ArticlePDF Available

Neotropical Acanthoderini (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae): Synonymies and new status in some genera, new species, transferences and new distributional records

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Taxonomic notes are provided in some Acanthoderini genera. Three new species are described: Scythropopsis intricata Santos-Silva, Botero and Wappes from Mexico, Aegomorphus robustus Santos-Silva, Botero and Wappes and Eupromerella boliviana Santos-Silva, Botero and Wappes from Bolivia. The following synonymies are proposed: Psapharochrus Thomson, 1864 as synonym of Aegomorphus Haldeman, 1847; Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) albomaculatus Fuchs, 1963 and Acanthoderes griseomaculata Zajciw, 1971 as synonyms of Symperasmus alboniger (Bates, 1861); Pteridotelus contaminatus Thomson, 1865 as synonym of Scythropopsis melanostictica (White, 1855); Psapharochrus jameswappesi Tavakilian, 2018 as synonym of Aegomorphus wappesi (Galileo, Martins & Santos-Silva, 2015); and Psapharochrus histrio Casey, 1913 and Psapharochrus guatemalensis Casey, 1913 as synonyms of Aegomorphus circumflexus (Jacquelin du Val, 1857). Acanthoderus circumflexus Jacquelin DuVal, 1857 is proposed as nomen protectum and Acanthocinus rusticus Klug, 1829 as nomen oblitum. Aegomorphus contaminatus (Thomson, 1965) is revalidated. Scythropopsis Thomson, 1864 and Symperasmus Thomson, 1864 are herein elevated to genus rank. The geographical distribution of ten species is expanded and a key to differentiate Acanthoderes, Aegomorphus, Scythropopsis, and Symperasmus is provided. Key-Words. Eupromerella; Miriochrus; Plagiosaurus; Sychnomerus; Taxonomy.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Neotropical Acanthoderini
(Coleoptera,Cerambycidae, Lamiinae):
Synonymies and new status in some
genera, new species, transferences
and new distributional records
Antonio Santos-Silva¹³; Juan Pablo Botero¹⁴ & James E. Wappes²
¹ Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Museu de Zoologia (MZUSP). São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
² American Coleoptera Museum. San Antonio, Texas, United States. E‑mail:lwappes@earthlink.net
³ ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000‑0001‑7128‑1418. E‑mail:toncriss@uol.com.br
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000‑0002‑5547‑7987. E‑mail:jp_bot@yahoo.com
Abstract. Taxonomic notes are provided in some Acanthoderini genera. Three new species are described: Scythropopsis
intricata Santos‑Silva, Botero and Wappes from Mexico, Aegomorphus robustus Santos‑Silva, Botero and Wappes and
Eupromerella boliviana Santos‑Silva, Botero and Wappes from Bolivia. The following synonymies are proposed: Psapharochrus
Thomson, 1864 as synonym of Aegomorphus Haldeman, 1847; Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) albomaculatus Fuchs, 1963 and
Acanthoderes griseomaculata Zajciw, 1971 as synonyms of Symperasmus alboniger (Bates, 1861); Pteridotelus contaminatus
Thomson, 1865 as synonym of Scythropopsis melanostictica (White, 1855); Psapharochrus jameswappesi Tavakilian, 2018
as synonym of Aegomorphus wappesi (Galileo, Martins & Santos‑Silva, 2015); and Psapharochrus histrio Casey, 1913 and
Psapharochrus guatemalensis Casey, 1913 as synonyms of Aegomorphus circumflexus (Jacquelin du Val, 1857). Acanthoderus
circumflexus Jacquelin DuVal, 1857 is proposed as nomen protectum and Acanthocinus rusticus Klug, 1829 as nomen oblitum.
Aegomorphus contaminatus (Thomson, 1965) is revalidated. Scythropopsis Thomson, 1864 and Symperasmus Thomson,
1864 are herein elevated to genus rank. The geographical distribution of ten species is expanded and a key to differentiate
Acanthoderes, Aegomorphus, Scythropopsis, and Symperasmus is provided.
Key-Words. Eupromerella; Miriochrus; Plagiosaurus; Sychnomerus; Taxonomy.
INTRODUCTION
The tribe Acanthoderini has a cosmopoli-
tan distribution and is comprised of 66 genera
and more than 560 species making it one of
the largest tribes in the Lamiinae (Tavakilian &
Chevillotte, 2019). Most Acanthoderini genera
and species are geographically restricted to the
Neotropical Region. In this region there is a group
of closely related genera whose taxonomy is con-
fusing, which has resulted in species allocated to
them that do not fit the current definition of the
genera further complicating an already confusing
situation.
Herein, the definition and limits of these
closely related genera: Acanthoderes Audinet-
Serville, 1835, which is subdivided in four sub-
genera, A. (Acanthoderes), A. (Pardalisia) Casey,
1913, A. (Scythropopsis) Thomson, 1864, and
A. (Symperasmus) Thomson, 1864; Aegomorphus
Haldeman, 1847; Eupromerella Fisher, 1938;
Miriochrus Galileo & Martins, 2012; Plagiosarus
Bates, 1880; Psapharochrus Thomson, 1864; and
Sychnomerus Bates, 1885 are defined to validate
each. As a result, numerous taxonomic changes
are proposed. Additionally, three new species are
described, and new geographical records listed
for ten species.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Photographs were taken in the MZSP with a
Canon EOS Rebel T3i DSLR camera, Canon MP-E
65mm f/2.8 1-5X macro lens, controlled by Zerene
Stacker AutoMontage software. Measurements
were taken in “mm” using a measuring ocular
Hensoldt/Wetzlar – Mess 10 in the Leica MZ6
stereomicroscope, also used in the study of the
specimens.
ISSN On-Line: 1807-0205
ISSN Printed: 0031-1049
ISNI: 0000-0004-0384-1825
Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
http://doi.org/10.11606/1807-0205/2020.60.06
http://www.revistas.usp.br/paz
http://www.scielo.br/paz
Edited by: Simone Policena Rosa
Received: 29/08/2019
Accepted: 16/12/2019
Published: 31/01/2020
ARTICLE
http://zoobank.org/D696AE0B-C11E-4A5A-B42B-2A841532E842
The acronyms used in the text are as follows:
ACMT: American Coleoptera Museum (James Wappes),
San Antonio, Texas, USA
FSCA: Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Gainesville,
FL, USA
FWSC: Fred W. Skillman collection, Pearce, Arizona, USA
MNKM: Museo de História Natural Noel Kempff Mercado,
Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, Bolivia
MNRJ: Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de
Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
MZSP: Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo,
São Paulo, Brazil
RFMC: Roy F. Morris Collection, Lakeland, FL, USA
SWLC: Steven W. Lingafelter Collection, Hereford, AZ, USA
TAXONOMY
On Acanthoderes Audinet-Serville,1835,
Aegomorphus Haldeman,1847,
PsapharochrusThomson,1864,
ScythropopsisThomson,1864,
SymperasmusThomson,1864, and
SychnomerusBates,1885
The definitions of the above acanthoderine genera
have seen numerous changes since their original de-
scriptions. These changes have resulted in modifications
in their status (some more than once) making for a com-
plicated history. In the most part their original descrip-
tions have not allowed taxonomists to clearly under-
stand their limits, and as a result new species have been
assigned to them that changed their limits. Thus, making
the study of this group of genera even more complicat-
ed and difficult. Santos-Silva & Nascimento (2018) com-
mented about the differences between Acanthoderes
and Psapharochrus, and reported: “Apart from those
controversial classifications, it was Lacordaire (1872) who
provided the best feature to separate Psapharochrus (in-
cluding Symperasmus as a synonym) from Acanthoderes
(Acanthoderes) and A. (Scythropopsis). The former was
included among the genera with eyes coarsely or
sub-coarsely granulated, while the two latter genera
were included among those with eyes finely granulat-
ed.” Lacordaire (1872) also included Aegomorphus in the
group of genera with eyes coarsely granulated, and sepa-
rated it from Psapharochrus in the key by the genal length
(translated): “Genae very short, sometimes nearly ab-
sent”, leading to Aegomorphus; and “Genae, at least, with
medium size”, leading to Psapharochrus. However, the
genae in the type species of Aegomorphus, Aegomorphus
decipiens Haldeman, 1847 (Figs.4-6) (= Lamia modesta
Gyllenhal, 1817 (Figs.41) = Aegomorphus modestus), is
distinctly long, as in the type species of Psapharochrus,
Acanthoderes cylindricus Bates, 1861 (Figs.7-9). Actually,
the genal length is longer in the type species of the for-
mer than in the latter, and Aegoschema sensu Lacordaire
(1872) is equal to Aegoschema Aurivillius, 1923. This be-
comes clear when seeing the species originally includ-
ed in Aegomorphus by Lacordaire (1872): A. adspersus
Thomson, 1861; A.moniliferus White, 1855; and A.obesus
Bates, 1861. But it is curious to note that Aegomorphus
decipiens Haldeman, 1847, type species of the genus,
was included in Psapharochrus by Lacordaire (1872).
The problem here was that Lacordaire (1872) wrong-
ly attributed the authorship of the Aegomorphus to
Thomson (1861), considering Aegomorphus Haldeman
as a synonym of Psapharochrus. Evidently, thus occurred
because Haldeman (1847) attributed the authorship of
Aegomorphus to Dejean (1835) followed by a correc-
tion of this by Aurivillius (1923): “Aegoschema n. nom. /
Aegomorphus Thoms. (nec Hald. 1847).
Santos-Silva & Nascimento (2018) summarized their
conclusions as follows: “1.Symperasmus – probably a syn-
onym of Psapharochrus, but, at least, it must be consid-
ered a subgenus of Psapharochrus. 2.Pardalisia – proba-
bly a synonym of Acanthoderes; 3.Scythropopsis – proba-
bly a genus distinct from Acanthoderes; 4.Eyes very finely
granulated – Acanthoderes (Acanthoderes); A.(Pardalisia);
A.(Scythropopsis). 5.Eyes coarsely or moderately coarsely
granulated – Psapharochrus; A.(Symperasmus). However,
at that time they did not formally propose any change in
the status of those genera.
A study of the type species of Aegoschema and
Psapharochrus has revealed that they share the same
features and lack significant differences hence we con-
clude that they are not different genera. Accordingly, we
formally synonymise Psapharochrus with Aegomorphus.
Although, it is important to note that several species
currently placed in Psapharochrus which have the later-
al tubercles of the prothorax with the apex blunt (not
acute as in the type species) and the elytra gradually
narrowed from humerus to apex (not parallel-sided as in
the type species), indicates that they are likely not true
Psapharochrus and thus, not Aegomorphus either.
Following the conclusions of Santos-Silva &
Nascimento (2018), we also consider both Scythropopsis
and Symperasmus to be genera distinct from
Acanthoderes. However, Pardalisia Casey, 1913 will provi-
sionally be kept as a subgenus of Acanthoderes.
The following key incorporates the primary charac-
ters needed to separate the genera involved in this study:
1. Eyes very finely granulated (Figs.1‑3,10‑12) ....................................2
Eyes slightly to distinctly coarsely granulated (Figs.4‑6,7‑9,13‑15) . 3
2(1). Elytra distinctly carinate dorsally (Fig.10) .......................Scythropopsis
Elytra without carina distant from suture (Fig.1) .................................
...............................Acanthoderes (Acanthoderes) and A.(Pardalisia)
3(1). Pronotum (Figs.13‑14) with distinct central depression, from near
base to near apex or only in anterior region, margined by lateral
elevation (carinate or not) ...........................................Symperasmus
Pronotum (Figs.4‑5,7‑8) not distinctly depressed centrally, nor with
lateral tubercles forming carina ...................................Aegomorphus
It is important to note that this study does not ex-
clude the possibility that some species currently includ-
ed (or transferred herein) in Acanthoderes, Aegomorphus,
Symperasmus, and Scythropopsis may need a new genus.
This is especially true regarding some species current-
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
2/40
ly included in Psapharochrus, which differ considerably
from the type species of the genus, and hence also
Aegomorphus.
The species of Aegomorphus from the Palearctic re-
gion agree well with the type species of the genus in
the body shape, prothoracic lateral tubercles, and pro-
notal tubercles. However, at least in one of the species
examined by us, Aegomorphus clavipes (Schrank, 1781)
(Figs.16-18), the eyes are finely granulated as in the spe-
cies of Acanthoderes and Scythropopsis.
According to Bates (1885) on Sychnomerus: “Two
species of Central-American ‘Aconthoderini’ are here
separated from Acanthoderes on the same grounds as
Discopus, Pteridotelus, Tetrasarus, and Plagiosarus are sep-
arated, namely, differences in the clothing and structure
of the antennae… The typical species of Sychnomerus
has greatly the appearance of a Pteridotelus; but it wants
the dentiform process of the undersides of joints 7, 9, and
10 which characterize that genus; what seem to be such
processes in Sychnomerus prove on close examination to
be dense tufts of hair. He defined the genus as follows
(translated): “A genus differing from Acanthoderes only
by the antennomeres III-XI densely setose ventrally, and
VII-XI very short in females, and with long and abundant
setae.” Examination of photographs of the types of the
two species included in Sychnomerus, S.hirticornis Bates,
1885, and S. barbiger Bates, 1885 (see photographs at
Bezark, 2019), suggests that they do not belong to the
same genus because the body shape differs, and the
erect setae on the ventral surface of their antennomeres
is noticeably different. Sychnomerus hirticornis, the type
species, appears to be Scythropopsis. However, in the
species of this latter genus examined by us, the distal
antennomeres in males often have the setae as in S.hirti-
cornis and, usually, the “tufts” in the basal antennomeres
also very similar or identical. However, the females of
Sychnomerus do not have long setae on distal antenno-
meres. Accordingly, while specimens of S.hirticornis and
S.barbiger were not available for study, we are keeping
Sychnomerus as a distinct genus.
