Phoebella Lane, 1966

Santos-Silva, Antonio, Heffern, Daniel, Botero, Juan Pablo, de, Francisco Eriberto & Nascimento, L., 2020, Notes, new records, new combinations, a new genus and three new species in Hemilophini (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Lamiinae), Insecta Mundi 2020 (785), pp. 1-25 : 9-10

On Phoebella Lane, 1966

( Fig. 29–33 )

Redescription. Head not wider than prothorax; frons with projections in male, with or without transverse carina between projections; frons in female without projections. Antennal tubercles distant from each other. Eyes not divided; area of connection of eye lobes narrow (with 2–3 rows of ommatidia) or very narrow (with one row of ommatidia); distance between upper eye lobes variable. Antennae 12-segmented, distinctly longer than body length in both sexes, especially in male; scape without basal curvature, without apical cicatrix, shorter than antennomere III; pedicel much shorter than antennomere III and scape; antennomeres cylindrical, with long, sparse, erect setae ventrally on III–V or III–VI; antennomere III not tumid, without denser long setae; antennomere IV shorter than III; antennomere XII not stingershaped. Prothorax slightly longer than wide, or slightly wider than long; about as wide anteriorly as posteriorly, or slightly wider posteriorly; sides sinuous, without tubercle. Elytra narrowed from base to apex; humeral carina well-marked from base to near apex; area between humeral carina and epipleural margin without carinae, without whitish pubescence contrasting with that on dorsal surface, gradually more distinctly visible in dorsal view from posterior after middle; dorsal surface without longitudinal carinae; apex individually rounded, without projections at outer and sutural angles or slightly obliquely truncate; sutural area without long and erect setae. Metatarsomere I tumid or not; tarsal claws not divided basally, with inner tooth moderately shorter than outer one.

Remarks. Phoebella is very similar to Phoebe , differing only by the antennae distinctly 12-segmented, while in Phoebe they are 11-segmented. It is also similar to Adesmus Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville, 1825 , differing by the antennae 12-segmented (11-segmented in Adesmus ) and by the frons in male with distinct projections (absent in Adesmus ). According to Martins and Galileo (2014a) (translated): “Frons in male with curved spine on each side of a curved elevation between the spines.” Actually, this curved carina between the projections of frons is present or absent depending on the particular species of Phoebe , and the projections may or may not be placed near antennal tubercles (e.g. Fig. 21 ). Accordingly, this feature is useless to separate Phoebella from Phoebe .

Species included. Phoebella albomaculata (Gahan, 1889) ; P. phoebe ( Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville, 1825) ; P. tinga ( Martins and Galileo, 1998) .

Figures

Figures 29–33. Phoebella spp. 29–30) Phoebella phoebe, dorsal habitus. 29) Male. 30) Female. 31–32) Phoebe tinga, holotype male. 31) Dorsal habitus. 32) Lateral habitus. 33) Phoebella phoebe, male, antennomeres XI–XII.

Figures 17–28. Males. 17–18) Phoebe alba. 17) Eye and gena. 18) Metatarsus. 19) Phoebe cava, eye and gena. 20) Phoebe mafra, holotype, eye and gena. 21–22) Phoebe cornuta. 21) Eye and gena. 22) Metatarsus. 23–24) Phoebe goiana, holotype. 23) Eye and gena. 24) Metatarsus. 25–26) Phoebe bicornis. 25) Eye and gena. 26) Metatarsus.