Phanaeus pyrois Bates, 1887
Moctezuma, Victor & Halffter, Gonzalo, 2021, Taxonomic revision of the Phanaeus endymion species group (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), with the descriptions of five new species, European Journal of Taxonomy 747, pp. 1-71 : 42-45
treatment provided by
|Phanaeus pyrois Bates, 1887|
Phanaeus pyrois Bates, 1887: 58 , pl. 2, table 3, figs 22–23 (in part).
Phanaeus pyrois – Nevinson 1982: 6 (in part). — Gillet 1911: 85 (in part). — Olsoufieff 1924: 37, 93, 152 (in part). — Blackwelder 1944 –1957: 210 (in part). — Edmonds 1972: 830 (in part); 1979: 103 (in part); 1994: 3, 5, 8–9, 39, 44–46, 103 (in part). — Howden & Young 1981: 134, 136 (in part). — Krajcik 2006: 152 (in part). — Price 2007: 17, figs 52–53, 54 (in part); 2009: 145 (in part). — Solís & Kohlmann 2012: 1, 8–10, 31, fig. 1 (in part). — Edmonds & Zídek 2012: 1, 5–6, 8, 13 (in part). — Moctezuma & Halffter 2017: 55 (in part). — Moctezuma et al. 2017: 114, 130 (in part). — Kohlmann et al. 2018: 69, 78–79, 83, 88, 89, fig. 8a, d (in part). — Chamorro et al. 2019: 220 View Cited Treatment (in part).
Phanaeus (Notiophanaeus) pyrois – Edmonds 1994: 2, 8, 41, 44, figs 210, 214–215, 221 (in part). — Arnaud 2002b: 96 (in part). — Edmonds & Zídek 2012: 3, 13, figs 138, 142–143, 156–159 (in part).
Phanaeus (Notiophanaeus) pyrois pyrois – Arnaud 2002b: 96 (in part).
Phanaeus pyrois pyrois – Arnaud 2002b: 97 (in part).
Easily diagnosed species by the pronotum bright metallic red ( Figs 12A, D View Fig ), green ( Fig. 2J View Fig ) or dark metallic blue (12B), with elytral striae not strongly impressed basally ( Fig. 12 View Fig ). The rest of the green/ blue species of the P. endymion species group are recognized by the elytral striae strongly impressed basally as a distinct fossa. A black dorsal colour is never found in P. pyrois specimens. Minor males of P. panamensis sp. nov. and red P. pyrois may be strongly mimetic, but easily separated by the endophallite copulatrix ( Fig. 1 View Fig ).
Lectotype (studied from photographs, 1 ♂)
NICARAGUA – Chontales • ♂, Edmonds 1994: 45 ( Fig. 12D View Fig ); “NHMUK 013678267/ B. C. A. p. 58, sp.8. / LECTO-TYPE/ Phanaeus pyrois Bates. LECTOTYPE ♂ P. ARNAUD DET 1980/T. Belt /Type / P. pyrois ♂/ Sp. figured”; NHMUK 013678267; BMNH .
Non-type material revised (7 ♂♂, 4 ♀♀)
NICARAGUA – Granada • 1 ♂; “ Volcán Mombacho . Bosque Seco . 30-VI-98. JM. Mars ”; TAMU • 1 ♂; “ Volcán Mombacho . Santa Ana . 21-V-98. Malaise. JM. Mars ”; VMC • 1 ♂; “ Volcán Mombacho . El Progreso . 30-VI-98. JM. Mars ”; IEXA . – Jinotega • 1 ♂; “ El Jaguar Coffee Finca . XII-3–8– 2005. 4356 ft. D. G. Marqua ”; TAMU • 2 ♀♀; “ El Jaguar Coffee Finca . VI-5–10–2005, el. 4,356 ft. Coll. D. G. Marqua ”; VMC • 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀; “ Finca El Jaguar , 32kmNW. 1340m. 13°14’28’’N-86°03’16’’W. xii-05 col D.G. Marqua ”; TAMU GoogleMaps • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; VMC GoogleMaps .
COSTA RICA – Cartago • 1 ♂; “Turrialba. 650m. 26.Feb.1980. H & A Howden ”; TAMU .
HEAD. Clypeus bidentate, black anteriorly, bright metallic red, green, or dark metallic blue posteriorly; roughened sculpture. Genae bright metallic red, green, or dark metallic blue; roughened sculpture. Front black, bright metallic red, green, or dark metallic blue on portions adjacent to cephalic horn. Cephalic horn black, curved posteriorly over pronotum ( Figs 2J View Fig , 12A–B, D View Fig ).
PRONOTUM. Keel absent in the middle of anterior pronotal margin. Disc triangular, flat, with two distinctly developed tubercles on anterior portion. Triangle bright metallic red, green, or dark metallic blue; becoming black on posterior margin of posterolateral angles; lightly granulate, scabriculous, impunctate. Sides bright metallic red, green, or dark metallic blue; smooth sculpture, scabriculous, with superficially impressed punctures. Lateral lines of pronotal triangle straight. Posterolateral angles widened or slightly acute; projected posteriorly or posterolaterally. Lateral fossae distinctly impressed. Basal fossae obtusely oval, distinctly impressed. Posterior margin sometimes black, with superficially impressed to effaced punctures ( Figs 2J View Fig , 12A–B, D View Fig ).