Symperasmus Thomson, 1864 resurrection of the
original status
Symperasmus alboniger (Bates, 1861), comb.nov.
(Figs.19-34)
Acanthoderes alboniger Bates, 1861:218.
Acanthoderes albonigra; Gemminger, 1873: 3145 (cat.);
Blackwelder, 1946:610 (checklist); Zajciw, 1969a:198
(distr.); 1970a:5 (distr.).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) albonigra; Aurivillius,
1923: 385 (cat.); Gilmour, 1965: 615 (cat.); Monné,
1994:57 (cat.); Monné & Giesber t, 1994:229 (checklist).
Psapharochrus alboniger; Lacordaire, 1872:751; Monné,
2005:200 (cat.); Monné etal., 2012:32 (distr.); Monné,
2019:289 (cat.).
Psapharochrus albonigrus; Wappes etal., 2006:33 (distr.);
Monné & Hovore, 2006:209 (checklist).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) albomaculatus Fuchs,
1963:10; Gilmour, 1965:615 (cat.). Syn.nov.
Acanthoderes albomaculata; Monné, 1994: 57 (cat.);
Monné & Giesbert, 1994:229 (checklist).
Psapharochrus albomaculatus; Monné, 2005: 200 (cat.);
Monné & Monné, 2006: 42; Wappes et al., 2006:33
(distr.); Monné, 2019:289 (cat.).
Acanthoderes griseomaculata Zajciw, 1971: 306; Julio
etal., 2000:30 (holotype). Syn.nov.
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) griseomaculata; Monné,
1994: 61 (cat.); Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 230
(checklist).
Psapharochrus griseomaculatus; Monné, 2005:204 (cat.);
Monné et al., 2012: 32 (distr.); Monné & Chaboo,
2015: 90 (distr.); Monné & Monné, 2016: 57 (holo-
type); Monné, 2019:295 (cat.).
Bates (1861) described Acanthoderes alboniger (see
photograph of the holotype at Bezark, 2019) based on
a single female from Brazil (Pará). The holotype, as well
as a series of specimens from Brazil (Amazonas), has the
elytral apex covered with light yellowish-brown pubes-
cence (but not obscuring punctures). Later, Fuchs (1963)
described Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) albomaculatus
(see photograph of the holotype at Bezark, 2019) based
on a single female from Bolivia and reported (translat-
ed): “A very excellent species, with a certain similarity
to A.laetifica Bat. According to the description, the new
species is related to A.albonigra Bat., unknown to me,
from which it differs by the blunt lateral tubercles of the
prothorax and by drawing of the elytra. However, al-
though the elytral pubescent pattern is somewhat differ-
ent in the holotypes of A.albonigra and A.albomaculata
(Acanthoderes is feminine gender, and both names were
originally wrongly utilized), the lateral tubercles of the
prothorax are identical in both specimens. Bates (1861)
incorrectly recorded them as acute, suggesting an apex
much narrower than they really are in the species. Finally,
Zajciw (1971) described Acanthoderes griseomaculata
(see photograph of the holotype at Bezark, 2019) based
on a single male from Peru but did not provide any com-
parison with other species.
Symperasmus alboniger has a noticeable variation
of the elytral pubescent pattern color, as it can be yel-
low, partially yellow and partially pale-yellow, pale-yel-
low, partially pale-yellow and partially white, or white.
Also, the centrodorsal pubescent macula of the elytra
may be entire or fragmented, and the anterolateral pu-
bescent spots may be small or large, fused or not with
the centrodorsal macula. Furthermore, the apical elytral
pubescence is also noticeably variable (Figs.27-34). The
specimens examined from Brazil have the elytral pu-
bescence of the apex as in the holotypes of A.albonigra
and A. albomaculata, while the specimens from Bolivia
also have this area as in those holotypes as well as in the
holotype of A.griseomaculata but with an intermediate
pattern. Accordingly, we do not find a reliable feature
that allows separation of the three species hence both
A.albomaculata and A.griseomaculata are synonymized
with S.alboniger.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
3/40
Figures1-9. (1‑3)Acanthoderes daviesii, male. (1)Dorsal habitus. (2)Head, frontal view. (3)Lower eye lobe. (4‑6)Aegomorphus modestus, female. (4)Dorsal habi‑
tus. (5)Head, frontal view. (6)Lower eye lobe. (7‑9)Aegomorphus cylindricus, male. (7)Dorsal habitus. (8)Head, frontal view. (9)Lower eye lobe.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
4/40
Figures10-18. (10‑12)Scythropopsis albitarsis, male. (10)Dorsal habitus. (11)Head, frontal view. (12) Lower eye lobe. (13‑15)Symperasmus thoracicus, female.
(13)Dorsal habitus. (14)Head, frontal view. (15)Lower eye lobe. (16‑18)Aegomorphus clavipes, female. (16)Dorsal habitus. (17)Head, frontal view. (18)Lower eye lobe.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
5/40
The eyes in S. albonigra are not finely granulated,
thus, it does not belong to Acanthoderes. Additionally,
the pronotum is distinctly depressed centrally, a feature
that also supports its placement in Symperasmus, not in
Acanthoderes or Psapharochrus (=Aegomorphus) as pre-
viously placed.
Material examined (all from MZSP): PERU, Junín: Satipo,
1 female, 18.XII.1937, Paprzycki col.; 1 male, 1938-39,
Meskendahl col.; (Sanibeni; 340 m), 1 male, 13.XI.1935,
F. Woytjowski col. Huánuco: Tingo Maria (Rio Huallaga),
2 males, X.1960, formerly Dirings collection. BOLIVIA,
Beni (new department record): Uyapi (Guanay), 1male,
X-XI.1992, no collector indicated. La Paz (new depar tment
record): Ixiamas, 1921-22, M.R. Lopez col. Cochabamba
(new department record): “Região de Chaparé”, 400m),
1female, 05.IX.1956, Zischka col. BRAZIL, Amazonas: São
Paulo de Olivença, 1female, II.1923, S. Klages col.; 1male,
IV.1923, S. Klages col.; 1male, V.1923, S. Klages col.; (Rio
Javari), 1 female, III.1951, formerly Dirings collection;
1female, VII.1956, formerly Dirings collection; 1female,
X.1960, formerly Dirings collection; 1 female, II.1961,
formerly Dirings collection; 3 males, 2 females, X.1961,
formerly Dirings collection; 2 males, XI.1961, former-
ly Dirings collection; 1 female, II.1962, formerly Dirings
collection; 1female, XI.1962, formely Dirings collection;
1male, 1female, X.1963, formerly Dirings collection; (Rio
Solimões), 1male, XI.1960, formerly Dirings collection.
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019; new records): Ecuador,
Peru, Bolivia (Santa Cruz, Beni, La Paz, Cochabamba),
Brazil (Amazonas, Pará).
Scythropopsis Thomson, 1864 resurrection of the
original status
Scythropopsis melanostictica (White, 1855),
comb.nov.
(Figs.35-39)
Acanthoderes melanosticticus White, 1855:361.
Psapharochrus melanosticticus; Lacordaire, 1872: 751;
Monné, 2005:208 (cat.); Monné etal., 2010:246 (dis-
tr.); Monné, 2019:301 (cat.).
Acanthoderes melanosticta; Gemminger, 1873:3146 (cat.,
error); Blackwelder, 1946:611 (cat.); Zajciw & Seabra,
1968:72 (distr.); Zajciw, 1969b: 610 (distr.), 1970a:5
(distr.).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) melanosticta; Aurivillius,
1923: 387 (cat.); Buck, 1959: 604 (distr.); Gilmour,
1965: 615 (cat.); Monné, 1994:65 (cat.); Mermudes
& Monné, 2001: 331 (error); Monné et al., 2017: 30
(morphology).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) melanostictus; Monné &
Giesbert, 1994:231 (checklist).
Pteridotelus contaminatus Thomson, 1865: 544;
Gemminger, 1873: 3144 (cat.); Thomson, 1878: 15
(type); Aurivillius, 1923: 383 (cat.); Blackwelder,
1946: 610 (checklist); Gilmour, 1965: 611 (cat.);
Monné, 1994:53 (cat.); Monné & Giesbert, 1994:237
(checklist); Monné, 2005:215 (cat.); Monné & Hovore,
2006:211 (checklist); Monné, 2019:308. Syn.nov.
Audinet-Serville (1835) included some species in his
new genus Acanthoderes which indicated it was mascu-
line gender (Acanthoderes varius (Fabricius, 1787), and
Acanthoderes griseus (Fabricius, 1792)). However, it is actu-
ally feminine gender, as previously correctly indicated by
Gemminger (1873) and Blackwelder (1946). Gemminger
(1873) corrected the gender in only part of the species
neglecting to do so for Acanthoderes melanosticticus.
Lacordaire (1872) transferred A. melanosticticus to
Psapharochrus Thomson, 1864. As Aurivillius (1923)
considered Psapharochrus a subgenus of Acanthoderes,
A.melanosticticus was mentioned in this subgenus until
recently by nearly all authors, even after Psapharochrus
had been considered a distinct genus. In Acanthoderes
melanostictica the size of the ommatidia is very
small (Figs. 37-38) and the elytra have distinct carina
(Santos-Silva & Nascimento, 2018), hence it belongs to
Scythropopsis Thomson, 1864. It also has the protibiae
distinctly widened toward apex (Fig.39), as in the type
species of the genus.
Thomson (1865) described two species, in different
genera, with the same name: Psapharochrus contami-
natus (Fig. 40), and Pteridotelus contaminatus (Fig. 36).
Monné & Giesbert (1992) synonymized Psapharochrus
contaminatus with Acanthoderes melanostictus
[sic]: “Acanthoderes melanostictus White, 1855: 361/
Acanmoderes [sic] contaminatus Thomson, 1865: 543,
new synonymy. However, Psapharochrus contaminatus is
not equal to Scythropopsis melanostictica (Fig.35), rather
it is Pteridotelus contaminatus that is the true synonym of
the latter.
Material examined (all from MZSP): BRAZIL, Minas
Gerais (new state record): Poços de Caldas, 1 female,
11.XI.1954, J.J. Ferraciolli col.; Passa Quatro, 1 female,
14.XI.1916, Zikán col.; (Fazenda dos Campos), 1 male,
30.XII.1917, Zikán col. São Paulo: São Paulo, 1 female,
05.XII.1914, collector illegible; 1female, 1915, no collec-
tor indicated; (Ipiranga), 1male, 2 females, no date and
collector indicated; 1 female, 25.I.1957, collector illeg-
ible; (Jabaquara), 1 female, 13.II.1974, L.R. Fontes col.;
Campinas, 1female, XI.1919, collector illegible. Paraná:
Guarapuava, 1 female, III.1953, H. Schneider col.; 1 fe-
male, I.1960, H. Schneider col.; Ponta Grossa, 1female,
XII.1938, Camargo col.; 1male, 1941, Machado col.; Rio
Negro, 1female, 07.I.1924, no collector indicated; 1male,
22.XII.1924, no collector indicated; 1 female, I.1926, no
collector indicated; 1 female, 09.III.1927, no collector
indicated; Curitiba, 1male, 05.II.1936, no collector indi-
cated. Santa Catarina: São Bento do Sul, 1male, XI.1924,
A. Maller col.; 1 female, II.1950, formerly Dirings col.;
1 male, II.1952, formerly Dirings col.; 2females, II.1960,
formerly Dirings col.; (Rio Vermelho), 1 male, XII.1949,
formerly Dirings col.; 2females, I.1950, formerly Dirings
col.; 1male, I.1952, formerly Dirings col.; 1male, II.1952,
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
6/40
formerly Dirings col.; 1female, X.1952, formerly Dirings
col.; 1male, XII.1952, formerly Dirings col.; 1male, I.1958,
formerly Dirings col.; 6males, 4females, III.1960, former-
ly Dirings col.; 2 females, I.1961, formerly Dirings col.;
1female, III.1961, formerly Dirings col.; 1female, I.1962,
formerly Dirings col.; Timbó, 4 males, 3females, X.1958,
formerly Dirings col.
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019; new record): Brazil (Minas
Gerais, Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Paraná,
Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul).
Scythropopsis lacrymans (Thomson, 1865),
comb.nov.
(Fig.42)
Pteridotelus lacrymans Thomson, 1865:544; Gemminger,
1873:3145 (cat.); Thomson, 1878:15 (type).
Acanthoderes lacrymans; Bates, 1880: 140; Blackwelder,
1946:610 (checklist); Ordóñez-Reséndiz & Martínez-
Ramos, 2017:828 (distr.).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) lacrymans; Aurivillius,
1923: 386 (cat.); Gilmour, 1965: 613 (cat.); Monné,
2005:164 (cat.).
