Mecomera reichardti Brindle, 1971
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4577.1.7 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:8EC74D92-C774-4D5D-82D8-E064DE3F7081 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5933260 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2C7187DA-BB1E-9256-B4A2-3DE311CC9757 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Mecomera reichardti Brindle, 1971 |
status |
|
Mecomera reichardti Brindle, 1971 View in CoL
Figs. 7 View FIGURE 7 A–E, 8A–D.
Mecomera reichardti Brindle, 1971: 166 View in CoL ; Steinmann, 1990: 172 (redescription); Sakai, 1991 (comparison of descriptions from different authors).
Examined material. Holotype: “ São Paulo, STO. [ Santo ] Amaro, SP [São Paulo], 29.vi.1966, E. X. Rabello col.” (♂, MZUSP) . Allotype: same data as holotype (1 ♀, MZUSP) . Paratypes: “ St. Catharina [Santa Catarina], Blumenau , ii. 1919, H. Luederwaldt ” (2♂, 3♀ MZUSP); “Same data as holotype (1♀, MZUSP)” .
Diagnosis. Head with postero-lateral margin of post-ocular area convex; vertex inconspicuously concave ( Figs. 7 View FIGURE 7 A–B, 8B–C). Antenna with approximately proximal half light brown, distal half dark brown ( Fig. 8C View FIGURE 8 ). Eye diameter half the length of the post-ocular area ( Fig. 7B View FIGURE 7 ). Tegmina and posterior wings dark brown to black ( Fig. 7A View FIGURE 7 , 8B, C View FIGURE 8 ). Tergites 2–3 conspicuously narrowing ( Fig. 8B View FIGURE 8 ). Tergite 4 to end of abdomen with punctated surface ( Figs. 7C View FIGURE 7 , 8 View FIGURE 8 A–C). Male pygidium somewhat rectangular, with two conspicuous bifurcated, oblong projections ( Figs. 7C View FIGURE 7 , 8A View FIGURE 8 ); female the same, but with pygidium semicircular ( Fig. 8D View FIGURE 8 ). Basal vesicle conspicuously slender at proximal half, rounded at distal half, resembling a comma; paramere with basal margin conspicuously rounded, antero-lateral margin concave, postero-lateral margin convex ( Figs. 7 View FIGURE 7 D–E).
Description of male. Body light brown to light yellow ( Fig. 7A View FIGURE 7 ).
Head with inconspicuous postfrontal and coronal sutures on frons and vertex ( Fig. 7A, B View FIGURE 7 ). Frons with basal margin convex. Post-ocular area with postero-lateral margin convex; vertex inconspicuously concave. Eyes black (in dead specimen), short, diameter half the length of post–ocular area ( Fig. 7B View FIGURE 7 ). Antenna setose, light brown; scapus 3.7 times longer than pedicel and 1.6 times longer than flagellomere 1. Maxillary and labial palps setose; pedicel cylindrical, remaining antennomere conical ( Fig. 7B View FIGURE 7 ).
Pronotum hexagonal, 1.3 times longer than wide when measured at widest point; broadening from base to apex, wider at middle, surface roughened, apical, basal and lateral margins convex; mid-longitudinal sulcus inconspicuous and shallow ( Fig. 7A View FIGURE 7 ). Meso- and metanotum covered by tegmina and posterior wings, respectively.
Tegmina dark brown, thick, elongated, 2.5 times longer than wide, broadening towards apex; surface roughened, postero-laterally straight ( Fig. 7A View FIGURE 7 ).
All legs shiny, uniformly light yellow ( Fig. 6A View FIGURE 6 ). Legs lacking setae, except for tarsi on ventral side.
Male abdominal tergites 1–3 conspicuously narrowed ( Fig. 7A View FIGURE 7 ). Tergites 4–10 with punctate surface ( Figs. 7C View FIGURE 7 , 8A View FIGURE 8 ). Tergites 5–8 with straight lateral margin, inconspicuously concave apical margins ( Figs. 7C View FIGURE 7 , 8A View FIGURE 8 ). Tergite 6 rectangular, approximately two times wider than long ( Fig. 7C View FIGURE 7 ). Tergite 7 rectangular, but about 4.5 times wider than long ( Fig. 7C View FIGURE 7 ). Tergite 8 rectangular, approximately 6.5 times wider than long ( Fig. 7C View FIGURE 7 ). Tergite 9 conspicuously narrowed, approximately 6.2 times wider than long, with straight lateral margin and conspicuous concave apical margin ( Figs. 7C View FIGURE 7 , 8A View FIGURE 8 ). Tergite 10 trapezoidal, without spots, with concave straight lateral margin, conspicuously emarginated apical margin ( Figs. 7C View FIGURE 7 , 8A View FIGURE 8 ). Pygidium somewhat rectangular, with lateral margin straight, apical margin with two conspicuous bifurcated, oblong projections ( Figs. 7C View FIGURE 7 , 8A View FIGURE 8 ).
Male genitalia with basal vesicle conspicuously slender at proximal half, rounded at distal half, resembling a comma; paramere with basal margin conspicuously rounded, antero-lateral margin concave, postero-lateral margin convex ( Figs. 7 View FIGURE 7 D–E).
Female abdomen. Dark brown. Tergites 1–4 conspicuously narrowed ( Fig. 8B View FIGURE 8 ). Tergites 2–8 with punctate surface ( Fig. 8B View FIGURE 8 ). Tergites 3–7 rectangular, gradually decreasing in length, with lateral margins straight, apical margins slightly concave ( Fig. 8B View FIGURE 8 ). Tergite 7 rectangular, 2.8 times wider than long ( Fig. 8C View FIGURE 8 ). Tergite 8 trapezoidal, narrowing from base to apex, with basal margin slightly sinuous, lateral margin straight, apical margin straight with postero-lateral angle projected upwards ( Figs. 8 View FIGURE 8 B–C). Pygidium semicircular, with two conspicuous bifurcated oblong projections ( Figs. 8 View FIGURE 8 B–C).
Variations. The projections on the holotype’s pygidium are more distant from each other than in the remaining two male paratypes ( Figs. 7C View FIGURE 7 , 8A View FIGURE 8 ).
Remarks. Concerning the description of the male terminalia of M. reichardti , previous authors misinterpreted the description of the pygidium of this species ( Brindle 1971; Steinmann 1990; Sakai 1991). These previous authors described the male pygidium as a structure with a rounded apical margin with two projections. This interpretation might have happened because the holotype’s pygidium is partially encompassed by the last abdominal segments, leaving only the apical margin of the pygidium visible. Based on the new illustrations of the holotype specimen, the characterization of the male pygidium is amended and the variations between holotype and paratypes are given above.
MZUSP |
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo |
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 |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Mecomera reichardti Brindle, 1971
Heleodoro, Raphael Aquino, Alves-Oliveira, João Rafael & Rafael, José Albertino 2019 |
Mecomera reichardti Brindle, 1971 : 166
Steinmann, H. 1990: 172 |
Brindle, A. 1971: 166 |