ELYTRA. Striae fine, smooth, scabriculous, not strongly impressed basally; bright red, green, or dark blue; with superficially impressed punctation. Interstriae black, smooth, scabriculous, with almost effaced to effaced punctures. Sutural margin without apical tooth ( Fig. 12A–B, D View Fig ).
PROTIBIAE. Quadridentate with apical spine.
TERGITE VIII. Bright metallic red, green, or dark metallic blue; scabriculous; with rough, superficially impressed punctures. Basal margin with setae variable in size.
GENITALIA. Right and left lobes of endophallite copulatrix similar in size. Right lobe strongly reduced, obtusely triangular in shape; rounded superiorly. Left lobe obtusely lobed, strongly developed. Central ridge and column similar in size ( Fig. 1N View Fig ).
Like the major male, except for the reduction of secondary sexual characters (i.e., cephalic horn, pronotal triangle and tubercles, and pronotal posterolateral angles).
Similar to the male, except for the head showing a cephalic trituberculate carina; with conical, nearly aligned tubercles; middle tubercle slightly more developed than lateral tubercles; frons with distinctly impressed punctures; pronotal sculpture smooth, with almost effaced punctures; pronotum almost completely black, becoming posteriorly and laterally bright metallic red, green, or dark metallic blue; pronotal process trituberculate, lacking concavity; pronotal tubercles nearly aligned; with middle tubercle more developed than lateral tubercles; posterior pronotal midline superficially impressed ( Fig. 12C View Fig ).
Mean length 17.8 mm (14.7–20.1 mm). Phanaeus pyrois is the most variable in colour species of the P. endymion species group. The outspoken colour variability of this species was previously outlined by Bates (1886–1889), particularly for the specimens from Nicaragua. Tree typical chromatic morphs were found by us (bright metallic red, Fig. 14A, D View Fig ; green, Fig. 2J View Fig ; or dark metallic blue, Fig. 12B View Fig ), but colour combinations are found and rare specimens has a bright golden sheen.
Phanaeus pyrois and several closely related species were incorrectly lumped together by previous authors ( Howden & Young 1981; Edmonds 1994; Edmonds & Zídek 2012; Solís & Kohlmann 2012; Chamorro
et al. 2018, 2019; GBIF Secretariat 2019b). Differences in body colour and the pronotal, elytral and genital morphology were found to confidently diagnose P. pyrois and all the closely related species. The blue chromatic morph of P. pyrois ( Fig. 12B View Fig ) was suggested by Edmonds (1994) to be a hybrid with P. endymion . Nevertheless, blue specimens of P. pyrois ( Fig. 12B View Fig ) do not share the diagnostic characters with P. endymion ( Figs 1D View Fig , 2B View Fig , 4 View Fig ). As a consequence, there is no evidence to consider a hybridization between P. endymion and P. pyrois . Edmonds & Zídek (2012) suggested that doubtful specimens of “ viridicollis ” ( Figs 2J View Fig , 12C View Fig ) were collected in Nicaragua along with “normal” P. pyrois . After revising the doubtful specimens of “ viridicollis ” from Nicaragua ( Figs 2J View Fig , 12C View Fig ), we disagree with Edmonds & Zídek (2012) and conclude that they incorrectly referred to the green chromatic morph of P. pyrois as P. viridicollis .
United Kingdom, London, The Natural History Museum [formerly British Museum (Natural History)]
USA, Texas, College Station, Texas A & M University
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Phanaeus pyrois Bates, 1887
|Moctezuma, Victor & Halffter, Gonzalo 2021|
Phanaeus (Notiophanaeus) pyrois pyrois
|Arnaud P. 2002: 96|
Phanaeus pyrois pyrois
|Arnaud P. 2002: 97|
Phanaeus (Notiophanaeus) pyrois
|Edmonds W. D. & Zidek J. 2012: 3|
|Arnaud P. 2002: 96|
|Edmonds W. D. 1994: 2|
|Chamorro W. & Marin-Armijos D. & Asenjo A. 2019: 220|
|Kohlmann B. & Arriaga-Jimenez A. & Ros M. 2018: 69|
|Moctezuma V. & Halffter G. 2017: 55|
|Solis A. & Kohlmann B. 2012: 1|
|Edmonds W. D. & Zidek J. 2012: 1|
|Price D. L. 2007: 17|
|Krajcik M. 2006: 152|
|Howden H. F. & Young O. P. 1981: 134|
|Edmonds W. D. 1972: 830|
|Olsoufieff G. d' 1924: 37|
|Gillet J. J. E. 1911: 85|
Phanaeus pyrois Bates, 1887: 58
|Bates H. W. 1887: 58|