Pteridotelus lachrymosus; Bates, 1880: pl.11, fig.6 (error).
Acanthoderes lachrymans; Chemsak et al., 1992: 130
(checklist); Noguera & Chemsak, 1996:406 (distr.).
Acanthoderes (Pardalisia) lacrymans; Monné, 1994: 70
(cat.); Monné & Giesbert, 1994:229 (checklist); Vargas-
Cardoso etal., 2018:96 (hosts); Monné, 2019:225 (cat.).
Thomson (1865) described Pteridotelus lacrymans
without explaining its inclusion in the genus. Since the
main feature of Pteridotelus (last antennal segments dis-
tinctly widened), is not present in this species it is incor-
rect to maintain it in the genus. The species Pteridotelus
lacrymans appears in Monné & Giesbert (1994), and
Monné (1994) as an Acanthoderes, without explanation
in either reference. Factually, Pteridotelus lacrymans
cannot be placed in Acanthoderes (Pardalisia), because
the antennae are distinctly longer, with distinct ventral
pubescence, clearly forming tufts in antennomeres III
and IV (distinctly shorter and glabrous in A.(P. )funeraria
Bates, 1861, elytra carinate toward distal area (not so in
A.(P.)funeraria). Due to the antennal setae Pteridotelus
lacrymans also has affinities with Tetrasarus Bates, 1880.
However, Tetrasarus is another problematic genus with
species assigned to but not belonging to it. The presence
of a dense tuft of long setae on the apex of antennom-
eres III and IV is a definitive character of Tetrasarus and
is lacking in P. lacrymans. Although Pteridotelus lacry-
mans differs somewhat in general appearance to other
Scythropopsis species it is provisionally placed in the ge-
nus because of the common characters previously com-
mented on.
Material examined: MEXICO, Morelos Cuernavaca,
1male, no date indicated, Martins col. (MZSP).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019; new record): Mexico
(Oaxaca, Puebla, Guerrero, Morelos).
Scythropopsis nigritarsis (White, 1855), comb.nov.
(Figs.43-54)
Acanthoderes nigritarsis White, 1855: 363; Gemminger,
1873: 3146 (cat.); Bates, 1880: 141 (distr.); Gahan,
1892: 264 (syn.); Blackwelder, 1946: 611 (checklist);
Chemsak etal., 1992:130 (cat.); Noguera & Chemsak,
1996:406 (cat.); Chemsak & Hovore, 2002b:11.
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) nigritarsis; Aurivillius,
1923: 387 (cat.); Gilmour, 1965:613 (cat.); Monné &
Giesbert, 1994: 231 (checklist); Monné, 1994: 231
(cat.).
Psapharochrus nigritarsis; Turnbow etal., 2003:29 (distr.);
Monné, 2005: 209 (cat.); Hovore, 2006: 376 (distr.);
Swift etal., 2010:46 (distr.); Monné, 2019:302 (cat.).
Acanthoderes sylvanus Bates, 1880:141, 1885:378.
Acanthoderes sylvana; Lameere, 1883:62 (checklist).
Description: Female (Figs.48-52): Integument black,
slightly more dark brown on some areas.
Head: Frons, vertex, and area behind eyes with dense,
white, yellowish-brown, and pale-yellow pubescence
mixed; with sparse, long, erect dark setae close to eyes.
Genae with dense pubescence as on dorsal surface of
head close to eye, narrow area close to frons glabrous,
distinctly sparser on wide remaining surface, with a few
long, erect dark setae interspersed. Postclypeus with
dense, long white, yellowish-brown, and pale-yellow pu-
bescence intermixed, with sparse, long, erect dark setae
interspersed, central area and sides glabrous. Posterior
of labrum coplanar with anteclypeus, inclined at an-
terior third; with dense white, yellowish-brown, and
pale-yellow pubescence intermixed on sides of posteri-
or (whiter and shorter toward central area), distinctly
sparser centrally, sparse on inclined area, especially cen-
trally, and with fringe of yellowish-brown setae at anteri-
or margin; with transverse, sparse row of long, erect, dark
setae centrally. Gulamentum slightly convex, posterior
glabrous, depressed, finely punctate, anterior third with
short yellowish-brown pubescence not obscuring integ-
ument. Distance between upper eye lobes 0.62 times
length of scape; in frontal view, distance between lower
eye lobes 0.94 times length of scape. Antennae 1.2 times
elytral length, reaching posterior seventh of elytra. Scape
clavate, flattened dorsally at basal third; with brown pu-
bescence not obscuring integument, with short, mod-
erately abundant white pubescence interspersed on
posterior , except narrow posterior area with dense
white pubescence; with a few long, erect dark setae on
posterior region of ventral surface. Antennomeres with
basal white pubescent ring, gradually narrower toward
posterior segments (pubescence sparser on III), and re-
maining surface with brown pubescence not obscuring
integument; pedicel and antennomeres III-VI with sparse,
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
7/40
Figures19-34. Symperasmus alboniger. (19‑22)Male from Brazil (Amazonas, Benjamin Constant). (19)Dorsal habitus. (20)Ventral habitus. (21)Lateral habitus.
(22)Head, frontal view. (23‑26) Male from Peru (Huánuco, Tingo Maria). (23)Dorsal habitus. (24)Ventral habitus. (25)Lateral habitus. (26)Head, frontal view.
(27‑34)Elytral apex. (27)Female, Bolivia. (28)Female, Bolivia. (29)Female, Peru. (30)Male, Peru. (31)Male, Peru. (32)Male, Peru. (33)Male, Bolivia. (34)Male, Brazil.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
8/40
Figures35-42. (35‑39)Acanthoderes melanosticticus, (35)Syntype, dorsal view. (36)Pteridotelus contaminatus, holotype, dorsal habitus. (37)Male from Brazil
(Santa Catarina), head, frontal view. (38)Idem, lower eye lobe. (39)Idem, protibia. (40)Psapharochrus contaminatus, holotype male, dorsal habitus. (41)Lamia
modesta, holotype, dorsal habitus. (43)Pteridotelus lacrymans, holotype, dorsal habitus.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
9/40
long, erect dark setae ventrally (gradually shorter, sparser
toward VI). Antennal formula (ratio) based on length of
antennomere III: scape= 0.80; pedicel=0.23; IV= 0.77;
V=0.46; VI=0.36; VII=0.35; VIII=0.27; IX=0.23; X=0.19;
XI=0.19.
Thorax: Lateral tubercle of prothorax large, conical,
slightly curved upward, with apex blunt. Pronotum with
large, wide tubercle on each side, gradually elevated
from posterior quarter toward anterior quarter, with
more elevated area slightly bifid at top; with narrow,
carina-shaped tubercle centrally, from posterior sulcus
to anterior margin, gradually widened toward posterior
sulcus; posterior sulcus well-marked; coarsely, sparsely
punctate between tubercles, forming transverse row in
posterior sulcus, and a few coarse punctures on dorsal
surface of lateral tubercles of prothorax; with dense,
white, yellowish-brown, and pale-yellow pubescence in-
termixed, with a few long, erect dark setae interspersed
on sides of posterior area, greenish-brown pubescent
band adjacent to outer side of lateral tubercles of pro-
notum, widened anteriorly and posteriorly, anterior ¾
of central tubercle glabrous, anterior apex of lateral tu-
bercles of pronotum nearly glabrous; posterior fourth
with white pubescent band centrally. Sides of protho-
rax coarsely, sparsely punctate; with dense, white, yel-
lowish-brown, and pale-yellow pubescence intermixed.
Prosternum with white, yellowish-brown, and pale-yel-
low pubescence intermixed, denser on some areas.
Prosternal process 0.75 times width of procoxal cavity,
coarsely rugose-punctate, longitudinally sulcate central-
ly, with apex strongly emarginate; pubescence with same
color as on prosternum, distinctly sparser toward apex.
Ventral surface of mesothorax with dense, white, yel-
lowish-brown, and pale-yellow pubescence intermixed
laterally, yellowish-brown centrally. Mesoventral process
1.5 times width of mesocoxal cavity, with one distinct
tubercle each side of anterior area; with white, yellow-
ish-brown, and pale-yellow pubescence intermixed, not
obscuring integument. Ventral surface of metathorax
with dense, white, yellowish-brown, and pale-yellow pu-
bescence intermixed, sparser centrally. Scutellum with
dense yellowish-brown pubescence on anterocentral
area, with white pubescence interspersed, narrow white
pubescent band on central area of posterior third, and
brown pubescence on remaining surface. Elytra: Humeri
somewhat projected forward; with elevated centrobasal
crest covered with small tubercles between humeri and
scutellum, and distinct carina from apex of centrobasal
crest to near apex; posterior margin concave, with out-
er angle distinctly triangularly projected; pubescence
dense, mostly white, yellowish-brown, and pale-yellow
pubescence intermixed, with dense, slightly oblique,
wide white pubescent band laterally on anterior third,
small greenish-brown spots surrounding punctures, and
irregular areas with greenish-brown pubescence; with
sparse, moderately long, erect dark setae throughout.
Legs: Femora with dense, white, yellowish-brown, and
pale-yellow pubescence intermixed. Tibiae with mod-
erately dense, white, yellowish-brown, and pale-yellow
pubescence intermixed on dorsal and lateral sides of
basal area, and wide central area (this later area some-
what projected toward apex along outer surface), with
white pubescence on ventral surface of basal area and
dorsal surface of apex, and brownish pubescence on re-
maining surface, not obscuring integument; with long,
erect, sparse dark setae. Tarsomeres I and V with most-
ly white pubescence dorsally, and remaining segments
with brownish pubescence not obscuring integument.
Abdomen: Ventrites with white, yellowish-brown, and
pale-yellow pubescence intermixed, sparser on wide
central area of V; apex of ventrite V nearly truncate.
Dimensions (mm): Total length, 16.7; prothoracic length,
3.2; anterior prothoracic width, 4.2; posterior prothorac-
ic width, 4.4; maximum prothoracic width, 5.9; humeral
width, 7.2; elytral length, 11.9.
Material examined: MEXICO, Chiapas (new state record):
Reserva Biosfera El Triunfo, 15°39N, 92°49W, 1 female,
15.XI.2001, C.W. O’Brien col. (FWSC). Oaxaca: MX175,
5kmN Portillo de Rayo, 2males, 20.X.2005, F. Skillman &
B. Eya col. (FWSC; MZSP).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019; new record): Mexico
(Oaxaca, Chiapas), Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica.
Remarks: The outer angle of the elytral apex in the fe-
male examined is more triangularly projected than in the
two males examined. However, based on the study of
other species of the genus, as well as similar genera, this
feature is considered a variation. The elytral pubescence,
in S.nigritarsis varies widely as it does in other species of
the genus.
The finely granulate eyes and distinct elytral carina
observed in photographs of the holotype and the other
material examined ensure us that the species belongs to
Scythropopsis.
Scythropopsis sallei (Thomson, 1865), comb.nov.
(Fig.55)
Psapharochrus sallei Thomson, 1865:543, 1878:15 (type);
Monné, 2005:212 (cat.), 2019:305 (cat.).
Psapharochrus saillei (error); Lacordaire, 1872:751.
Acanthoderes sallaei (error); Bates, 1880: 141 (distr.);
Noguera & Chemsak, 1996:406 (checklist).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) sallei; Aurivillius, 1923:388
(cat.); Gilmour, 1965: 613 (cat.); Monné & Giesbert,
1994:231 (checklist); Monné, 1994:67 (cat).
Acanthoderes sallei; Blackwelder, 1946: 611 (check-
list); Zajciw, 1970b: 187; Chemsak et al., 1992: 130
(checklist).
Thomson (1865) described the species from Mexico,
without a specific locality. Subsequently Bates (1880)
provided: Córdova (=Córdoba) in the Mexican state of
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
10/40
Veracruz as a collection locality. Noguera & Chemsak
(1996) reiterated the Bates (1880) information.
Although the outer angle of the elytral apex is dis-
tinctly projected on the holotype of Psapharochrus sallei,
and not so in the holotypes of Acanthoderes nigritarsis
and Acanthoderes sylvanus, it is still possible that they
belong to the same species. For example, the female of
Scythropopsis nigritarsis examined by us has the elytral
apex intermediate between the three holotypes. This
kind of variation is not unusual in Acanthoderini as, for
example, in Aegomorphus jaspideus (Germar, 1823) where
the outer angle of the elytra is usually distinctly project-
ed but, can also be slightly or even not at all projected.
The finely granulate eyes and distinct elytral carina,
as shown in the photograph of the holotype, support the
species transference to Scythropopsis.
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019): Mexico (Veracruz).
Scythropopsis cornuta (Bates, 1880), comb.nov.
(Figs.56-61)
Acanthoderes cornutus Bates, 1880:142.
Acanthoderes cornuta; Lameere, 1883: 62 (cat.);
Blackwelder, 1946: 610 (checklist); Chemsak et al.,
1992:130 (checklist).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) cornuta; Aurivillius,
1923: 386 (cat.); Gilmour, 1965:614 (cat.); Monné &
Giesbert, 1994:230 (checklist); Monné, 1994:60 (cat.).
Psapharochrus cornuta; Turnbow etal., 2003:29 (distr.).
Psapharochrus cornutus; Monné, 2005:203 (cat.); Hovore,
2006:376 (distr.); Monné, 2019:293 (cat.).
