Limits...
Revision of the genus Trypogeus Lacordaire, 1869 (Cerambycidae, Dorcasominae).

Vives E - Zookeys (2015)

Bottom Line: Trypogeusfuscus auct. nec Nonfried is a misidentification of Philusophthalmicus Pascoe.All the species are described and keys are given for distinguishing the species.Photographs of the types of all the Trypogeus species are published for the first time.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Facultat de Biologia, Departament de Biologia Animal, Avda. Diagonal, 643, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.

ABSTRACT
The ten species of the genus Trypogeus Lacordaire are revised. Trypogeusapicalis Fisher, 1936, is proposed as a new synonym of Trypogeusjavanicus Aurivillius, 1925. A neotype for Trypogeussericeus (Gressitt, 1951) and lectotypes for Toxotusfuscus Nonfried, 1894 and Trypogeusjavanicus are designated. Trypogeusfuscus auct. nec Nonfried is a misidentification of Philusophthalmicus Pascoe. All the species are described and keys are given for distinguishing the species. Photographs of the types of all the Trypogeus species are published for the first time.

No MeSH data available.


9Trypogeuscabigasi Vives, male underside 10Trypogeusbarclayi Vives, female underside.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons-attribution
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4443589&req=5

Figure 2: 9Trypogeuscabigasi Vives, male underside 10Trypogeusbarclayi Vives, female underside.

Mentions: Anterior part of head with short rostrum. Long protruding mandibles, curved at the apex, the inner margin of the left mandible is sinuate and has no tooth whereas the margin of the right mandible is straight and has a sharp tooth in the middle. The neck is not narrowed or convex behind the eyes. Very long maxillary palpi, extending past the apex of the mandibles. Eyes moderately coarsely faceted; small and not very prominent. Antennae reaching or surpassing the apex of elytra in males, shorter in the females, the insertion is in front of the eyes as in other tribes of the Dorcasominae. The pronotum is subcylindrical, slightly wider than long at the level of the lateral protuberances, transverse in females, the anterior border is thin and simple and the posterior border is sinuate and margined. Discal area finely punctuate and presenting four or five gibbosities. Very short broad prosternum, the intercoxal process very narrow and dilated posteriorly. Procoxal cavities round and well extended towards the sides, almost reaching the lateral protuberance of the pronotum. Front coxae conical and protruding. Sides of the pronotum with a slight border in front of the protuberances. Mesocoxae closer together in males (Fig. 9), and more broadly separated by the mesosternal process in the females (Fig. 10). Triangular scutellum with rounded apex. Elytra not very long, flattened and strongly narrowed in the middle, slightly dehiscent at apex. In the females the elytra do not usually cover the abdomen and leave some terminal abdominal segments uncovered, particularly when it is swollen with eggs. The epipleura are well delimited and flattened. Wings (Fig. 1) are present and well developed in both males and females; they are translucent and somewhat darkened, the radial cell closed and the anal cell open, with simplified venation. Short slender legs, the femurs dilated in the middle and tibiae straight and widened at the apex. Female metatarsi are strongly dilated (Fig. 2), particularly the first two tarsomeres which are wider than the apex of the tibiae. The male aedeagus (Fig. 3) is long and slightly arched, acuminated at the apex, the lower lamina is distinctly longer than the upper. Very simple endophalus lacking interior sclerites (Fig. 14). Short narrow tegmen (Fig. 4) with long slender acuminated parameres, bearing about six long golden apical setae. In general the morphology of the male copulatory organ differs little between species. There are only small differences in the shape of the apex of the aedeagus and in the apical setae on the parameres of the tegmen (Figs 11–13). The integument is generally testaceous yellow with a dark elytral border in some species. The males are darker and generally part of the prothorax and legs is black, whereas the legs of the females are always yellow. Brown and yellowish antennae with the last segments usually almost white.


Revision of the genus Trypogeus Lacordaire, 1869 (Cerambycidae, Dorcasominae).

Vives E - Zookeys (2015)

9Trypogeuscabigasi Vives, male underside 10Trypogeusbarclayi Vives, female underside.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons-attribution
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4443589&req=5

Figure 2: 9Trypogeuscabigasi Vives, male underside 10Trypogeusbarclayi Vives, female underside.
Mentions: Anterior part of head with short rostrum. Long protruding mandibles, curved at the apex, the inner margin of the left mandible is sinuate and has no tooth whereas the margin of the right mandible is straight and has a sharp tooth in the middle. The neck is not narrowed or convex behind the eyes. Very long maxillary palpi, extending past the apex of the mandibles. Eyes moderately coarsely faceted; small and not very prominent. Antennae reaching or surpassing the apex of elytra in males, shorter in the females, the insertion is in front of the eyes as in other tribes of the Dorcasominae. The pronotum is subcylindrical, slightly wider than long at the level of the lateral protuberances, transverse in females, the anterior border is thin and simple and the posterior border is sinuate and margined. Discal area finely punctuate and presenting four or five gibbosities. Very short broad prosternum, the intercoxal process very narrow and dilated posteriorly. Procoxal cavities round and well extended towards the sides, almost reaching the lateral protuberance of the pronotum. Front coxae conical and protruding. Sides of the pronotum with a slight border in front of the protuberances. Mesocoxae closer together in males (Fig. 9), and more broadly separated by the mesosternal process in the females (Fig. 10). Triangular scutellum with rounded apex. Elytra not very long, flattened and strongly narrowed in the middle, slightly dehiscent at apex. In the females the elytra do not usually cover the abdomen and leave some terminal abdominal segments uncovered, particularly when it is swollen with eggs. The epipleura are well delimited and flattened. Wings (Fig. 1) are present and well developed in both males and females; they are translucent and somewhat darkened, the radial cell closed and the anal cell open, with simplified venation. Short slender legs, the femurs dilated in the middle and tibiae straight and widened at the apex. Female metatarsi are strongly dilated (Fig. 2), particularly the first two tarsomeres which are wider than the apex of the tibiae. The male aedeagus (Fig. 3) is long and slightly arched, acuminated at the apex, the lower lamina is distinctly longer than the upper. Very simple endophalus lacking interior sclerites (Fig. 14). Short narrow tegmen (Fig. 4) with long slender acuminated parameres, bearing about six long golden apical setae. In general the morphology of the male copulatory organ differs little between species. There are only small differences in the shape of the apex of the aedeagus and in the apical setae on the parameres of the tegmen (Figs 11–13). The integument is generally testaceous yellow with a dark elytral border in some species. The males are darker and generally part of the prothorax and legs is black, whereas the legs of the females are always yellow. Brown and yellowish antennae with the last segments usually almost white.

Bottom Line: Trypogeusfuscus auct. nec Nonfried is a misidentification of Philusophthalmicus Pascoe.All the species are described and keys are given for distinguishing the species.Photographs of the types of all the Trypogeus species are published for the first time.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Facultat de Biologia, Departament de Biologia Animal, Avda. Diagonal, 643, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.

ABSTRACT
The ten species of the genus Trypogeus Lacordaire are revised. Trypogeusapicalis Fisher, 1936, is proposed as a new synonym of Trypogeusjavanicus Aurivillius, 1925. A neotype for Trypogeussericeus (Gressitt, 1951) and lectotypes for Toxotusfuscus Nonfried, 1894 and Trypogeusjavanicus are designated. Trypogeusfuscus auct. nec Nonfried is a misidentification of Philusophthalmicus Pascoe. All the species are described and keys are given for distinguishing the species. Photographs of the types of all the Trypogeus species are published for the first time.

No MeSH data available.