Monneellus Hüdepohl, 1985

Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2017, Synonymy and descriptions in Cerambycinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) from Costa Rica, Zootaxa 4319 (1), pp. 177-184 : 178

Monneellus Hüdepohl, 1985

( Figs 1–9 )

Monneellus Hüdepohl, 1985: 136 ; Monné, 1994: 101; Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 147 (cat.); Monné, 2005: 620 (cat.); Monné & Hovore, 2006: 146 (checklist); Monné, 2012: 59 (cat.); 2017: 558 (cat.).

Hudepohlellus Chemsak & Hovore, 2010: 5 ; Monné, 2012: 58 (cat.); 2017: 551 (cat.). Syn. nov.

According to Chemsak & HoVore (2010): “In Hüdepohl’s (1985) key to Trachyderini , this genus [ Hudepohlellus ] keys out to Monneellus Hüdepohl. Hudepohlellus differs immediately from that genus by the short mandibles, almost entirely impunctate body, short, broad, rounded body form, short, broad antennal scape, arcuate, raised prosternal process and abruptly decliVous mesosternal process.”

We agree that Hudepohlellus keys out to Monneellus in Hüdepohl’s key. HoweVer:

1. The mandibles in females of Monneellus rhodopus (Bates, 1870) ( Fig. 8 ) are quite different from those in males ( Fig. 7 ), and do not differs from those in H. semilunatus Chemsak & HoVore, 2010 ( Fig. 9 );

2. The elytra in M. rhodopus ( Figs 4 , 7 ) are finely, nearly inconspicuously punctate, not impunctate as noted by Chemsak & HoVore (2010);

3. Although the body in H. semilunatus is shorter and broader than M. rhodopus , the difference when compared with females of M. rhodopus is not so great. Furthermore, this kind of difference also occurs in species of Trachyderes Dalman, 1817 . For example, when females of T. (T.) hilaris Bates, 1880 (more elongate species) are compared with those of T. melas Bates, 1870 (shorter species);

4. The scape is broader at base in H. semilunatus ( Fig. 9 ) than in M. rhodopus ( Fig. 8 ). HoweVer, the difference is small and the shape of the scape is notably Variable in species of Trachyderes . For example, comparing males and females of T. cingulatus Klug, 1825 , with males and females of T. succinctus succinctus (Linnaeus, 1758) ;

5. The prosternal process in M. rhodopus ( Figs 5 , 6 ) is somewhat similar to that in H. semilunatus ( Figs 2, 3 ), although more projected at the apex. Furthermore, the apex of the prosternal process is also Variable in species of Trachyderes ;

6. The mesosternal decliVity in M. rhodopus ( Fig. 6 ) is somewhat different from that in H. semilunatus ( Fig. 3 ). Furthermore, the inclination of the mesosternal process toward the mesosternum is also somewhat Variable in species of Trachyderes .

Based on the Variation of the features used to separate Hudepohlellus from Monneellus , notably in the species currently placed in Trachyderes , the former needs to be considered a junior synonym of the latter. If not, it would be necessary to diVide Trachyderes into seVeral genera, which does not make sense to us. Still more important is the fact that Hudepohlellus was described to allocate a single species: H. semilunatus Chemsak & HoVore, 2010 . According to the authors, H. semilunatus was described based on two females (one of them was lost). Consequently, the affirmation by Chemsak & HoVore (2010) (“ Hudepohlellus differs immediately from that genus [ Monneellus ] by the short mandibles”) does not make any sense, since the males of H. semilunatus were, and still are, unknown. But, eVen if the males of H. semilunatus haVe mandibles notably different from that of M. rhodopus , this does not change the synonymy, because this is another highly Variable feature in Trachyderes .

Figures

FIGURES 1 – 5. 1 – 3, Monneellus semilunatus, female: 1, dorsal habitus; 2, ventral habitus; 3, lateral habitus. 4 – 5, Monneellus rhodopus, female: 4, dorsal habitus; 5, ventral habitus.

FIGURES 6 – 13. 6 – 8, Monneellus rhodopus: 6, Female, lateral habitus; 7, Male, dorsal habitus; 8, Female, head, frontal vieW. 9, Monneellus semilunatus, female, head, frontal vieW. 10 – 13, Kozlovellus bicolor sp. nov., holotype male: 10, dorsal habitus; 11, ventral habitus; 12, lateral habitus; 13, Head, frontal vieW.