Imatidiini Hope, 1840

Sekerka, Lukáš, 2014, Review of Imatidiini genera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 54 (1), pp. 257-314 : 261-262

Imatidiini Hope, 1840

Imatidiidae Hope, 1840: 152

Himatidiini Chapuis, 1875: 361 (as Himatidiites, unjusti¿ed emendation; type genus: Himatidium Latreille, 1804 ) Cephaloleiini Chapuis, 1875: 277 (as Céphaloléites)

Cephaloliini Weise, 1910b: 75 (unjusti¿ed emendation; type species: Cephalolia Gemminger & Harold, 1876 ) Imatidiini Hincks, 1952: 332 (objective junior synonym of Imatidiini Hope, 1840 )

Distinguishing characters. Imatidiini species can be easily distinguished from other New World tribes by the head being visible from above, elytra smooth and without striae, ribs, or strongly impressed punctures, the presence of setae in the anterior corners of the pronotum, and onisciform larvae. Smooth elytra are also present in Arescini Chapuis, 1875, Hybosispini Weise, 1910, Prosopodontini Weise, 1910, and Spilophorini Chapuis, 1875 which might in some respects appear similar to the Imatidiini . Spilophorini differs in the presence of setae in all four pronotal corners and exophagous larvae bearing an exuvial shield on the apical furca. Prosopodontini have a seta present in each posterior corner of the pronotum and larva with a widened abdominal plate. Arescini has similar onisciform larva but it has the margin above the head divided forming two flaps, while Imatidiini larvae have the anterior margin complete; Arescini adults differ by the head with interantennal projection and ¿rst antennomere (except of Xenarescus monoceros (Olivier, 1808)) with a projecting internal lobe, while Imatidiini do not have an interantennal projection, only a more or less distinct carina and the ¿rst antennomere is always without a lobe. Hybosispini are the most similar, but differ in the pronotum without setae in any corner and having the internal eye margin carinate.

Genera excluded from Imatidiini . SEKERKA et al. (2014) transferred the genus Cladispa Baly, 1858 to Spilophorini based on adult and larval morphology. Here I transfer the genus Solenispa Weise, 1905 to Hybosispini Weise, 1910 because it does not have any setae on the pronotum and has a carinate internal margin of the eye.

Biology. The tribe is associated with various monocots, mainly Zingiberales ( Costaceae , Heliconiaceae , Marantaceae , and Zingiberaceae ), Arecaceae , Poaceae , and Bromeliaceae . Several species are also associated with Cyperaceae , Cyclanthaceae , and Orchideaceae. Host plants were summarized by STAINES (2004, 2014). A single species, Imatidium ru¿ventre Boheman, 1850, was recorded from a dicot tree, Inga marginata Willd , belonging to the Fabaceae ( GILBERT et al. 2001) . Other published associations with dicots must be regarded as doubtful because they were not based on feeding damage by adults or larvae.

Imatidiini larvae are onisciform, rather uniform in shape, and pupate inside the last larval skin. Larvae of most species live hidden in young rolled or folded leaves. Immature stages were recently described in detail by GARCÍA- ROBLEDO et al. (2010) and SEKERKA et al. (2013).

History of the classification of the tribe. CHAPUIS (1875) was the ¿rst to establish a complex tribal classi¿cation of the Hispinae and Cassidinae, however he did not use Latin for the tribal names. He proposed the names Céphaloléites and Himatidiites, the latter based on Himatidium Latreille, 1804 , an unjusti¿ed emendation of Imatidium Fabricius, 1801 . WEISE (1910b) proposed the name Cephaloliini, based on Cephalolia Gemminger & Harold, 1876 , an unjusti¿ed emendation of Cephaloleia Chevrolat, 1836 , and did not mentioned Chapuis’s paper. SPAETH (1929) was to Latinize Himatidiites as Himatidiitae and considered Chapuis as the author of the name. MONRÓS & VIANA (1947) synonymized both tribes, considering Cephaloliini as valid and accrediting Chapuis as author of both names. HINCKS (1952) emended Himatidiites Chapuis and Himatidiitae Spaeth to Imatidiini and considered the tribe as valid. UHMANN (1957a) emended Cephaloliini Weise to Cephaloleiini and considered himself as the author of the name. BOROWIEC (1995) and STAINES (2002) considered Imatidiini Chapuis a synonym of Cephaloleiini Chapuis and this system was followed until recently. BOUCHARD et al. (2011) considered both tribes as valid and changed the authorship of Imatidiini from Chapuis, 1875 to Hope, 1840 without any note. HOPE (1840) proposed the name Imatidiidae which has a Latin ending and being available from its original publication. Both tribes are beyond doubt synonymous, differing only in a single character – explanate margin of the elytra, however, this character appears to have evolved several times independently as it occurs in nearly all genera and is variable within each genus. Because of the synonymy, the valid name must be Imatidiini Hope, 1840 as it is the oldest available.

