Phanaeus herbeus Bates, 1887
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.37520/aemnp.2021.025 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:85434EFF-F859-4BBF-8AB5-F50B9BA08771 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6303358 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/1B2B878A-8A26-FFB3-FC5C-FDE7EEC6FA87 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Phanaeus herbeus Bates, 1887 |
status |
stat. nov. |
Phanaeus herbeus Bates, 1887 View in CoL stat. rev.
( Figs 16–18 View Figs 16–18 , 37 View Figs 32–42 , 49 View Figs 43–54 , 59 View Figs 55–62 )
Phanaeus daphnis var. herbeus Bates, 1887: 61 View in CoL . Type locality: Mexico.
Phanaeus tricornis Olsoufieff, 1924: 105 View in CoL . Type locality: Without specific locality. Synonymy established by ARNAUD (1982a: 116) and confirmed here.
Type material examined. MEXICO: HOLOTYPE of P. herbeus (fixed by monotypy by BATES 1887, examined from photographs; Fig. 17 View Figs 16–18 ): ♂, without specific locality ( BMNH: NHMUK 013667783).
Non-type material examined. MEXICO: E STADO DE M ÉX I CO: 1♀, Ixtapan del Oro ( IEXA); 8♂♂ 1♀, Santo Tomás de los Plátanos ( GHVM: 6 ♂♂ 1 ♀; VMPM: 2 ♂♂); 5 ♂♂ 2 ♀♀, Temascaltepec ( GHVM: 4 ♂♂ 1 ♀; VMPM: 1 ♂ 1 ♀); 1 ♀, Tenancingo ( GHVM), 1 ♀, Valle de Bravo ( VMPM); 2♂♂ 5♀♀, Zacazonapan ( IEXA). M I CHOACÁN: 1♀, Tuxpan ( VMPM). M ORELOS: 2 ♂♂, Tepoztlán ( GHVM). W I THOUT SPEC I F I C LOCAL I TY: 3 ♂♂ ( GHVM: 2 ♂♂; VMPM: 1 ♂).
Diagnosis. Metallic green ( Figs 16–17 View Figs 16–18 , 59 View Figs 55–62 ), occasionally with a red sheen ( Fig. 49 View Figs 43–54 ). Sides of pronotal disc finely granulate becoming granulorugose on raised outer margin of disc; pronotal disc weakly but coarsely rugose, more sparsely posteriorly ( Figs 16–17 View Figs 16–18 , 49 View Figs 43–54 ). Posteromedial process of pronotum strongly produced into slender, conical or triangular denticle ( Figs 18 View Figs 16–18 , 37 View Figs 32–42 , 49 View Figs 43–54 ). Anteromedial portion of pronotal disc with one triangular, sharply acute tubercle, or with some rounded tubercles ( Fig. 49 View Figs 43–54 ). Anterolateral margins of pronotal disc with distinctly developed ridge of tubercles ( Fig. 49 View Figs 43–54 ). Anterolateral margins of pronotal disc without ridge or line of tubercles ( Fig. 49 View Figs 43–54 ). Posterolateral angles of pronotum slightly less developed than posteromedial process and produced into two conical or triangular elongate denticles ( Figs 18 View Figs 16–18 , 37 View Figs 32–42 , 49 View Figs 43–54 ). Elytral striae scabriculous, distinctly impressed, superficially punctate ( Figs 16–17 View Figs 16–18 ). Elytral interstriae scabriculous, smooth, superficially punctate, convex; III, V and VI frequently with lightly roughened integument ( Figs 16–17 View Figs 16–18 ).
Variability. Minor male. Similar to major males, except for reduction of secondary sexual characters (i.e., cephalic horn, pronotal processes and posterolateral angles). Particularly, posterolateral angles and posteromedial process of pronotum are reduced into three conical tubercles as seen in P. substriolatus ( Fig. 15 View Figs 14–15 ). Female. Similar to male, except for head showing trituberculate carina; pronotal sculpture granulate; pronotum with anteromedial black macula, and anteromedial carina followed by posterior concavity ( Fig. 59 View Figs 55–62 ).