Description: Male (Figs. 57-61): Integument mostly
dark brown, almost black on some areas; anteclypeus,
apex of labrum, parts of mouthparts, and apex of pal-
pomeres reddish-brown; antennomeres V-XI with orange
ring on basal third; central area of anterior third of elytra
with large, triangular reddish-brown macula.
Head: Frons, area between antennal tubercles and be-
ginning of upper eye lobes finely, sparsely punctate;
with moderately dense brownish pubescence (more red-
dish-brown close to eyes and postclypeus), with white
pubescence interspersed. Remaining surface of vertex
smooth, with dark brown pubescence centrally, partially
obscuring integument, and longitudinal yellowish-white
pubescent band laterally. Area behind upper eye lobes
with sparse fringe of yellowish-white pubescence close
to eye, glabrous on narrow sulcate area close to eye,
with yellowish-brown pubescence close to sulcate area,
nearly glabrous toward prothorax. Area behind lower
eye lobes glabrous on sulcus adjacent to eye, with nar-
row (widened near inferior curvature of eye) yellow-
ish-brown pubescent band close to sulcus (pubescence
sparser than behind lower eye lobe), remaining surface
glabrous. Genae almost twice length of lower eye lobe;
with fringe of yellowish-brown pubescence close to eye,
and sparse yellowish-brown pubescence, with white pu-
bescence interspersed on remaining surface, narrow dis-
tal area glabrous. Postclypeus coarsely, sparsely punctate
on wide central area, smooth laterally; with short, bristly
reddish-brown pubescence not obscuring integument
on wide central area more so on center of this area, later-
ally glabrous; with long, sparse, erect dark setae on wide
central area. Posterior of labrum coplanar with ante-
clypeus, inclined at anterior third; with yellowish-brown
pubescence not obscuring integument, on posterior
, anterior third nearly glabrous, anterior margin with
fringe of brown setae (apex of nearly all setae yellowish);
with transverse row of long, erect, dark setae near curva-
ture between coplanar and inclined area. Gulamentum
glabrous, wide posterior area smooth, except trans-
verse striae on center of anterior region of this area; an-
terior area depressed, transversely striate, with sparse
reddish-brown pubescence close to anterior margin.
Distance between upper eye lobes 0.55 times length of
scape; in frontal view, distance between lower eye lobes
equal to length of scape. Antennae 1.65 times elytral
length, reaching elytral apex near apex of antennomere
VIII. Scape clavate, distinctly sulcate dorsally at anterior
third; dorsally with reddish-brown pubescence except
wide transverse white pubescent band centrally, and
narrow white pubescent band at apex; remaining sur-
face with white pubescence not obscuring integument.
Pedicel with transverse white pubescent band dorsally
near base, brown on remaining dorsal surface except
yellowish-white on outer side close to apex; ventral and
lateral surfaces with white pubescence. Antennomeres
III and IV with two white pubescent rings, one basal-
ly, another after middle, ventrally fused by longitudi-
nal band; remaining surface with brown pubescence.
Antennomeres V-XI with white pubescence on basal half,
brown on distal half; distal third of antennomere IX and
basal of antennomere X with long, erect dark setae.
Antennal formula (ratio) based on length of antenno-
mere III: scape=0.73; pedicel=0.29; IV=0.76; V=0.45;
VI=0.39; VII=0.35; VIII=0.31; IX=0.27; X=0.21; XI=0.24.
Thorax: Lateral tubercle of prothorax large, conical.
Pronotum with large, nearly conical tubercle each side,
with wide, rounded apex; with narrow, carina-shaped
tubercle centrally, from posterior sulcus to anterior mar-
gin, slightly widened posteriorly; posterior sulcus dis-
tinct laterally, nearly indistinct toward center; coarsely,
sparsely punctate between tubercles, slightly coarser
and more abundant between anterior margin and base
of lateral tubercles, and along posterior sulcus, shallower,
sparser on lateral tubercles of prothorax; with white, yel-
lowish-brown, and pale-yellow pubescence intermixed,
partially obscuring integument in some areas. Sides of
prothorax coarsely, sparsely punctate (punctures dis-
tinctly coarser close to posterior margin); pubescence as
on pronotum. Prosternum with pale-yellow pubescence
not obscuring integument. Prosternal process with wid-
est central area about as wide as procoxal cavity; lateral
margins sinuous and elevated; central area longitudinal-
ly slightly elevated; with sparse pale-yellow pubescence.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
11/40
Figures43-54. Scythropopsis nigritarsis. (43‑47)Male. (43)Dorsal habitus. (44)Ventral habitus. (45)Lateral habitus. (46)Lower eye lob. (47)Head, frontal view.
(48‑52)Female. (48)Head, frontal view. (49)Lower eye lobe. (50)Dorsal habitus. (51)Ventral habitus. (52)Lateral habitus. (53)Holotype male, dorsal habitus.
(54)Acanthoderes sylvanus, holotype male, dorsal habitus.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
12/40
Figures55-66. (55)Psapharochrus sallei, holotype female, dorsal habitus. (56‑61)Scythropopsis cornuta. (56)Holotype female, dorsal habitus. (57)Dorsal hab‑
itus, male. (58)Ventral habitus, male. (59)Lateral habitus, male. (60)Head, frontal view, male. (61)Lower eye lobe, male. (62‑66)Scythropopsis wappesi, male.
(62)Dorsal habitus. (63)Ventral habitus. (64)Lateral habitus. (65)Head, frontal view. (66)Lower eye lobe.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
13/40
Ventral surface of meso- and metathorax with pale-yel-
low pubescence not obscuring integument, sparser on
center of meso- and metaventrite. Mesoventral process
with apex slightly wider than mesocoxal cavity; with one
moderately large tubercle each side of anterior area; later-
al margins slightly narrowed centrally, distinctly widened
at apex. Scutellum with yellowish-white pubescence not
obscuring integument. Elytra: Humeri rounded, some-
what projected forward; with elevated centrobasal crest
between humeri and scutellum, nearly conically elevat-
ed anteriorly, covered with small tubercles, and distinct
carina from apex of centrobasal crest to near apex; with
another carina between the crest and humeri; elytral
carina fused at their apex; coarsely, sparsely punctate,
punctures sparser, shallower toward apex, with basal
punctures anteriorly bordered by small tubercle; apex
truncate, slightly concave centrally; pubescence mostly
yellowish-white, less so between centrobasal crests, ex-
cept wide, irregular, slightly oblique dark-brown pubes-
cent band about middle (with irregular yellowish-white
macula on inclined area), and dark-brown spots sur-
rounding punctures; U-shaped white pubescent band
on basal third partially lost in the specimen examined.
Legs: Femora with yellowish-white pubescence partial-
ly obscuring integument on some areas, with brown
pubescent areas interspersed on club. Tibiae with three
rings of yellowish-white pubescence, one basally, one
centrally, another at apex; remaining surface with brown
pubescence. Protarsi with dark-brown pubescence dor-
sally, with a few whitish setae interspersed on tarsomere
I. Tarsomere I of meso- and metatarsi with dense white
pubescence on posterior of dorsal surface, dark-brown
pubescence basally; tarsomeres II-IV with dark-brown
pubescence; tarsomere V with white pubescence not ob-
scuring integument.
Abdomen: Ventrites with yellowish-white pubescence
not obscuring integument, sparser centrally, with distal
area of ventrites I-IV glabrous; distal margin of ventrite
V concave.
Dimensions (mm): Total length, 12.80; prothoracic
length, 2.60; anterior prothoracic width, 3.20; posterior
prothoracic width, 3.15; maximum prothoracic width,
4.55; humeral width, 5.15; elytral length, 8.20.
Material examined: NICARAGUA (new country re-
cord): Nueva Segovia: Cerro Jesus (13°58N, 86°10W;
1,100-1,200m), 1male, VI-VII.2016, E. van den Berghe col.
(ACMT).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019; new record): Guatemala,
Honduras, Nicaragua.
Remarks: Bates (1880) described the species from
Guatemala, based on a single female. Subsequently,
the species has only been mentioned in catalogs and
checklists, except for Turnbow etal. (2003), who provid-
ed Honduras as a new country record. Examination of
the photograph of the holotype, as well as the male de-
scribed here, reveals that the eyes are finely granulated,
and the elytra distinctly carinate. Accordingly, the spe-
cies is transferred to Scythropopsis.
Scythropopsis wappesi (Chemsak & Hovore, 2002),
comb.nov.
(Figs.62-66)
Acanthoderes wappesi Chemsak & Hovore, 2002b: 7;
Monné, 2005:163 (cat.); Hovore, 2006:376 (distr.).
Acanthoderes (Acanthoderes) wappesi Monné, 2005: 163
(cat.); Monné & Hovore, 2006:203 (checklist).
Psapharochrus wappesi; Tavakilian, 2018:39 (comb.nov.);
Monné, 2019:307 (cat.).
According to Tavakilian (2018): “The photography of
the type available on Bezark’s Catalog (2018)… shows
clearly that the species described as Acanthoderes
wappesi Chemsak & Hovore, 2002… belongs to the ge-
nus Psapharochrus Thomson, 1863 and not to the genus
Acanthoderes Audinet-Serville, 1835. This necessary new
combination induces a new homonym and the latest spe-
cies described in honour of James Wappes must be re-
named.” However, Chemsak & Hovore (2002b) reported
the eyes as being “finely faceted”, which was confirmed
in the specimen examined by us. As the species also has
distinctly elytral carina, it belongs to Scythropopsis and
thus negates the need for a replacement name.
Material examined: MEXICO (new country record):
Tamaulipas: 10kmE Tula (3900’), 1male, 10.V.1994, J.E.
Wappes col. (ACMT).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019; new record): Guatemala,
Mexico (Tamaulipas).
Scythropopsis barrerai (Chemsak & Hovore, 2002),
comb.nov.
(Figs.67-71)
Acanthoderes barrerai Chemsak & Hovore, 2002a:13.
Acanthoderes (Acanthoderes) barrerai Monné, 2005:160
(cat.); Monné & Hovore, 2006:202 (checklist); Monné,
2019:220 (cat.); Santos-Silva etal., 2018:205 (distr.).
As in the photograph of the holotype, as well as the
female from the MZSP collection, the eyes are finely
granulated and the elytra are distinctly carinate, the spe-
cies is appropriately transferred to Scythropopsis.
Material examined: MEXICO, Veracruz: Los Tuxtlas
(900m), 1female, 01-15.VI.2016, J.H. Garcia col. (MZSP).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019): Mexico (Querétaro,
Hidalgo, Veracruz).
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
14/40
Scythropopsis intricata sp.nov.
(Figs.72-76)
Description: Female: Integument mostly black; mouth-
parts dark reddish-brown with darkened areas, except
palpi of last palpomeres black with yellowish-brown apex.
Head: Frons dense white pubescent with narrow, lon-
gitudinal, central glabrous band close to clypeus; with a
few long, erect dark setae close to lower eye lobes. Area
between antennal tubercles and upper eye lobes, and
behind upper eye lobes with dense white pubescence,
except moderately narrow, longitudinal, glabrous central
band between antennal tubercles and upper eye lobes,
orange pubescence interspersed in area adjacent to in-
ner side of upper eye lobes, orange pubescent macula
behind beginning of the upper eye lobes, and oblique
orange pubescent band each side of median groove be-
tween antennal tubercles and upper eye lobes, and tri-
angular glabrous indent on posterior central area; area
of vertex and behind upper eye lobes close to protho-
rax glabrous; with a few long, erect dark setae close to
eyes. Area behind lower eye lobes (this area widened
toward ventral surface) with dense white pubescence
close to wide superior area of eye, with orange pubes-
cence interspersed, orange pubescence on inferior area
close to eye, with white pubescence interspersed. Genae
slightly shorter than twice length of lower eye lobe;
with dense orange pubescence close to eye and white
pubescence interspersed, distinctly sparser toward gla-
brous apex. Postclypeus with dense, long, decumbent
white pubescence on wide central area, glabrous lat-
erally; with sparse, long, erect dark setae on pubescent
area. Posterior of labrum coplanar with anteclypeus,
inclined at anterior third; with dense, long, decumbent
white pubescence on posterior , sparser, shorter on an-
terior third; with fringe of pale-yellow setae in anterior
margin; with sparse, long, erect dark setae in central area
of posterior . Gulamentum glabrous except narrow an-
terior area with yellowish-white pubescence not obscur-
ing integument. Distance between upper eye lobes 0.9
times length of scape; in frontal view, distance between
lower eye lobes 1.2 times length of scape. Antennae 1.25
times elytral length, reaching posterior fifth of elytra.
Scape clavate, longitudinally sulcate dorsally in basal
half; with yellowish brown pubescence partially obscur-
ing integument dorsally and laterally, with white pubes-
cence interspersed, except white distal pubescent ring,
which surrounds the entire circumference of the scape;
ventral surface with white pubescence not obscuring
integument; with a few long, erect dark setae ventrally.
Pedicel with abundant white pubescence, except yel-
lowish-brown pubescence on center of dorsal and lat-
eral surfaces; with a few long, erect dark setae ventrally.
