC, LACM, MMBC, NHMW, NMPC, SEMC, UCDC, UCRC, UMMZ): MEXICO: Chihuahua: Sierra del Nido, 5 mi. N Cerro Campana; ditto, Arroyo Mesteno. USA: Arizona: Cochise Co.: Chiricahua Mts., Cave Creek Ranch; ditto, Stewart Camp, Cave Creek; ditto, East Turkey Creek; ditto, Onion Saddle; ditto, Rucker Canyon; ditto, Pinery Canyon; ditto, 5 mi. W Portal; ditto, SW Research Station, 5 mi of W Portal; ditto, Crystal Cave, 2 mi. S SW Research Station; Douglas; Huachuca Mts.; Huacucha Mts.: Miller Canyon; ditto, 4 km W Knickville; ditto, Parker Canyon; ditto, Carr Canyon; Merb Martyr Dam; Paradise; Paramerlee; Coconino Co.: General Springs; Oak Creek Canyon. Gila Co.: Kohl‘s Ranch [Payson env.]. Graham Co.: Graham Mts.; Pinaleno Mts.: Ft. Grand; ditto, Goudy Creek. Greenlee Co.: 6 mi. S Rose Peak Saddle; Juan Miller Cp. Pima Co.: Santa Catalina Mts. : Mt. Lemmon, Bear canyon; ditto, Peppersouce Canyon; Santa Rita Mts.: 5 mi. N of Santa Rita Lodge. Pinal Co.: Oracle. Santa Cruz Co.: Santa Rita Mts.; Santa Rita Mts.: Madera Canyon; ditto, White House Canyon. Yavapai Co.: Prescott.

This species seems to be common in Arizona, in some localities being collected many times by various collectors. For this reason only the localities are listed in Material Examined without additional details.

Differential diagnosis. Arhaphe arguta differs from A. breviata by its larger size and wider head (see the appropriate measurements below). In A. arguta the inner margin of corium is narrowly bordered with black ( Figs. 8–9), whereas in A. breviata it is white with a row of black punctures ( Fig. 11 ). In A. arguta the abdominal ventrites IV–VI are covered with continuous silvery pubescence except for small triangular bare spots on the anterolateral angles ( Fig. 10 ); in A. brevita there are large oval bare spots anterolaterally ( Fig. 12 ). (See also Key above.)

Measurements (mm). Males (n = 5; mean (minimum–maximum)). Body length 8.93 (8.69–9.34); head: length 1.43 (1.40–1.46), width (including eyes) 2.20 (2.05–2.29), interocular width 1.38 (1.24–1.46); length of antennomeres: 1–1.44 (1.40–1.51), 2–1.39 (1.35–1.40), 3–0.81 (0.76–0.86), 4–1.38 (1.24–1.48); pronotum: length 1.96 (1.94–2.05), width 2.16 (2.05–2.27); scutellum: length 1.24 (1.13–1.30), width 1.07 (0.97–1.13); corium: length 3.10 (2.97–3.29), width 1.21 (1.13–1.24).

Females (n = 5). Body length 9.80 (9.61–10.04); head: length 1.68 (1.62–1.78), width (including eyes) 2.41 (2.32–2.51), interocular width 1.66 (1.57–1.62); length of antennomeres: 1–1.55 (1.51–1.62), 2–1.44 (1.40–1.46), 3–0.87 (0.81–0.92), 4–1.53 (1.46–1.62); pronotum: length 2.05 (1.89–2.16), width 2.49 (2.35–2.67); scutellum: length 1.18 (1.13–1.19), width 1.26 (1.13–1.35); corium: length 3.49 (3.29–3.67), width 1.52 (1.40–1.62).

Taxonomy. Halstead (1972) considered this species a junior synonym of A. cicindeloides Walker. Bliven (1973) however disagreed with Halstead (1972), and reinstated Jarhaphetus argutus as valid species. Henry (1988) cataloged Jarhaphetus argutus as a valid species.

Uhler (1886) synonymised Arhaphe cicindeloides with A. carolina , but all subsequent authors ( Barber 1910, 1911, 1924; Bergroth 1921; Torre-Bueno 1941, 1942; Lattin 1958; Halstead 1972; Brailovsky 1981; Henry 1988) have recognised it as a distinct species. Only Bliven (1973) considered Arhaphe cicindeloides Walker to be a junior synonym of A. carolina and the species that Halstead and other American authors identified as A. cicindeloides to be unnamed, and proposed a new name for it— Arhaphe snowi Bliven, 1973 . Henry (1988) wrote about the identity of A. cicindeloides : “Because no one has restudied Walker‘s type (s) (and in my opinion, Distant‘s (1893, Biol. Centr.-Am., Rhyn., 1: plate 21, fig. 2) figure of cicindeloides agrees with current concepts of the species), it seems best to continue recognizing A. cicindeloides and consider Bliven‘s snowi a synonym.“

However, the present examination of the syntypes of A. cicindeloides (see Redescription below) revealed that they are not conspecific with the U.S. specimens identified previously as A. cicindeloides which in fact belong to Bliven‘s A. arguta . This reveals that paradoxically both Halstead (1972) and Bliven (1973) were partly right: Halstead (1972) in considering A. cicindeloides sensu Barber and followers conspecific with A. arguta ; and Bliven (1973) in insisting that A. arguta is different from A. cicindeloides Distant. Unfortunately , as neither of them examined the types in BMNH, both failed to establish the true identity of A. cicindeloides Distant , and solution of the problem was postponed for four decades. Because of fixing the identity of A. cicindeloides Distant , Arhaphe snowi Bliven, 1973 , syn. nov., must be considered a junior synonym of A. arguta and not of A. cicindeloides .