Comments. According to EDMONDS (1994), the holotype was fixed by monotypy ( Fig. 17 View Figs 16–18 ). The type locality provided by the labels ( Mexico) and the morphology of the specimen are consistent with those mentioned in the original description of P. herbeus ( Fig. 17 View Figs 16–18 ). Phanaeus herbeus ( Figs 16–18 View Figs 16–18 , 37 View Figs 32–42 , 49 View Figs 43–54 , 59 View Figs 55–62 ) was originally described as a variety of P. daphnis ( Figs 11–13 View Figs 10–12 View Fig , 35 View Figs 32–42 , 46 View Figs 43–54 , 57 View Figs 55–62 ) by BATES (1887). Later, the name was deemed a junior subjective synonym of P. daphnis by EDMONDS (1994) and EDMONDS & ZÍDEK (2012). On the other hand, ARNAUD (2002) considered P. herbeus a valid subspecies of P. daphnis . We believe that P. herbeus merits full species status. The typical green chromatic phases of P. herbeus ( Figs 16–17 View Figs 16–18 , 59 View Figs 55–62 ) and P. daphnis ( Figs 10–12 View Figs 10–12 , 46 View Figs 43–54 , 57 View Figs 55–62 ) are similar. Nevertheless, the red-green chromatic phase is only found in P. herbeus ( Fig. 49 View Figs 43–54 ), whereas P. herbeus never shows a deep blue-green chromatic phase as seen in P. daphnis ( Fig. 11 View Figs 10–12 ). Furthermore, major males of P. herbeus always show the posteromedial process of pronotum strongly produced into a slender denticle ( Figs 18 View Figs 16–18 , 37 View Figs 32–42 , 49 View Figs 43–54 ; small denticle in P. daphnis , Figs 35 View Figs 32–42 , 46 View Figs 43–54 ). The convex interstriae separates P. herbeus ( Figs 16–17 View Figs 16–18 ) and closely related species with flat interstriae ( P. daphnis , Figs 10–12 View Figs 10–12 ; P. coeruleus , Fig. 13 View Fig ; P. substriolatus Figs 14–15 View Figs 14–15 ).
Additionally, the minor males of P. herbeus show the posteromedial process and the posterolateral angles of pronotum produced into three small conical tubercles (as in Fig. 15 View Figs 14–15 ; the posteromedial process obsolete and the posterolateral angles carinate in P. daphnis ). Phanaeus herbeus and P. daphnis are partially sympatric ( Fig. 65 View Fig ), but the pronotal morphology is consistent and likely hybrid specimens were not found.
Phanaeus substriolatus ( Figs 14–15 View Figs 14–15 , 36 View Figs 32–42 , 48 View Figs 43–54 , 58 View Figs 55–62 ) is also similar to P. herbeus . The latter is distinguished by the elytral interstriae distinctly convex ( Figs 16–17 View Figs 16–18 ; elytral interstriae distinctly flattened in P. substriolatus , Figs 14–15 View Figs 14–15 ) and the presence of green ( Figs 16–17 View Figs 16–18 , 59 View Figs 55–62 ) or green-red ( Fig. 49 View Figs 43–54 ) specimens in its populations (specimens always dark blue in P. substriolatus , Figs 14–15 View Figs 14–15 , 48 View Figs 43–54 , 58 View Figs 55–62 ). Phanaeus herbeus and P. substriolatus are not sympatric ( Fig. 65 View Fig ). Phanaeus herbeus was figured by DELOYA & COBARRUBIAS-MELGAR (2014) instead of P. daphnis . ARNAUD (1982a) proposed P. tricornis ( Fig. 18 View Figs 16–18 ) as a junior subjective synonym of P. herbeus . Unfortunately, we were not able to revise the lectotype of P. tricornis , but its original description and illustration are fairly detailed and allowed us to confirm this synonymy.
Distribution. Mexico: Estado de México, Michoacán, Morelos and Puebla ( Fig. 65 View Fig ).
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
SuperFamily |
Scarabaeoidea |
Family |
|
Genus |
Phanaeus herbeus Bates, 1887
Moctezuma, Victor, Halffter, Gonzalo & Lizardo, Viridiana 2021 |
Phanaeus tricornis
OLSOUFIEFF G. 1924: 105 |
Phanaeus daphnis var. herbeus
BATES H. W. 1887: 61 |