Antennomere III with abundant white pubescence on
wide anterior area, except sparsely pubescent on cen-
ter of dorsal and lateral surfaces of this area; remaining
surface with dark pubescence partially obscuring integ-
ument; anterior ¾ of ventral surface with sparse, long,
erect dark setae, becoming noticeable denser, forming
distinct tuft on posterior quarter. Antennomere IV with
anterior densely white pubescent, dark on remaining
surface; with long, erect dark setae on ventral surface of
posterior third, forming distinct tuft in posterior quarter
of antennomere (shorter than in III). Antennomere V with
dense white pubescence on basal half, dark on distal
half; ventral third of surface with moderately short and
abundant, erect dark setae. Remaining antennomeres
with basal white pubescent ring, and dark pubescence
on remaining surface. Antennal formula (ratio) based on
length of antennomere III: scape= 0.75; pedicel =0.25;
IV=0.75; V=0.42; VI=0.30; VII=0.25; VIII=0.20; IX=0.17;
X=0.15; XI=0.20.
Thorax: Lateral tubercle of prothorax large, conical,
slightly curved upward, with blunt apex. Pronotum
with large, elevated tubercle on each side, with top
truncate and somewhat bifid; with large tubercle cen-
trally, from posterior sulcus to near anterior margin, tri-
angular-shaped posteriorly, carina-shaped anteriorly;
slightly well-marked centrally, more distinct laterally;
with coarse, sparse punctures, forming transverse row
in posterior sulcus; with white and orange pubescence
intermixed, denser laterally, with white pubescence pre-
vailing in some areas, orange in others, apex of lateral
pronotal tubercles, and parts of central tubercle; with a
few long, erect dark setae posteriorly. Sides of prothorax
with dense white pubescence, with orange pubescence
interspersed on some areas. Prosternum with white pu-
bescence, denser laterally, with orange pubescence in-
terspersed on area under procoxal cavities. Prosternal
process about as wide as procoxal cavity, coarsely ru-
gose-punctate, longitudinally sulcate centrally, with apex
strongly emarginate; with abundant white pubescence
not obscuring integument. Ventral surface of mesotho-
rax with abundant yellowish-white pubescence central-
ly, not obscuring integument, dense, white pubescence,
obscuring integument laterally, except large area of me-
sanepisternum with orange pubescence interspersed.
Mesoventral process slightly wider than mesocoxal cavi-
ty, with distinctly, elevated tubercle each side of anterior
area; with white pubescence nearly obscuring integu-
ment, top of lateral tubercles glabrous. Ventral surface
of metathorax with dense yellowish-white pubescence,
with orange pubescence interspersed in some areas of
sides. Scutellum with white pubescence centrally, or-
ange on sides, margins with white and orange pubes-
cence intermixed. Elytra: Humeri projected slightly for-
ward; with elevated centrobasal crest between humeri
and scutellum, covered with small tubercles, and distinct
carina from apex of centrobasal crest to near apex; with
another slightly distinct basal crest, also between humeri
and scutellum but placed more laterally that the former
crest, covered with small tubercles (sparser than in the
other crest), followed by another carina, fused with the
innermost near apex; humeral area with small, sparse
tubercles; apex truncated with outer angle triangularly
projected; with sparse, erect dark setae throughout; pu-
bescence dense, mostly white with orange pubescent
maculae and bands interspersed, except seven, notice-
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
15/40
Figures67-76. (67‑71)Scythropopsis barrerai, female. (67)Dorsal habitus. (68)Ventral habitus. (69)Lateral habitus. (70)Head, frontal view. (71)Lower eye lobe.
(72‑76)Scythropopsis intricata sp.nov. holotype female. (72)Dorsal habitus. (73)Ventral habitus. (74)Lateral habitus. (75)Head, frontal view. (76)Lower eye lobe.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
16/40
Figures77-86. (77‑81)Aegomorphus ramirezi, male. (77)Dorsal habitus. (78)Ventral habitus. (79)Lateral habitus. (80)Head, frontal view. (81)Lower eye lobe.
(82‑86)Aegomorphus maccartyi, male. (82)Dorsal habitus. (83)Ventral habitus. (84)Lateral habitus. (85)Head, frontal view. (86)Lower eye lobe.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
17/40
able dark-brown pubescent areas: one small, oblique,
placed centrally on anterior third; one before middle
laterally; one arched before middle close to suture; one
zig-zag, large, placed about middle, not reaching suture;
one inverted V-shaped dorsally on posterior fifth; an-
other oblique, placed laterally on posterior fifth; sparse
small maculae along posterior half of suture and poste-
rior margin. Legs: Femora with dense white pubescence
on peduncle and base of club, with white and orange pu-
bescence intermixed on remaining surface. Tibiae with
three yellowish-white pubescent rings, one basally, one
centrally, another narrower, less conspicuous on apex;
remaining surface with dark-brown pubescence; entire
surface with short, sparse orange setae interspersed.
Tarsomeres I and V mostly with white pubescence dorsal-
ly, and remaining segments with brownish pubescence
not obscuring integument.
Abdomen: Ventrites I-IV with yellowish-white pubes-
cence laterally, gradually whiter, sparser toward central
area; ventrite V mostly with white pubescence, distinctly
sparser on some large areas, with sparse, long, erect dark
setae interspersed posteriorly; apex of ventrite V truncate.
Dimensions (mm): Total length, 12.9; prothoracic length,
2.7; anterior prothoracic width, 4.1; posterior prothorac-
ic width, 3.9; maximum prothoracic width, 5.3; humeral
width, 6.1; elytral length, 9.0.
Type material: Holotype female from MEXICO, Chiapas:
Lago de Colores, 12.V.1969, J.M. Campbell col. (MZSP).
Remarks: Scythropopsis intricata has a feature of
Tetrasarus: tuft of setae on ventral surface of the antenno-
meres III and IV. However, the tuft of setae is much denser,
and the antennomere IV is distinctly longer in species of
Tetrasarus. Notwithstanding, it could be compared with
Tetrasarus inops Bates, 1880 (see photograph of the lec-
totype at Bezark, 2019), by the similar elytral pubescence
pattern, from which it differs, besides the two features
pointed out before, by the proportions between elytra
and head + prothorax (elytra distinctly shorter in S.intri-
cata). In Scythropopsis, S.intricata is most similar to S.sallei,
but differs by the tuft of setae on ventral surface of the an-
tennomeres III and IV, which is absent in females of S.sallei.
Etymology: The name of this new species: “intricata” is in
reference to the intricate pubescent pattern of the elytra.
Scythropopsis lugens (Thomson, 1865), comb.nov.
(Fig.100)
Psapharochrus lugens Thomson, 1865: 543; Lacordaire,
1872: 543; Thomson, 1878: 15 (type); Monné,
2019:300 (cat.).
Acanthoderes lugens; Gemminger, 1873:3146 (cat.); Bates,
1880:140, 1885: 378; Blackwelder, 1946:611 (check-
list); Chemsak etal., 1992:130 (checklist); Noguera &
Chemsak, 1996:406 (cat.).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) lugens; Aurivillius,
1923: 386 (cat.); Gilmour, 1965:613 (cat.); Monné &
Giesbert, 1994:231 (checklist); Monné, 1994:64 (cat.).
Aegomorphus lugens; Chemsak & Noguera, 1995: 99;
Monné, 2005:166 (cat.).
Bates (1880) transferred Psapharochrus lugens to
Acanthoderes but did not provide any explanation.
Chemsak & Noguera (1995) transferred Acanthoderes
lugens to Aegomorphus also without explanation.
However, Noguera & Chemsak (1996) listed the species as
Acanthoderes lugens. Probably this latter work was already
in press when the transference to Aegomorphus was
done. Nevertheless, examination of photograph of the
holotype shows that the eyes are finely granulated, and
the elytra have distinct carina. Accordingly, the species is
transferred to Scythropopsis. Monné (2019), without any
explanation, listed the species as Psapharochrus lugens.
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019): Mexico (Mexico, Puebla,
Veracruz).
Aegomorphus Haldeman, 1847
Psapharochrus Thomson, 1864:18. Syn.nov.
Aegomorphus wappesi (Galileo, Martins & Santos-
Silva, 2015), comb.nov.
Psapharochrus wappesi Galileo etal., 2015:87; Wappes &
Arias, 2016:8 (holotype).
Psapharochrus jameswappesi Tavakilian, 2018:40; Monné,
2019:296 (cat.). Syn.nov.
As indicated previously, Tavakilian (2018) transferred
Acanthoderes wappesi Chemsak & Hovore, 2002 to Psapha-
rochrus. Accordingly, this created a secondary homonymy
with Psapharochrus wappesi Galileo etal., 2002. Tavakilian
(2018) provided a new name for the younger homony-
my: P. jameswappesi. However, with the transference of
Acanthoderes wappesi to Scythropopsis, Psapharochrus
wappesi Galileo etal., 2002 is reinstated as valid, and the
former becomes its synonym (ICZN, 1999: Article 59.4).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019): Bolivia (Tarija).
Aegomorphus contaminatus (Thomson, 1965),
revalidation, comb.nov.
(Fig.40)
Psapharochrus contaminatus Thomson, 1865: 543,
1878:15 (type).
Acanthoderes contaminata; Gemminger, 1873:3145 (cat.);
Blackwelder, 1946:610 (checklist); Zajciw, 1969a:197
(distr.), 1970b:187 (distr.).
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
18/40
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) contaminatus; Aurivillius,
1923:386 (cat.).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) contaminata; Gilmour,
1965:615 (cat.).
Acanthoderes melanostictus; Monné & Giesbert, 1992:252
(syn.).
Even based on examination of the photograph of the
holotype (Fig.37) we were not able to place this species as
a synonym (senior or junior) of another species current-
ly included in Psapharochrus, Acanthoderes (including
the subgenera), or other genera with species similar in
general appearance to it. Thus, the species is considered
valid and remains known only from the type locality indi-
cated in the original description (Brazil). The original de-
scription and photograph of the holotype is not diagnos-
tic enough to know whether the species really belongs
to Aegomorphus. However, we doubt that the species is
from Brazil and, most likely belongs in Scythropopsis. For
now, until more information or specimens become avail-
able, it is transferred to Aegomorphus simply because of
its original placement in Psapharochrus.
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019): Brazil.
Aegomorphus ramirezi (Chemsak & Hovore, 2002),
comb.nov.
(Figs.77-81)
Acanthoderes ramirezi Chemsak & Hovore, 2002b:5.
Acanthoderes (Acanthoderes) ramirezi; Monné, 2005:162
(cat.); Monné & Hovore, 2006:203 (checklist); Monné,
2019:223 (cat.).
Examination of photograph of the holotype, as well
as the specimens examined, indicates that the eyes are
coarsely granulated. Accordingly, the species is trans-
ferred to Aegomorphus.
Material examined: MEXICO, Sonora (new state record):
MX16 km155, 1male, 18.VII.2007, Skillman, Ribardo and
Hildelbrandt col. (FWSC). Michoacán (new state record):
Hwy MX37, 98 km S Nueva Italia, 1 female, 13.VII.2006,
F.W. Skillman and D.C. Hildebrandt col. (MZSP, former-
ly FWSC). Jalisco: MX200, 21 km N Melaque, 1 female,
06.VII.2006, F.W. Skillman & D.C. Hildebrandt col. (ACMT,
formerly FWSC).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019; new records): Mexico
(Sonora, Jalisco, Michoacán).
Aegomorphus maccartyi (Chemsak & Hovore, 2002),
comb.nov.
(Figs.82-86)
Acanthoderes maccartyi Chemsak & Hovore, 2002a:30.
Acanthoderes (Acanthoderes) maccartyi; Monné,
2005:162 (cat.); Monné & Hovore, 2006:203 (check-
list); Monné, 2019:222 (cat.).
Examination of a photograph of the holotype, as well
as available specimens, reveals that the eyes are coarse-
ly granulated. Accordingly, the species is transferred to
Aegomorphus.
Material examined: MEXICO, Jalisco: MX80, 20 km S
Autlán (RMO Los Mazos), 1male, 08.VII.2006, Skillman &
Hildebrandt col. (FWSC); El Tuito, 1female, 14.VII.1993,
Morris, Huether & Wappes col. (RFMC); 6kmN El Tuito,
1male, 15-16.VII.1993, Wappes col. (ACMT).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019): Mexico (Jalisco).
Aegomorphus albosignus Chemsak & Noguera, 1995
(Figs.87-99)
Aegomorphus albosignus Chemsak & Noguera, 1995:98;
Monné, 2001:38 (cat. hosts); Noguera etal., 2002:625
(distr.); Monné, 2005: 165 (cat.); Monné & Hovore,
2006: 203 (checklist); Noguera et al., 2009: 89 (dis-
tr.); Luna-León et al., 2015: 838 (distr.); Martins
et al., 2015: 838 (key); Zaragoza-Caballero & Pérez-
Hernández, 2017: 30 (holotype); Noguera et al.,
2017:11 (distr.); Monné, 2019:227 (cat.).
Aegomorphus albosignus was described from males
and females from Mexico (Jalisco). According to Chemsak
& Noguera (1995) “this species is readily recognizable by
the pale pubescent face and the white oblique and lon-
gitudinal fasciae of the elytra” However, as in many other
species of Aegomorphus, Acanthoderes, and Scythropopsis
the elytral pubescent pattern, as well as the color of the
pubescence of the frons are extremely variable. This
is clearly shown in the type series (see photographs at
Bezark, 2019) where the longitudinal white pubescent
band on the elytra varies from being well defined, slight-
ly distinct or even absent or nearly so (Fig.92-98). Thus,
it can be difficult to recognize the species, which is only
possible by examining other details provided in the orig-
inal description.