Groups based on mouthparts. Imatidiini genera can generally be divided into three groups on the basis of mouthparts. The ¿rst group has the mouthparts hypognathous, with all parts visible only from the underside, and the labrum facing ventrally ( Aslamidium Borowiec, 1984 , Caloclada Guérin-Méneville, 1844 , Parentispa gen. nov., and Weiseispa gen. nov.; as in Fig. 33 ). The second group contains genera with prognathous mouthparts and the labrum facing anteriorly thus not visible from underside, but not projecting forward and not visible from above either ( Calliaspis Dejean, 1836 , Cephaloleia Chevrolat, 1836 , Demotispa Baly, 1858 , Imatidium Fabricius, 1801 , Katkispa gen. nov., Melanispa Baly, 1858 , Lechispa gen. nov., Parimatidium Spaeth, 1938 , Pseudimatidium Aslam, 1966 , Pseudostilpnaspis Borowiec, 2000 , Spaethaspis Hincks, 1952 , Stenispa Baly, 1858 , and Xenispa Baly, 1858 ; as in Figs 30–32, 34 ). Finally, the third group comprises genera with fully prognathous mouthparts, strongly projecting forward, thus the labrum is visible dorsally ( Cyclantispa gen. nov., Homalispa Baly, 1858 , and Xanthispa Baly, 1858 ; Figs 1–3 , 29 ). However, some genera are transitional between the groups. For instance Katkispa , Demotispa , and Pseudostilpnaspis have the mouthparts slightly projecting forward, thus partly visible from above, but the labrum is still not visible from above ( Figs 12, 17 , 30 ). Cephaloleia species also display some variability in the position of the mouthparts. In most species it is diagonally oriented, thus subventral, but the labrum is always facing anteriorly. Some species, however, have mouthparts nearly fully directed anteriorly.

Figures

Figs 29–34. Ventral aspects of head. 29 – Cyclantispa gracilis (Baly, 1885); 30 – Katkispa insignis (Pic, 1934); 31 – Windsorispa latifrons (Weise, 1910); 32 – Weiseispa angusticollis (Weise, 1893); 33 – Parentispa formosa (Staines, 1996); 34 – Lechispa parallela (Pic, 1930). Scale bars = 0.5 mm.

Figs 1–11. Dorsal habitus. 1 – Homalispa batesii Baly, 1858, French Guyana: Mt. Kaw; 2 – Cyclantispa gracilis (Baly, 1885), Panama: La Fortuna; 3 –Xanthispa cimicoides (Guérin-Méneville, 1844), French Guyana: Le Larivot; 4 – Imatidium thoracicum Fabricius, 1801, Ecuador: Cascada San Rafael; 5 – Aslamidium (s. str.) capense (Herbst, 1799), French Guyana: Fourgassie; 6 – Aslamidium (Neoaslamidium) pichinchaensis Borowiec, 1998, Ecuador: Puerto Misahuallí; 7 – Calliaspis sachaensis Borowiec & Stojczew, 1998, Ecuador: Shushu¿ndi; 8 – Spaethaspis lloydi Hincks, 1952, Ecuador: Río Puno. 9 – Xenispa testaceicornis (Pic, 1926), Bolivia: Refugio Los Volcanes; 10 – Xenispa costaricensis (Uhmann, 1930), Panama:La Fortuna;11 – Euxema insignis Baly, 1858, syntype, Panama: Volcan de Barú. All scale bars = 2.5 mm.

Figs 12–24. Dorsal habitus. 18 – Katkispa insignis (Pic, 1934), syntype, Venezuela: Colonia Tovar; 13 – Weiseispa angusticollis (Weise, 1893), Ecuador: Río Palenque; 14 – Demotispa pulchella Baly, 1858, lectotype, Peru; 15 – Demotispa rubiginosa (Boheman, 1862), Panama: Chiriquí; 16 – Parimatidium rubrum (Boheman, 1850), French Guyana:St. Laurent du Maroni;17 – Pseudostilpnaspis lata (Baly, 1885), Panama:Santa Clara; 18 – Pseudimatidium elaeicola Aslam, 1966, Colombia: Calima area; 19 – Windsorispa latifrons (Weise, 1910), Colombia: SantoAntonio; 20 – Cephaloleia Àavipennis Baly, 1869, Ecuador: Río Hollín; 21 – Melanispa sp., Guadeloupe; 22 – Parentispa formosa (Staines, 1996), Panama: La Fortuna; 23 – Stenispa attenuata Baly, 1875, Panama: Gamboa; 24 – Lechispa parallela (Pic, 1930), syntype, Argentina: Rosas. All scale bars = 2.5 mm.