Tagalis graziae, Castro-Huertas & Forero, 2021

Castro-Huertas, Valentina & Forero, Dimitri, 2021, Tagalis graziae, a new species of Saicinae from the Chocó biogeographic region in Colombia (Hemiptera: Reduviidae), Zootaxa 4958 (1), pp. 380-387 : 382-386

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4958.1.24
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:408CE0D5-35E8-4F69-9977-F3386560E629
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4711002
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D06587C7-F015-FFC7-F5CF-D8CA80E0B9CA
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Tagalis graziae
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

Tagalis graziae sp. nov.

( Figs 1–2 View FIGURE 1 View FIGURE 2 )

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:8432C7F1-8169-4E22-98C4-F45CFAF8006E

Holotype. Male. COLOMBIA: Risaralda, Pueblo Rico, Montezuma Ecolodge , 5.9 km de Puerto Rico, 05.23016°N 76.08364°W, 1336 m, 2–7 Sep 2018, D. Forero / Bosque húmedo [Trampa de luz UV] / Tagalis graziae sp. nov. Castro-Huertas & Forero 2020 / MPUJ _ ENT 0065075 ( MPUJ). GoogleMaps

Etymology: This species is dedicated to our colleague Jocelia Grazia, from the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, as a small token of appreciation and in recognition of her contributions to the study of the Neotropical Heteroptera fauna during more than fifty years of productive scientific career.

Diagnosis: Among all species of Tagalis , T. graziae sp. nov. is recognized by the brown profemur with basal and apical wide dark brown bands ( Figs. 1A, 1B, 1F View FIGURE 1 ); meso- and metafemur brown with apical band dark brown ( Fig. 1B View FIGURE 1 ); first antennal segment with sparse short setae; pygophore without lateral process (lpg) ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2 ); and posteromedial process of pygophore (mpp) basally wide with an acute and long apex in a nearly horizontal position ( Figs. 2A, 2B View FIGURE 2 ).