Material examined: MEXICO, Michoacán (new state
record): MX 37, km 98, S Nueva Italia, 2 males, 1 fe-
male, 13.VII.2006, Skillman & Hildebrant col. (FWSC);
2males, 3females, 15.VII.2006, Skillman & Hildebrant col.
(FWSC). Colima (new state record): Hwy MX98, km33, N
Manzanillo, 1male, 11.VII.2006, Skillman & Hildebrant col.
(FWSC). Jalisco: MX200, 5km N Campo Acosta, 6males,
3females, 21.VII.2006, Skillman & Hildebrant col. (FWSC);
MX200, at km marker 59, Chamela Bio Station, 1female,
09.VII.2006, Skillman & Hildebrant col. (FWSC); 21kmN
Melaque, 1 male, 06.VII.2006, Skillman & Hildebrant
col. (FWCS). Guerrero: Hwy. GRO1, 1kmS Taxco El Viejo,
1 male, 26.X.2006, Skillman & Eya col. (FWSC). Sonora:
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
19/40
Figures87-99. (87‑91)Aegomorphus albosignus, male from Mexico (Jalisco). (87)Dorsal habitus. (88)Ventral habitus. (89)Lateral habitus. (90)Head, frontal view.
(91)Lower eye lobe. (92‑99)Specimens from Mexico, dorsal habitus. (92)Female from Jalisco. (93)Female from Jalisco. (94)Female from Michoacán. (95)Male from
Michoacán. (96)Female from Michoacán. (97)Female from Michoacán. (98)Male from Guerrero. (99)Female from Michoacán.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
20/40
Figures100-109. (100)Psapharochrus lugens, holotype, dorsal habitus. (101‑109)Aegomorphus quadrigibbus. (101)Male, specimen1, from Mexico (Guerrero),
dorsal habitus. (102)Male, specimen1, from Mexico (Guerrero), ventral habitus. (103)Male, specimen1, from Mexico (Guerrero), lateral habitus. (104)Male, speci
men1, from Mexico (Guerrero), head, frontal view. (105)Male, specimen1, from Mexico (Guerrero), lower eye lobe. (106)Male, specimen2, from Mexico (Guerrero),
dorsal habitus. (107)Male, specimen3, from Mexico (Veracruz). (108)Female, specimen1, from Mexico (Guerrero). (109)Female, specimen2, from Mexico (Guerrero).
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
21/40
MX16, km 155, 05.VII.2008, 1 male, Skillman, O’Brien &
Ribardo col. (FWSC); MX16, km155, 18.VII.2007, 2males,
Skillman, O’Brien, Ribardo & Hildebrandt col. (ACMT);
MX16, km 155, 02.VII.2008, 1 male, Skillman, O’Brien &
Ribardo col. (FWSC).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019; new records): Mexico
(Jalisco, Morelos, Guerrero, Sonora, Oaxaca, Michoacán,
Colima).
Aegomorphus quadrigibbus (Say, 1831)
(Figs.101-109)
Acanthocinus quadrigibbus Say, 1831: 9, 1835: 195;
LeConte, 1859:665.
Acanthoderes quadrigibbus; Haldeman, 1847: 45;
LeConte, 1852: 175; Melsheimer, 1853: 107 (cat.);
Bland, 1861:97 (distr.); LeConte, 1873:337, 1880:237
(hosts); Packard, 1881: 55, 75, 131 (biol.); LeConte
& Horn, 1883: 322; Shufeldt, 1884: 334, 338 (distr.);
Townsend, 1884: 222; Harrington, 1884: 48 (hosts);
Townsend, 1885: 70 (distr.); Chittenden, 1894: 99
(hosts); Knobel, 1895: 34; Hamilton, 1895: 339 (dis-
tr.); Leng & Hamilton, 1896:114; Wickham, 1897:206;
Harrington, 1897:74 (hosts); Smith, 1900:294 (distr.);
Dury, 1902: 162 (distr.); Ulke, 1903: 26 (distr.); Felt,
1906: 702, 715 (biol.); Smith, 1910: 333; Blatchley,
1910:1070; Fisher & Kirk, 1912: 314 (distr.); Johnson,
1915:315 (distr.); Nicolay, 1919:70 (distr.); Craighead,
1923: 113 (larva); Turnbow & Franklin, 1980: 344
(distr.).
Psapharochrus quadrigibbus; Lacordaire, 1872: 751;
Casey, 1913:301; Champlain etal., 1925:140 (hosts);
Kirk & Knull, 1926:42 (distr.); Leonard, 1928:451 (dis-
tr.); Beaulne, 1932:219 (hosts); Pechuman, 1937: 12
(biol.); Brimley, 1938: 217; Kaston, 1938: 239 (biol.);
Hoffman, 1942: 11; Knull, 1944: 92 (distr.); Beal &
Massey, 1945: 148 (biol.); Loding, 1945: 122 (dis-
tr.); Knull, 1946:243; Fattig, 1947: 33 (distr.); Jaques,
1951:267; Alexander, 1958:49 (distr.); Solomon etal.,
1976:290; Monné, 2005:211 (cat.).
Acanthoderes quadrigibba; Gemminger, 1873: 3146
(cat.); Horn, 1880:115; Franz, 1954:226 (distr.); Duffy,
1960: 214 (larva, biol.); Gilmour, 1965: 613 (cat.);
Zajciw, 1969b:609 (distr.); Perrault, 1978:380 (distr.);
Rice & Enns, 1981:92 (distr., hosts); Chemsak & Hovore,
2002b:12; Hernández-Fuentes etal., 2018:544 (distr.;
host).
Acanthoderes (Acanthoderes) quadrigibba; Swift et al.,
2010: 45 (distr.); Maes et al., 2010: 319 (distr.);
Audureau, 2010: 8 (distr.); Holt, 2013: 252 (distr.);
Klingeman et al., 2017: 298 (distr.); Audureau &
Roguet, 2018:76 (distr.); Monné, 2019:222 (cat.).
Acanthoderes 4-gibbus; Riley, 1880:270 (hosts); Packard,
1890: 91, 221, 291, 520 (biol.); Caulfield, 1890: 66
(hosts); Beutenmuller, 1896:78 (hosts).
Aegomorphus quadrigibbus; Linsley & Chemsak, 1985:246
(syn.); Hovore etal., 1987:316 (distr.); Chemsak etal.,
1992:131 (checklist); Lingafelter & Horner, 1993:183
(distr.); MacRae, 1993:244 (distr.); Monné & Giesbert,
1994: 35 (checklist); Monné, 1994: 35 (cat.); Yanega,
1996: 133; Noguera & Chemsak, 1996: 406 (distr.);
Linsley & Chemsak, 1997:339 (hosts); Peck & Thomas,
1998:122 (distr.); Schiefer, 1998: 125 (distr.); Monné,
2001: 39 (cat. hosts); Vlasak & Vlasakova, 2002:214
(hosts).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) quadrigibba; Aurivillius,
1923:387 (cat.).
Psapharochrus quadrigibbus lucidus Knull, 1958: 282;
Chemsak, 1977:178 (type).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) quadrigibba lucidus;
Gilmour, 1965:613 (cat.).
Although originally described in Acanthocinus by
Say, 1831 and moved to Acanthoderes by Haldeman
(1847) it was Lacordaire (1872) who finally transferred
Acanthoderes quadrigibbus to Psapharochrus, affirming
that this latter genus included most of the species allo-
cated in Acanthoderes at that time. Curiously, the spe-
cies continued to be quoted as being in Acanthoderes,
and it was Casey (1913) who finally correctly listed it
again in Psapharochrus. Even so, the species continued
to be mentioned as belonging to Acanthoderes, until
Aurivillius (1923) moved Psapharochrus to the status of
a subgenus of Acanthoderes and included A.quadrigib-
ba in it. From Aurivillius (1923) to Rice & Enns (1981) the
species was mentioned in Psapharochrus (as a distinct
genus) or in Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus). More recent-
ly, Linsley & Chemsak (1985) transferred the species to
Aegomorphus, but only because of their doubts: “Since
the species of Acanthoderes sensu latu are extremely
numerous the question of generic or subgeneric assign-
ments is difficult and beyond the scope of this work…
We are assigning our five species of Acanthoderes’ to
Aegomorphus Haldeman until the problem can be re-
solved for the entire group.” Finally, Chemsak & Hovore
(2002b) transferred Aegomorphus quadrigibbus to
Acanthoderes. The thinking behind what these authors
were trying to do is somewhat mysterious, since they
reported: “We have used the name Acanthoderes herein
for placement of taxa which possess most of the char-
acters of Acanthoderes varia and Aegomorphus decipi-
ens, and which fit within the existing parameters of the
genus sensu latu, without assignment to subgenera.
We do not know for sure what Acanthoderes varia” is,
but it is likely Cerambyx varius Fabricius, 1787 (currently
equal to Cerambyx clavipes Schrank, 1781, and placed in
Aegomorphus). As Aegomorphus decipiens is the type spe-
cies of Aegomorphus, this affirmation may have indicated
their view that it was closely related to Acanthoderes. For
sure, it was a transference based on doubts, and not on
justified or definable features.
Acanthocinus quadrigibbus Say, 1831 has the eyes
coarsely faceted, and pronotum not distinctly depressed
centrally. Accordingly, it belongs to and is hereby trans-
ferred to Aegomorphus.
As correctly reported by Chemsak & Hovore
(2002b) for this species “the variation within and be-
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
22/40
tween samples is considerable.The elytral pubescence
(Figs.101, 106-109) is extremely variable in concentra-
tion, but much less so in position of the maculae, and al-
though the anterior light pubescent macula of the elytra
is from slightly distinct to well-marked its placement on
the elytra remains the same.
Material examined: MEXICO, Guerrero: Hwy 200,
51 km NE Ixtapa, 6 males, 4 females, 18-21.VII.1985,
Wappes col. (ACMT); 1 female, 17-20.VII.1985, Wappes
col. (ACMT). Quintana Roo (new state record): Hwy 307,
5km S Cancun A.P., 1 male, 09.VI.2005, Skillman Jr. col.
(FWSC); 1-5 km S Cancun, 1 male, 04.VI.2009, Skillman
& Hildebrant col. (FWSC). Veracruz: Laguna Catemaco,
1 male, 24-25.V.1969, J.E.H. Martin col. (MZSP); 1male,
09.VI.1969, J.E.H. Martin col. (MZSP); 1male, 25.VI.1969,
Bright & Campbell col. (MZSP); 1 male, 08-16.VIII.1969,
H.F. Howden col. (MZSP). GUATEMALA (new country re-
cord): Baja Verapaz: CA14, km149-151, 1male, 2females,
25.VII.2008, Skillman and C. & L. O’Brien col. (FWSC).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019; new records): Canada,
Eastern United States to Florida and Texas, Mexico
(Chiapas, Guerrero, Jalisco, Yucatán, Nayarit, Quintana
Roo), Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica.
Aegomorphus circumflexus (Jacquelin du Val, 1857),
nomem protectum, comb.nov.
(Figs.110-114)
Acanthocinus rusticus Klug, 1829:13. Nomen oblitum.
Acanthoderus circumflexus Jacquelin DuVal, 1857: 270.
Nomen protectum.
Acanthoderes circumflexus; Pascoe, 1866: 279 (distr.);
Bates, 1872:207, 1880:140; Berry & Salazar-Vaquero,
1957:15 (distr.); Gregoire, 1957:21 (physiol.); Zajciw,
1963:590, 1964:160; Linsley & Chemsak, 1966:242;
Chemsak, 1969: 189 (distr.); Chemsak & Linsley,
1980:310 (distr.).
Acanthoderes circunflexus; Pittier & Biolley, 1895: 28
(distr.).
Acanthoderes circunflexa; Terrón, 1997:223 (distr.).
Acanthoderes circumflexa; Gemminger, 1873: 3145 (cat.);
Gahan, 1895:130; Leng & Mutchler, 1914:450 (distr.);
Martorell, 1939: 204 (distr.); Fisher, 1944:10 (distr.);
Blackwelder, 1946:610 (checklist); Wolcott, 1948:342;
Zayas, 1975: 225; Chemsak et al., 1980: 36 (distr.);
Chemsak etal., 1992:130 (cat.); Maes etal., 1994:28
(distr.); Noguera & Chemsak, 1996:406 (cat.); Maes,
1998: 922 (distr.); Chemsak & Hovore, 2002b: 10;
Lozada Piña etal., 2004: 106 (distr.); Peck, 2005:177
(distr.); Fernández García etal., 2009:322 (distr.).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) circumflexa; Aurivillius,
1923:385 (cat.); Gilmour, 1965:613 (cat.), 1968: 154
(distr.); Monné, 1994: 28 (cat.); Monné & Giesbert,
1994:230 (checklist).
