Rosalba fimbriata (Belon, 1903)

(Figs. 60–61)

Aletretia fimbriata Belon, 1903: 152; Aurivillius, 1922: 294; Melzer, 1934: 86; Blackwelder, 1946: 598 (checklist).

Rosalba fimbriata; Breuning, 1960: 174 (cat.); 1971: 228; Monné, 1994: 6 (cat.); Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 190 (checklist); Monné, 2005: 310 (cat.); Monné & Hovore, 2006: 228 (checklist); Wappes et al., 2006: 25 (distr.); Monné, 2017: 270 (cat.).

Aletretia dissimilis Belon, 1903: 153; Bruch, 1912: 212 (cat.); Aurivillius, 1922: 294 (cat.); Melzer, 1934: 86; Blackwelder, 1946: 598 (checklist). Syn. nov.

Rosalba dissimilis; Breuning, 1960: 174 (cat.); 1971: 229; Monné, 1994: 6 (cat.); Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 190 (checklist); Monné, 2005: 309 (cat.); Monné & Hovore, 2006: 228 (checklist); Wappes et al., 2006: 25 (distr.); Monné, 2017: 270 (cat.).

According to Belon (1903), R. dissimilis differs from R. fimbriata as follows (translated): “1. Between bands or ochraceous spots, with a grayish pubescence slightly more apparent than usual, reducing the bare appearance of the intervals; mainly on the pronotum, the absence of this pubescence is notably evident, and the ochraceous bands do not contrast with the surface more than their shade.—2. The scutellum, slightly rounded laterally and with the apex obtuse, is rather triangular than transverse or square.—3. The system of antennal setae is notably modified. Here, in fact, the setae below the antennae are not very long and thick as in fimbriata; they are arrange as in pulchella, that is to say poorly opposite, when viewed in profile, are distinguished a pubescence vertical, short, almost equal and rather dense.”

However, the grayish pubescence may or may not be too evident. Furthermore, it is possible to see that it is present on the elytra of one of the syntypes of R. dissimilis, as a narrow and slightly distinct band close to longitudinal bands on basal half. Also, the yellowish bands on pronotum could be somewhat variable and, in one of the syntypes of R. dissimilis, it is possible to see that it is partially damaged. As for the scutellum, it is common to find variation in the shape. It is not possible to be sure, but seeing a photograph of one of the syntypes of R. dissimilis, the scutellum does not seem triangular. Finally, seeing photographs of the one of the syntypes of R. fimbriata (Fig. 61) and a syntype of R. dissimilis (Fig. 60),it is possible to see that the setae on ventral side of the antennal segments are identical, or almost so, in both specimens. Thus, there is no difference pointed out by the author.

Based on the absence of reliable differences between the types of both species, we are considering R. dissimilis as a junior synonym of R. fimbriata .