Description: MALE: Total length, holotype: 5.71 mm (clypeus-apex to abdomen); 6.43 mm (clypeus-apex to hemelytral membrane). COLORATION: Head: Uniformly dark brown ( Figs. 1D, 1E View FIGURE 1 ). Antenna: scapus pale brown, basally with wide dark brown band, apically with narrow dark brown band. Labium: First visible segment dark brown, slightly paler at apex; second visible segment brown, dark brown on apical half, third visible segment basally brown, apically pale brown. Thorax ( Figs. 1B, 1E View FIGURE 1 ): Uniformly dark brown. Legs ( Figs. 2B, 2F View FIGURE 2 ): Procoxa and protrochanter dark brown; profemur brown with basal and apical regions with wide dark brown band, ventral spiniform processes dark brown; protibia pale brown with apical and distal regions dark brown, spiniform processes dark brown; protarsus pale brown; meso- and metacoxa and trochanter whitish, meso- and metafemur pale brown with a wide apical dark brown band; meso- and metatibia pale brown with a narrow basal and apical dark brown bands, meso- and metatarsus brown. Forewings: Semi-hyaline, brown ( Fig. 1A View FIGURE 1 ). Abdomen: Pale brown, second and third sternites dark brown; pygophore pale brown ( Fig. 2A View FIGURE 2 ). VESTITURE: Body with rather sparse, fine, suberect setae. Head: Densely setose; postocular lobe dorsally glabrous; antennal scapus with sparse, short setae; spiniform process present on ventral margin of maxillary plate, on posteroventral margin just behind eye, and on gular region, the first two of equal length, the last one about half the length of first two; two spiniform processes on each first and second visible segments of labium. Thorax: Dorsally glabrous; posterior lobe of pronotum laterally with sparse setae; proepisternal portion with an anterodorsal spiniform process and a posteroventral simple setae; mesoscutum basally beset with numerous, delicate, long setae. Legs: Procoxa with dorsad basal spiniform process; protrochanter with four ventrad spiniform processes, basal process longest; profemur with a ventral row of short spiniform processes, intermixed with decumbent dense setae and erect long sparse setae, upper margin of the inner surface with six spiniform processes; protibia upper margin of the inner surface with three large spiniform processes on basal 2/3, and one short, stout setae apically close to protibial comb; scopula present on ventral apex of third tarsomere of all legs. STRUCTURE: Head ( Figs. 1D, 1E View FIGURE 1 ): Anteocular lobe very short, postocular lobe as long as eye, globose, polished; interocular sulcus deep, almost straight; clypeus barely protruding, anterior margin straight nearly vertical. Eyes ( Figs. 1D, 1E View FIGURE 1 ): Hemispherical in dorsal view, elongate ovoid in lateral view. Antenna: Scapus the longest, pedicel about half the length of scapus, basiflagellomere as long as pedicel, distiflagellomere about half as long as basiflagellomere. Labium ( Figs. 1D, 1E View FIGURE 1 ): First visible segment stout, second basally swollen, about as long as third, third tapering towards apex. Thorax ( Fig. 1E View FIGURE 1 ): Pronotum longer than wide; anterior lobe subquadrate, collar with anterolateral angle with broadly rounded projection, disc of anterior lobe rugose, anterior and posterior margins with a lateral pair of low protuberances each, anterior protuberances more produced, distance between anterior protuberances smaller than between posterior ones; posterior lobe trapezoidal, about as long as anterior lobe, disc shallowly depressed, humeral angles rounded; transverse furrow impressed, strongly emarginated medially, with a deep circular depression; mesoscutum with broad base, medially depressed, laterally forming a ridge, apex truncated, tapering into a long erect spine ( Fig. 1G View FIGURE 1 ); metanotum with an anterior short, blunt process, and a posterior reclined large and sinuous spine ( Fig. 1G View FIGURE 1 ). Prosternum with proepisternal process projected, apex pointed; stridulitrum narrow; prosternal process very small; mesosternum slightly longer than prosternum; metasternum slightly shorter than mesosternum. Legs: procoxa cylindrical; protrochanter triangular; profemur stout; protibia slightly curved, apically slightly expanded ( Fig. 1F View FIGURE 1 ), with flat protibial comb; tarsus three-segmented, apical tarsomere globose; claws simple, slender, curved; meso- and metaleg similar in structure to each other, metaleg slightly longer than mesoleg ( Fig. 1B View FIGURE 1 ); meso- and metacoxa ovoid; meso- and metatrochanter triangular; meso- and metafemur and meso- and metatibia long and slender; meso- and metatarsus similar to protarsus. Forewing: with two closed cells ( Fig. 1C View FIGURE 1 ). Abdomen: elongate ovoid ( Fig. 1B View FIGURE 1 ), lateral margins smooth. MALE GENITALIA: Pygophore elongate ovoid ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2 ) in dorsal and ventral view, posteromedial process (mpp) nearly horizontal in lateral view ( Fig. 2A View FIGURE 2 ), basally wide and tapering apically ( Figs. 2A View FIGURE 2 ); process of the genital opening (pgo) triangular, with acute apex ( Figs. 2A, 2B View FIGURE 2 ), and produced dorsad; genital opening (go) and anterior opening (ao) separated by a narrow transverse bridge (br) ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2 ); area surrounding paramere socket (ps) with long, delicate setae ( Figs. 2A, 2B View FIGURE 2 ); area dorsal to ps not produced into a lateral process of pygophore ( Fig. 2C View FIGURE 2 ). Paramere long, of approximately uniform width along basal half, apical half slightly compressed and gently curving apically, with about eleven long setae on dorsal surface of apical half before curvature ( Fig. 2D View FIGURE 2 ). Phallus: Arms of articulatory apparatus (apt) strongly curved in dorsal view ( Fig. 2G View FIGURE 2 ); basal plate bridge absent. Phallosoma with dorsal phallothecal sclerite (dps) ovoid, dorsal phallothecal sclerite with large, nearly triangular prolongation (pro), pro about as long as dorsal phallothecal sclerite ( Figs. 2E, 2G View FIGURE 2 ). Endosoma with about ten elongate sclerites (ese), each narrowing apically, never spatulate, lateral ones slightly wider than the rest ( Figs. 2E, 2F View FIGURE 2 ).

FEMALE: Unknown.

Biology: The single examined specimen was collected at night with an UV light trap in a tropical humid lowland forest.

Distribution: Only known from Pueblo Rico, in the municipality of Risaralda. This area is part of the Chocó biogeographic region, a largely unexplored area for its entomological fauna.

Discussion: Tagalis graziae sp. nov. is similar to T. dichroa but can be easily distinguished from it because in T. graziae sp. nov. the coloration pattern of the profemur is brown with both basal and apical broad dark brown bands, the meso- and metafemur are pale brown with a conspicuous apical dark brown band, the meso- and metanotal spines are dark brown, the abdomen is pale brown with the second and third sternites dark brown, the antennal scapus has sparse short setae, and the sclerites of the endosoma are elongated and with an uniform structure (parallel-sided); whereas in T. dichroa the coloration pattern of the profemur is brown with a suffused apical dark brown band and no basal dark markings, the meso- and metafemur are brown and only apically slightly darker, the meso- and metanotal spines are whitish, the abdomen is brown with the eighth tergite and the pygophore pale brown, the antennal scapus has conspicuous long setae, and the sclerites of the endosoma are paddle-shaped. The sparse short setae on the antennal scapus of T. graziae sp. nov. also separates this species from all other known male specimens from other Tagalis species.Additional male specimens of T. graziae sp. nov. might help corroborate this. In addition, T. graziae sp. nov. was collected in Pueblo Rico, a municipality located on the eastern slope of the Western Andean cordillera, at about 380 km south of Acandí, the type locality of T. dichroa .