Psapharochrus circumflexus; Monné, 2001:47 (cat. hosts),
2005:202 (cat.); Hovore, 2006:376 (distr.); Hubweber,
2008: 255 (distr.); Swift et al., 2010:46 (distr.); Maes
et al., 2010: 368 (distr.); Morales-Morales et al.,
2012:38, 45 (distr.; biol.); Thomas etal., 2013:20 (dis-
tr.); García Morales et al., 2014:108 (distr.); Lanuza-
Garay & Barrios, 2015:68 (distr.); Audureau & Roguet,
2018:77 (distr.); Monné, 2019:292 (cat.).
Psopharochrus circumflexus; Chevrolat, 1862: 247;
Gundlach, 1891:205.
Psapharochrus circumflexa; Turnbow et al., 2003: 28
(distr.).
Psapharochrus circumflexum; Audureau, 2008:14 (distr.).
Acanthoderus meteorica Gistel, 1857: 79; Aurivillius,
1923:385 (syn.).
Psapharochrus histrio Casey, 1913: 302; Turnbow et al.,
2003:29 (distr.); Monné, 2005:205 (cat.); Lingafelter
et al., 2014: 76 (holotype); Monné, 2019: 295 (cat.).
Syn.nov.
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) histrio; Aurivillius, 1923:386
(cat.); Gilmour, 1965:614 (cat.); Monné, 1994:61 (cat.);
Monné & Giesbert, 1994:230 (checklist).
Acanthoderes histrio; Blackwelder, 1946: 610 (checklist);
Chemsak etal., 1992:130 (checklist).
Psapharochrus guatemalensis Casey, 1913:303; Monné,
2005:204 (cat.); Hovore, 2006:376 (distr.); Lingafelter
et al., 2014: 73 (holotype); Monné, 2019: 295 (cat.).
Syn.nov.
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) guatemalensis; Aurivillius,
1923: 386 (cat.); Gilmour, 1965: 614 (cat.); Monné,
1994: 61 (cat.); Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 230
(checklist).
Acanthoderes guatemalensis; Blackwelder, 1946: 610
(checklist); Chemsak etal., 1992:130 (checklist).
According to Jacquelin du Val (1857): Acanthoderus
circumflexus, Klug”; and Acanthoderus rusticus, Dej., Cat.
Col., 3e édit., p.362.There are some mistakes in those
statements: 1.The genus was reported as “Acanthoderus”
instead to Acanthoderes; 2. Klug (1829) described the
species as “Acanthocinus rusticus: 198. Acanthocinus rus-
ticus Dej. (i. litt.) fuscus, nigro-punctatus, coleoptris fascia
transversa dentata interrupta grisea. (Minor A. depresso).
According to Dejean (1835, 1836), “Acanthoderus.
Serville” is equal to Acanthocinus. “Mergele. Dej. Catal.”;
and “Rusticus. Dej. Cuba is equal to Circumflexus.
Klug. id.” As there is no species formally described by
Johann Christoph Friedrich Klug as “circumflexus in
Cerambycidae, it seems evident that Jacquelin du Val
(1857) attributed the species to him based on informa-
tion by Dejean (1835, 1836), indicating (“Acanthoderus”
rusticus equal to “Acanthoderus” circumflexus Klug). Thus,
Klug (1829) described the species as Acanthocinus rus-
ticus (with a description provided, making the descrip-
tion taxonomically technically available (ICZN, 1999)).
Accordingly, Acanthoderes circumflexus Jacquelin du Val,
1857 is a junior synonymy of Acanthocinus rusticus Klug,
1829 (= Psapharochrus rusticus (Klug, 1829)). However,
both the conditions demanded by ICZN (1999: Article
23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2) to preserve a commonly used
name are met, Acanthoderus circumflexus Jacquelin Du
Val, 1857 is hereby valid and a nomen protectum (ICZN,
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
23/40
1999: Article 23.9.2), and Acanthocinus rusticus Klug,
1829, is hereby a nomen oblitum. A list of works giving
evidence of the validity of Acanthoderus circumflexus by
use of its name as a valid taxon is given in the ICZN ref-
erence above.
Material examined: MEXICO, Jalisco (new state record):
MX200, 21kmN Melaque, 1male, 06.VII.2006, Skillman
& Hildebrand col. (FWSC). Oaxaca: MX190, 11 km SE
Zanatepec, 1male, 20.X.2001, Skillman & Davidson col.
(FWSC); Finca San Carlos (30km E Palomares), 1female,
Figures110-120. (110‑114)Aegomorphus circumflexus, male from Cuba. (110)Dorsal habitus. (111)Ventral habitus. (112)Lateral habitus. (113)Head, frontal
view. (114)Lower eye lobe. (115‑120)Aegomorphus irumus. (115)Dorsal habitus, female. (116)Ventral habitus, female. (117)Lateral habitus, female. (118)Head,
frontal view, female. (119)Lower eye lobe, female. (120)Dorsal habitus, male.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
24/40
29.V.1959, G. Halftter col. (MZSP). Michoacán (new state
record): Tuxpan, 1male, VIII.1960, G. Halftter col. (MZSP).
Morelos (new state record): Cuernavaca, 1 female, no
date and collector indicated (MZSP). Distrito Federal
(new state record): 1 male, 23.V.1956, G. Halftter col.
(MZSP). Veracruz: Playa de San Vicente, 1male, II.1910,
C.C. Halfmann col. (MZSP). Puebla (new state record):
Villa Juarez (La Ceiba), 1male, X.IV.1953, L. Vesguez col.
Figures121-129. (121‑125)Aegomorphus consentaneus, male from Bolivia. (121)Dorsal habitus. (122)Ventral habitus. (123)Lateral habitus. (124)Head, frontal
view. (125)Lower eye lobe. (126‑127)Aegomorphus satellinus, mesoventral process, male from Bolivia. (128‑129)Aegomorphus jaspideus, mesoventral process,
male from Bolivia.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
25/40
(MZSP). Quintana Roo: 1female, IV.1967, no collector in-
dicated (MZSP); Palenque, 1male, 07-09.V.1969, Bright
& Campbell col. (MZSP). GUATEMALA, Escluinta: El Salto,
1male, 1934, F.A. Bianchi col. (MZSP). BELIZE (new coun-
try record): Toledo: Punta Gorda, 1 male, no date and
collector indicated (MZSP). EL SALVADOR (new country
record): San Salvador: San Salvador, 1 female, XI.1960,
collector illegible (MZSP). COSTA RICA, Guanacaste:
Canas, 1 male, 1 female, 10.V.1991, D.B. Thomas col.
(ACMT). Cartago: Turrialba, 1 female, 13.III.1970, no
collector indicated (MZSP). Limón: near Cahuita town
(09.6827°N, 82.8105°W), 1 male, VI.2015, A. Kozlov col.
(MZSP). PANAMA, Panama: Barro Colorado Island, 1male,
05-08.VIII.1965, B. Malkin & S. Rand col. (MZSP); 1 fe-
male, XI.1965, H. Britski (MZSP). CUBA, Corralillo [there
are places with this name in more than one province],
3 males, 9 females, VI.1951, Zayas col. (MZSP); 1 male,
VI.1958, Zayas col. (MZSP). Sierra del Rosario [this place
extends into two provinces: Pinar del Rio, and Artemisa],
1 female, 07.VII.1933, A. Bierig col. (MZSP); 1 male,
15.X.1933, A. Bierig col. (MZSP). Portugalete [there are
places with this name in more than one province], 1fe-
male, 17.II.1929, A. Bierig col. (MZSP). La Habana: Habana,
1female, V.1927, A. Bierig col. (MZSP); 1male, VI.1928, A.
Bierig col. (MZSP); 1female, IV.1932, A. Bierig col. (MZSP).
Artemisa: Aspiro (Sierra del Rosario), 1male, 06.V.1934, A.
Bierig col. (MZSP); 3males, 1female, 29.VI.1934, A. Bierig
col. (MZSP). COLOMBIA, Bolívar: Zambrano (Hacienda
Monterey, 09°45N, 74°49W, 10m), 1female, 09.IX.1993,
F. Fernandez col. (MZSP). VENEZUELA, Distrito Capital:
Caracas, 1female, 15.VII.1959, Bordon col. (MZSP); 1fe-
male, 10.VII.1960, Bordon col. (MZSP).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019; new records): Mexico
(San Luís Potosí, Veracruz, Oaxaca, Chiapas, Yucatán,
Tamaulipas, Quintana Roo, Jalisco, Michoacán, Morelos,
Puebla, Distrito Federal), Guatemala, Honduras, El
Salvador, Belize, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba,
Puerto Rico, Cayman Islands, Curaçao, Colombia,
Venezuela.
Aegomorphus irumus (Galileo & Martins, 2011),
comb.nov.
(Figs.115-120)
Psapharochrus irumus Galileo & Martins, 2011: 178;
Wappes & Arias, 2016:8 (holotype); Monné, 2019:296
(cat.).
Description: Female (Figs. 115-119): Integument
mostly black; mouthparts reddish-brown, except max-
illary palpomeres II-IV, and labial palpomeres II-III black
with reddish-brown apex; anteclypeus, labrum, protar-
someres III-V, meso- and metatarsomeres I and III-V red-
dish-brown; antennomere IV with basal and medial dark
reddish-brown rings; remaining antennomeres dark red-
dish-brown on basal half; apex of meso- and metatibiae
yellowish-brown.
Head: Frons coarsely, sparsely punctate; with yellow-
ish-brown pubescence partially obscuring integument,
white pubescence centrally, between lower eye lobes
and antennal tubercles; with a few long, erect dark se-
tae (apex yellowish) close to lower eye lobes. Area be-
tween antennal tubercles and upper eye lobes with cen-
tral diamond-shaped area, coarsely, sparsely punctate,
with sparse yellowish-white pubescence with yellow-
ish-brown pubescence interspersed, sides of posterior
area with denser yellowish-brown pubescence; sides ex-
tending toward prothorax with dense yellowish-brown
pubescent band, narrow nearly glabrous area close to
eyes. Central area of vertex close to prothorax with one
large semielliptical area with brown pubescence on each
side of median groove. Area behind eyes with yellow-
ish-brown pubescence close to eyes (this area widened
toward ventral surface), with white pubescence inter-
spersed, glabrous toward prothorax. Genae about as
long as lower eye lobe; with sparse light yellowish-brown
pubescence, sparser toward apex. Postclypeus central-
ly and laterally glabrous, with bristly yellowish-brown
pubescence on remaining surface, with long setae of
same color interspersed, and a few long, erect dark se-
tae. Posterior ¾ of labrum coplanar with anteclypeus,
inclined at anterior quarter; with short yellowish-white
pubescence close to anteclypeus, gradually longer to-
ward apex of coplanar area; anterior margin with fringe
of nearly golden setae. Gulamentum smooth, wide pos-
terior area glabrous, depressed, anteriorly with short yel-
lowish-brown pubescence not obscuring integument.
Distance between upper eye lobes 0.58 times length
of scape; in frontal view, distance between lower eye
lobes equal to length of scape. Antennae 1.6 times ely-
tral length, reaching elytral apex at posterior quarter of
antennomere VIII. Scape clavate, not sulcate dorsally;
dark-brown pubescent with white pubescence inter-
spersed, white pubescence more abundant ventrally,
somewhat yellowish-brown on base of ventral surface;
with long, erect, sparse yellowish setae ventrally. Pedicel
dark-brown pubescent with white pubescence inter-
spersed, especially ventrally; ventral surface with long,
sparse, erect yellowish setae. Antennomeres III-IV with
basal and almost central white pubescent rings (denser
on IV); remaining surface with dark-brown pubescence;
ventral surface with long, sparse, erect yellowish setae.
Remaining antennomeres with white pubescence on
light area, dark-brown pubescence on dark area; with
long, sparse, erect dark setae ventrally (yellowish on
anterior area of V). Antennal formula (ratio) based on
length of antennomere III (only one female measured):
scape=0.72; pedicel=0.22; IV=0.80; V=0.56; VI=0.48;
VII=0.46; VIII=0.38; IX=0.36; X=0.28; XI=0.26.
Thorax: Lateral conical tubercle of prothorax large,
slightly inclined upward, with apex acute. Pronotum with
large, elevated tubercle on each side, with top of tuber-
cle truncate and somewhat bifid; a smaller, somewhat
conical central tubercle at posterior half; coarsely, mod-
erately abundantly punctate between tubercles, and
between anterior margin and lateral tubercles, coarser
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
26/40
along posterior sulcus; punctures sparser, shallower on
lateral tubercles of prothorax; tubercles glabrous on top;
central area with yellowish-brown pubescence not ob-
scuring integument, except narrow, longitudinal pale
yellow-pubescent band anteriorly and posteriorly, and
white pubescence on sides of posterior quarter; area be-
tween side of lateral tubercles and on lateral tubercles
of prothorax with brown, yellowish-brown, and whitish
pubescence intermixed. Sides of prothorax coarsely,
moderately abundantly punctate; with white pubes-
cence not obscuring integument, more yellowish ante-
riorly and posteriorly. Prosternum centrally with white
pubescence not obscuring integument, more yellowish
laterally. Prosternal process with narrowest area about
as wide as half the width of procoxal cavity; with white
pubescence not obscuring integument. Ventral surface
of meso- and metathorax with pale-yellow pubescence
laterally, white centrally (sparser on center of mesoven-
trite). Mesoventral process slightly narrower than width
of mesocoxal cavity; lateral margins elevated, especially
anteriorly. Scutellum with dark brown pubescence, ex-
cept narrow, central, longitudinal yellowish pubescent
band (sometimes absent). Elytra: Humeri very slightly
projected forward; with centrobasal crest between hu-
meri and scutellum elevated, covered with small tuber-
cles; with slightly distinct carina from apex of centrobasal
crest to posterior third, and another between the crest
and humeri; coarsely, sparsely punctate; apex obliquely
truncate, with outer angle projected; irregular areas with
white pubescence (not obscuring punctures) surround-
ed by yellowish-brown pubescence, except dense, white
U-shaped pubescent macula centrally on anterior third
(connecting across both elytra), and three large, some-
what transverse, irregular areas with dark-brown pubes-
cence (one on anterior third; one about middle; another
on posterior third). Legs: Femora with dense white pu-
bescence on peduncle, sparser on club. Tibiae with three
white pubescent rings, one near base, one about middle,
another at apex; remaining surface with brown pubes-
cence not obscuring integument, with long, sparse, erect
yellowish setae interspersed, especially in meso- and
metatibiae.