Lattin (1958) described the stridulatory mechanism of A. arguta under the name A. cicindeloides ; the true species identity is apparent from his illustration of the corium ( Lattin 1958: 218: Fig. 1 ): the membrane does not overlap the apex of the corium in A. arguta . (In true A. cicindeloides the membrane surpasses the apex of the corium, reaching base (3) or sometimes middle (Ƥ) of mesotergite VI).

Biology and ecology. Adults were collected from April to October, most of them in August and September. Larvae were collected in August, September, and rarely in October. The species occurs in mountains, especially in canyons along the creeks, but also in the mountain saddles, surroundings of caves and dams. Two larvae collected in September were found in the leaf litter on the ground on a dry hill above a dam (in Portal, Arizona). Barber (1910, as A. cicindeloides ) found this species rather common in the Huachuca Mts., Arizona, running about on the ground among dead leaves. Bliven (1956) mentioned the type specimens of Jarhaphetus arguta “taken while running on moist sand of creek beds containing isolated pools of water.“ Brailovsky (1981, as A. cicindeloides ) reported collecting specimens of the species in substrate under Arctostaphylos pungens (Ericaceae) .

Torre-Bueno (1942) published some observations on biology and ecology of this species in the Santa Rita Mts., Arizona: “Both times the insects were found walking about in or among dry fallen leaves, mostly singly, although some were noted in copulo. They mate in the ordinary end-to-end manner common to many bugs, and walk about in this position. If alarmed, the mating pairs separate instantaneously and run to hide among the leaves, a female brought home alive was noticed to extrude a slender, sharp, curved ovipositor, about 3 mm long. One might deduce it is used to insert the eggs in a somewhat hard or solid substance, dead leaves for instance. The bugs are quite common, as on the two occasions I have noted at least 60 individuals in a restricted area, among leaves lying in depressions on the ground; but they also walk about on bare spots. One was taken by Dr. W. D. Funkhouser on an oak. Mr. A. A. Nichol has informed me that they are abundant under bear grass. Four specimens, males and females, were brought home and released in my yard. Immediately, and naturally, they sought shelter in the Bermuda lawn grass and started to climb up the green blades, on which they proceeded to feed.“ The description of the 5th instar by Bergroth (1921, as A. cicindeloides ) was based on material from Arizona and belongs to this species as well.

Distribution. USA: Arizona ( Barber 1911, as A. cicindeloides ; Torre-Bueno 1941, 1942, as A. cicindeloides ; Bliven 1956; Halstead 1972, as A. cicindeloides ; Brailovsky 1981, as A. cicindeloides ; Henry 1988, as A. cicindeloides ), New Mexico ( Halstead 1972, as A. cicindeloides ; Brailovsky 1981, as A. cicindeloides ; Henry 1988, as A. cicindeloides ). MEXICO: Chihuahua ( Brailovsky 1981, as A. cicindeloides ), Durango ( Brailovsky 1981, as A. cicindeloides ), Edo de México ( Brailovsky 1981, as A. cicindeloides ), Jalisco ( Brailovsky 1981, as A. cicindeloides ), Michoacán ( Brailovsky 1981, as A. cicindeloides ), Oaxaca ( Brailovsky 1981, as A. cicindeloides ), Sinaloa ( Halstead 1972, as A. cicindeloides ).

It is very probable that the old records of A. carolina from Colorado / New Mexico (Uhler 1971) and Arizona ( Snow 1904, 1906, 1907; Van Duzee 1917; Schmidt 1931) represent misidentified A. arguta as well. The record of A. cicindeloides from North Carolina ( Torre-Bueno 1913) is unidentifiable, but certainly does not belong to A. arguta .

Figures

FIGURES 1 – 2. Female abdomen in lateral view: 1 — Arhaphe arguta (Bliven, 1956); 2 — Pararhaphe sphaeroides (Distant, 1883).

FIGURES 3 – 7. Head and pronotum in lateral view: 3 — Arhaphe arguta (Bliven, 1956); 4 — A. breviata Barber, 1924; 5 — A. cicindeloides Walker, 1873; 6 — A. mimetica Barber, 1911; 7 — Pararhaphe sphaeroides (Distant, 1883).

FIGURES 9 – 14. Habitus of body (9, 11, 13 — dorsal view; 10, 12, 14 — lateral view): 9 – 10 — Arhaphe arguta (Bliven, 1956) (USA: Arizona: Madera Canyon; 9 — 3, 10 — Ƥ); 11 – 12 — A. breviata Barber, 1924 (USA: Kansas: Kiowa Co.; Ƥ paratype); 13 – 14 — A. carolina Herrich-Schaeffer, 1850 (13 — 3, USA: Florida: Putnam Co.; 14 — Ƥ, USA: Florida: Alachua Co.). (Photos: P. Kment).