Varela & Melo (2017) discussed the terminology and putative homology of structures associated with the pygophore in Tagalis . They criticized the assessment of Castro-Huertas & Forero (2014) in considering homologous all large prolongations of the posterior genital opening of the pygophore when proposing the species groups. We agree with them about the error of Castro-Huertas & Forero (2014), and we now consider that the posterior opening of the pygophore bears two different protruding structures on its lateral margin. One such processes is the lateral process of the pygophore, which they correctly pointed out to be the same as the “dorso-medial prolongation of the paramere socket” of Forero & Weirauch (2012) and the “lateral apophysis” of Gil-Santana et al. (2010); and the other one is the “process of the genital opening” (pgo) of Forero & Weirauch (2012). To further clarify the situation, as explained in Forero & Weirauch (2012), the lateral process of the pygophore is a process that is found dorsally to the paramere socket and which can be extended medially or not. In T. graziae sp. nov., T. dichroa , T. i. inornata , and T. seminigra ( Gil-Santana 2011; Castro-Huertas & Forero 2014), apparently there is no extension at this position, and thus, there is no noticeable such process. On the other hand, other species such as T. baenai , T. grossi , and T. marquesi ( Gil-Santana 2011) , do have a strongly protruding posteriad, and sometimes rounded, lateral process of the pygophore. The process of the genital opening is located more anteriorly, and as in other Reduviidae groups such as Apiomerus (see Forero & Weirauch 2012), this process is subtending the membrane covering the posterior genital opening, which can be sclerotized (as in Apiomerus ) or not. In Tagalis this membrane has not been properly documented, but the process of the genital opening occurs simultaneously with the lateral process of the pygophore in some species such as T. evavilmae and T. femorata ( Gil-Santana et al. 2010; Varela & Melo 2017). In these species, the process of the genital opening is not a large dorsad protruding process, but a dorsoventrally flat barely angulated mediad protrusion of the margin of the posterior genital opening. We also agree with Varela & Melo (2017) that with a more detailed proposal of primary homologies of the pygophore of Saicinae , a phylogenetic analysis will help reveal phylogenetic relationships within this group.

Tagalis femorata has a similar coloration pattern on the profemur to that of T. graziae sp. nov., but in T. femorata the profemur is incrassate, the protibia has four spines, the posteromedial process of the pygophore is nearly vertical ( Melo 2008), and the pygophore has two conspicuous processes, the process of the genital opening and the lateral process of the pygophore ( Varela & Melo 2017), whereas in T. graziae sp. nov. the protibia has three spines, the posteromedial process of the pygophore (mpp) is nearly horizontal ( Fig. 2A View FIGURE 2 ), and the pygophore has only one conspicuous process, the process of the genital opening (pgo, Figs. 2A, 2B View FIGURE 2 ). Considering the structure of the mpp, T. graziae sp. nov. is similar to T. dichroa , T. inornata inornata , and T. seminigra ( Gil-Santana et al. 2010; Gil-Santana 2011; Castro-Huertas & Forero 2014), because all these species have the mpp basally wide with an acute and long apex in a nearly horizontal position ( Fig. 2A, 2B View FIGURE 2 ), but T. graziae sp. nov. can be separated from these species by the different coloration pattern. Castro-Huertas & Forero (2014) hypothesized these species to be closely related, based on the male genitalic pattern. We are proposing T. graziae sp. nov. to be part of this species group, but this hypothesis must be tested with a phylogenetic analysis as proposed by Varela & Melo (2017). Future studies should also focus on the structure of the endosomal sclerites because each species apparently has a particular configuration, and thus, these sclerites might help distinguish T. graziae sp. nov. from T. dichroa .

Coloration patterns have been used in Tagalis taxonomy, in which some species have been considered for instance “dark species” (e.g. Tagalis seminigra , T. evavilmae ) or “pale species” (e.g. Tagalis inornata , T. grossii ) ( Gil-Santana 2011; Gil-Santana et al. 2010; McAtee & Malloch 1923; Melo 2008), with specific color patterns on the head, thorax, and femora in each species ( Castro-Huertas & Forero 2014; Varela & Melo 2017). Differences in coloration patterns within Tagalis are apparently associated with a unique genitalic structure, which has been more studied in males, and allow separation among species. More research is necessary to establish the extent of color variation among species of Saicinae in general.