Buprestis aurora, Bellamy, 2011

Bellamy, C. L., 2011, A new species of Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 from Veracruz, Mexico (Coleoptera: Buprestidae: Buprestini) and a brief discussion of the Mesoamerican species of the subgenus Knulliobuprestis Kurosawa, 1988, Zootaxa 2803, pp. 49-56 : 50-55

Buprestis aurora , n. sp.

Figures 1–4

Description of female holotype. Elongate, subovoid, flattened dorsoventrally; maximum length (from feebly anteriorly projecting frontoclypeal midpoint to apex of elytral sutural spine): 17.1 mm, maximum width across elytral humeri: 5.5 mm; surface moderately covered with medium-sized, shallow punctures on head, pronotum and less visibly on ventral surface; elytra striate-costate with punctures in subparallel striae slightly more dense; punctures apparently each with a single very short, recurved, nearly translucent seta, many of which are apparently abraded; antennae and legs with slightly more dense recumbent setae; each hind tibiae with a single row of very short, stout, erect setae along external edge in form of comb; dorsal coloration black with strong blue-green reflection; front of head, basal portion of mandibles, sides of pronotum, elytra and ventral surface with pattern of mostly yellow markings and one lateral yellow vitta on either side of pronotum, each elytron with slightly oblique discal vitta on elytra with swollen terminal circle, and a single broad preapical fascia of yellow bleeding to orange laterad, this pair of short fasciae subcontiguous except black subsutural costa; ventral surface nearly completely yellow except for dark markings that mostly mark the boundaries of each ventral sclerite; femora a mix of black shapes and yellow disc ( Fig. 2); antennae, tibiae and tarsi a stronger intensity of iridescent blue-green. Head ( Fig. 3): median portion of frontoclypeal disc slightly projecting anteriorly when viewed from above, appearing feebly angulately convex; surface otherwise entire; antennal cavities moderate-sized, separated by distance greater than individual diameter; ventral portion of frontoclypeus divided into three sections by pair of oblique costae which diverge dorsally; these costae become confluent with broadly, shallowly concave ventral margin; anteclypeus prominently visible dorsad labrum; antennomere 1 elongate, slightly swollen apically, more than 3x length of 2; 3 narrower than 1, 2, slender; 4–10 elongate, slender distally, expanding apically; 11 oblong, rounded apically. Pronotum: in general shape, trapezoidal, narrower from anterior margin and expanding to maximum width at posterior margin; anterior margin bisinuate; posterior margin biarcuate; posterolateral angles subacute; lateral margins nearly straight except for feebly convex midpoint; disc very slightly rounded across width in cross-section, slightly steeper laterad. Scutellum: small, elongate-ovoid with disc slightly concave. Elytra: each with ten subparallel broadly rounded costae from suture to lateral margin; several of the costae become confluent or terminate anterior to apices; lateral margins subparallel from slightly posteriad anterolateral angles to about posterior 1/3, then narrowing to bispinose apices; sutural spine slightly longer than margin spine; disc very feebly rounded across width in cross-section, slightly steeper laterad; pygidium not visible between or beyond apex. Thoracic ventrites: anterior margin of prosternum broadly, shallowly convex. Abdominal ventrites: suture between 1 and 2 feebly visible laterally; last visible (ventrite 5) with sides strongly attenuate, apex bispinose. Legs: pro- and, mesofemora shorter, fusiform; metafemora slightly longer, parallel-sided; tibiae very slightly bisinuate when viewed laterally; protibiae slightly expanded distally with one pair of stout brown teeth internally and a slightly angulate apex externally; tarsi with first four tarsomeres each shorter than preceding; each with ventral pulvillus on entire length; claws slightly appendiculate basally, then narrowing to stout tips. Ovipositor ( Fig. 4): typical buprestid structure, i.e. elongate, membranous tube supported by sclerotized rods; apical coxites with stout sensory setae.

Variation. An additional six female paratypes constitutes the type series. These vary in size (length: 17.1 mm – 21.5 mm; width: 5.2 mm – 5.9 mm) and slightly in color with two of the smaller specimens having the dorsal elytral markings nearly completely yellow and without the orange tinge as in the holotype and other paratypes. This color variation could be natural or could be the result of chemical exposure to the prepared specimens.

Etymology. The specific epithet aurora is chosen from a Latin poetical word meaning “dawn” to highlight the dorsal elytral markings which appear as sunrise from the orange lateroposterior to the discal anterior yellow ( Fig. 1).

Specimens examined. Holotype, ♀ ( CNIN): MEXICO, Veracruz 1200m Vol [cán] San Martin env. Sant [iago]. Tuxla , Juillet 2005; 6 paratypes: 1 ♀, same data as holotype; 1 ♀, [San Pedro de] Soteapan , Veracruz, MEXIQUE, 07.[19]99; 1 ♀, San Pedro de Soteapan , Veracruz 500/ 800m, MEXIQUE VII/ VIII 2000; 2 ♀♀, Mexico, Veracruz, San Pedro de Soteapan , 500–800m, VII-VIII-2001; 1 ♀, MEXICO VERACRUZ vicinity Santiago Tuxtlas , Volcán San Martin , Sierra de los Tuxtlas /18E33'00"N 095E12'00"W, 1200–1400m, 12.vii.2009, local collector . Paratypes are deposited in the following collections: CLBC, CNIN, RLWE and TNSB .

Comments. As is clear from the images herein, B. aurora is similar in color and pattern to B. catoxantha . The recorded distribution of B. catoxantha is limited to El Progresso in Guatemala and the Mexican states of Hidalgo, Puebla and Veracruz; it is likely awaiting discovery in other southern Mexican states as well. With so much recorded habitat loss in southeastern Mexico, it may be too much to hope for a wider distribution of many things, particularly taxa with narrow host requirements.These two species can be separated by the obvious differences shown in the respective dorsal habitus illustration ( Figs. 1, 17). The fact that there are two recently described species of Buprestis from Veracruz not only is suggestive of the rich biodiversity of that part of Mexico, but requires some brief mention of the trade in insect specimens that takes place in so many parts of the world. It has long been suspected that professional or mercenary collectors, perhaps Mexican nationals or foreign dealers, are collecting certain groups or in certain areas of mainland Mexico. Nearly all, if not all, of the known specimens of B. carabuho , including the original two on which the description was based ( Westcott 1998) and all seven specimens of B. aurora discussed herein became available only through the insect trade network, principally several dealers from Europe. It is ironic that a country such as Mexico, widely known to be interested in understanding and sustaining biological diversity, would either be unaware or turn a blind eye in the direction of commercial ventures that may profoundly hamper such efforts. Certainly it is hard to control the movements of so many entering the country on tourist visas, but with the recent evolution of the Mexican system of collecting permits to all citizens and their foreign colleagues, it doesn’t seem that enough has been done in this area. Perhaps Mexico should consider something more well-defined and accepted such as Australia’s holotype declaration and permitting system?

In an interesting and timely recent publication, Ross (2010) provided a discussion about the various habitats and plant communities of the same region of southeastern Veracruz as well as information about the indigenous people (the Popoluca) and regional changes he observed during his time in that area.

Henry Hespenheide (in litt.) suggested B. aurora bears a general resemblance to the widespread neotropical buprestid Hiperantha interrogationis (Klug 1825) , and thus potentially belonging to an undefined mimicry complex. While both of these taxa are recorded from the state of Veracruz, not enough is known about either to know if they share habitat or host preferences. The latter is less likely since species of Hiperantha , as with most of their stigmoderine relatives, are primarily flower-visiting as adults while Buprestis species generally feed on foliage of the larval host plant(s) and not flowers.