Abdomen: Ventrites with white pubescence not obscur-
ing integument; apex of ventrite V narrow, truncate.
Variation: Elytral pubescence is noticeably variable as in
several species of Aegomorphus. Extremes could easily
be confused with different species. In some specimens
(including the holotype), the sides of anterior half have
dense white pubescence forming large band distinctly at-
taining center of dorsal area, in others this band is restrict-
ed to inclined area, and in some it is nearly absent. The
same occurs in the fascia along the sides in posterior half.
Dimensions (mm), male (2)/female (2): Total
length, 10.55-10.70/10.60-10.95; prothoracic length,
2.05-2.10/1.90-2.00; anterior prothoracic width,
2.65-2.80/2.60-2.80; posterior prothoracic width,
2.55-2.65/2.35-2.70; maximum prothoracic width,
3.40-3.70/3.35-3.65; humeral width, 3.90-4.10/3.90-4.30;
elytral length, 6.85-6.90/6.85-7.25.
Material examined: BOLIVIA, Santa Cruz: 4-6k mSSE Buena
Vista (F&F Hotel), 1male, 22-31.X.2002, Wappes col. (ACMT);
1male, 26-27.X.2014, Wappes col. (ACMT); 4-5kmN Achira,
road to Amboro, 1female, 12-13.X.2000, Wappes & Dozier
col. (MZSP); Huaico (14°40S, 63°24W; 430m), 1 female,
21.XI.2013, Skillman & Wappes col. (FWSC).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019): Bolivia (Santa Cruz).
Remarks: The coarsely granulated eyes and the prono-
tum lacking a central depression places this species in
Aegomorphus.
Aegomorphus consentaneus (Thomson, 1865),
comb.nov.
(Figs.121-125)
Psapharochrus consentaneus Thomson, 1865: 544,
1878:15 (type); Monné, 2001:47 (cat. hosts); Monné,
2005:2034 (cat.); Monné, 2019:293 (cat.).
Acanthoderes consentanea; Gemminger, 1873: 3145
(cat.); Lameere, 1884: 95 (distr.); Melzer, 1932: 223;
Schottfeldt, 1944:111 (hosts); Blackwelder, 1946:610
(checklist); Zajciw, 1966: 9; Silva et al., 1968: 397
(hosts); Zajciw, 1969a:198 (distr.), 1970b:187.
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) consentanea; Aurivillius,
1923: 386 (cat.); Gilmour, 1965:615 (cat.); Monné &
Giesbert, 1994:230 (checklist); Monné, 1994:60 (cat.).
Psapharochrus consentaneus was described by
Thomson based on a single specimen from Brazil with-
out a specific locality given. Lameere (1884) reported the
species from “Env. De Rio-Janeiro., referring to a place
near to Rio de Janeiro city (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) and
more recently Zajciw (1969a) recorded the species to two
Brazilian states (Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro). The
MZSP collection has a large number of Cerambycidae
from southern Brazil, but all specimens of P.consentaneus
are only from Northern Brazil and Bolivia. Accordingly,
it is possible that the specimens examined by Lameere
(1884) and Zajciw (1969a) are not really P.consentaneus.
The eyes coarsely granulate, and the pronotum lacking
a central depression place this species in Aegomorphus.
One of the primary features allowing recognition of the
species is the sparse white setae on the large dark pu-
bescent area along the sides of the posterior half of the
elytra. Only one other species of Aegomorphus has this
pattern of pubescence: Aegomorphus pseudosatellinus
(Tavakilian & Néouze, 2013).
Material examined: BRASIL, Amazonas (new state record):
Benjamin Constant (Rio Javari), 1female, XI.1961, former-
ly Dirings collection (MZSP); 1 female, X.1962, formerly
Dirings collection (MZSP); 1male, X.1963, formerly Dirings
collection (MZSP). Pará (new state record): 1male, 1female,
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
27/40
no date and collector indicated (MZSP); Santarém, 1fe-
male, VIII.1920, Hagmann col. (MZSP); (Fazenda Taperinha),
1 male, 01-11.II.1968, no collector indicated (MZSP);
Tucuruí (Rio Tocantins), 1 male, 03.VII.1984, W. Overall
(MZSP). BOLIVIA (new country record): Cochabamba:
Chaparé (400m), 3females, XI.1957, formerly Dirings col-
lection (MZSP); Villa Tunarí, 1 male, XI.1953, Prosen col.
(MZSP). Santa Cruz: 4-6 kmSSE Buena Vista (F&F Hotel),
Figures130-141. (130‑135)Aegomorphus robustus sp.nov. (130)Dorsal habitus, holotype male. (131)Ventral habitus, holotype male. (132)Lateral habitus, holotype
male. (133)Head, frontal view, holotype male. (134)Lower eye lobe, holotype male. (135)Dorsal habitus, paratype female. (136‑141)Plagiosarus literatus. (136)Dorsal
habitus, male. (137)Ventral habitus, male. (138)Lateral habitus, male. (139)Head, frontal view, male. (140)Lower eye lobe, male. (141)Dorsal habitus, female.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
28/40
1male, 02-12.II.2000, J.E. Wappes col. (ACMT); 2male, 1fe-
male, 23-25.X.2000, R. Morris col. (RFMC); Reserva Natural
Potrerillo del Guenda (Sake farm, 17°40.26S, 63°27.43W,
400m), 1male, 06-09.X.2006, Wappes, Nearns & Eya col.
(ACMT); Potrerillo del Guenda (400 m), 1 female, 06-08.
XII.2011, Morris & Wappes col. (RFMC); (Reserva Natural,
40kmNW Santa Cruz, 17°40S, 63°27W, 370m), 1female,
30.VII-03.X.2007, Wappes & Morris col. (ACMT).
Figures142-151. (142‑146)Eupromerella quadrituberculata, male. (142)Dorsal habitus. (143)Ventral habitus. (144)Lateral habitus. (145)Head, frontal view.
(146)Lower eye lobe. (147‑151)Eupromerella boliviana holotype female. (147)D orsal habitus. (148)Ventral habitus. (149)Lateral habitus. (150)Head, frontal view.
(151)Lower eye lobe.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
29/40
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019): Brazil (Amazonas, Pará,
Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro), Bolivia.
Aegomorphus satellinus (Erichson, 1847), comb.nov.
(Figs.126-127)
Acanthoderes satellinus Erichson, 1847: 143; White,
1855:357.
Acanthoderes satellina; Gemminger, 1873: 3147 (cat.);
Blackwelder, 1946:611 (checklist).
Psapharochrus satellinus; Lacordaire, 1872:751; Monné,
2005:212 (cat.); Wappes etal., 2006:33 (distr.); Monné
etal., 2012:33 (distr.); Wappes etal., 2013:10 (distr.);
Monné, 2019:305 (cat.).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) satellina; Aurivillius,
1923: 388 (cat.); Gilmour, 1965:614 (cat.); Monné &
Giesbert, 1994:231 (checklist); Monné, 1994:68 (cat.).
The general appearance of Aegomorphus satellinus
is similar to that of Aegomorphus jaspideus (Germar,
1823) making it difficult to separate them simply from
the dorsal view. Fortunately, the mesoventral process
(Figs.126-127) differs in the two species with A.satelli-
nus having a somewhat centrally flattened process with a
small tubercle on each side of anterior margin. In A.jaspi-
deus, the mesoventral process (Figs.128-129) is centrally
tumid and lacks the tubercles.
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019): Peru, Bolivia (Cochabamba,
Santa Cruz), Brazil (Mato Grosso, Goiás).
Aegomorphus robustus sp.nov.
(Figs.130-135)
Description: Male (Figs. 130-134): Integument most-
ly black; mouthparts dark reddish-brown, except pal-
pomeres black with apex yellowish; anteclypeus semi-
translucent; apex of labrum light reddish-brown.
Head: Frons coarsely, sparsely punctate; with orang-
ish-brown pubescence, partially obscuring integument
(worn away in the holotype and many of the para-
types), with white pubescence interspersed and a few
long, erect brown setae close to eyes. Area between
antennal tubercles coarsely, sparsely punctate; with
orange-brown pubescence partially obscuring integu-
ment, with yellowish-white pubescence interspersed,
central area with yellowish-white pubescence. Area be-
tween upper eye lobes with orange pubescence (much
of it missing in the holotype), with white pubescence in-
terspersed. Central area of vertex close to prothorax with
a large semielliptical area with short brown pubescence
on each side of median groove (lost in the holotype), and
orangish-brown pubescence along median groove. Area
behind upper eye lobes with orange-white pubescence,
with distinct yellowish-white pubescence close to ver-
tex and dense, narrow yellowish-white pubescent band
close to eye, widened toward inferior side, remaining
surface glabrous. Genae almost 1.5 times length of low-
er eye lobe; with yellowish-white pubescence close to
eye toward posterior area, with orangish-brown pubes-
cence and white pubescence interspersed toward ante-
rior area, glabrous apex. Postclypeus coarsely, sparsely
punctate on wide central area, smooth laterally; with
bristly orangish-brown pubescence on wide central area
(nearly glabrous centrally), glabrous laterally; with long,
sparse, erect dark setae on wide central area. Posterior
¾ of labrum coplanar with anteclypeus, inclined at an-
terior quarter; yellowish-white pubescent, with long,
erect dark setae interspersed on coplanar area, ante-
rior margin with fringe of nearly golden pubescence.
Gulamentum with transverse, slightly distinct striae on
wide posterior area, depressed on narrow anterior area;
wide posterior area glabrous, with yellowish-white pu-
bescence on depressed area. Distance between upper
eye lobes 0.56 times length of scape; in frontal view,
distance between lower eye lobes 0.95 times length
of scape. Antennae 1.35 times elytral length, reaching
elytral apex at middle of antennomere XI. Scape clav-
ate, slightly sulcate in basal third dorsally; with yellow-
ish-white pubescence (partially lost in the holotype),
with orangish-brown pubescence interspersed dorsally.
Pedicel with basal and distal pubescent rings, distally dis-
tinctly narrower, pubescence mostly pale-yellow dorsal-
ly, whiter ventrally. Antennomere III with pale-yellow pu-
bescence on basal quarter of dorsal surface, pubescence
whiter on basal half of ventral surface; remaining surface
with brown pubescence, with a few white setae inter-
spersed; with a few short, erect dark setae ventrally; re-
maining antennomeres pale-yellow pubescent on basal
half, brown on distal surface; with a few short, erect dark
setae on ventral surface of antennomeres IV-X (sparser
toward X). Antennal formula (ratio) based on length of
antennomere III (only one male measured): scape=0.77;
pedicel=0.20; IV = 0.72; V = 0.52; VI = 0.44; VII = 0.38;
VIII=0.33; IX=0.29; X=0.24; XI=0.25.
Thorax: Lateral tubercle of prothorax large, conical,
slightly inclined upward, with apex blunt. Pronotum with
large, elevated tubercle on each side, gradually more
elevated anteriorly, becoming nearly conical with apex
rounded; with carina-shaped central tubercle, from an-
terior margin to posterior sulcus, widened posteriorly;
coarsely, sparsely punctate around tubercles and an-
teriorly and posteriorly; with orangish-brown and yel-
lowish-white pubescence intermixed centrally, top of
tubercles glabrous, and orangish-brown pubescence
with yellowish-white pubescence interspersed (yellow-
ish-white pubescence denser on sides of posterior area
and sides of anterior area of lateral tubercles); with a few
long, erect dark setae laterally on posterior area. Sides
of prothorax coarsely punctate; with yellowish-white
pubescence; with orangish-brown pubescence inter-
spersed on area close to pronotum. Ventral surface of
thorax with pale-yellow pubescence in some areas par-
tially obscuring integument, distinctly sparser on cen-
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
30/40
tral area of mesoventrite. Prosternal process 0.7 times as
wide as procoxal cavity; lateral margins slightly sinuous.
Mesoventral process about as wide as mesocoxal cavity;
longitudinally tumid centrally (more elevated toward
anterior area), without tubercle on sides of anterior area.
Scutellum with orangish-brown pubescence laterally
(partially lost in the holotype), yellowish-white centrally.
Elytra: Humeri slightly projected forward; with slightly
elevated centrobasal crest between humeri and scute-
llum, covered with small tubercles, and distinct carina
from apex of centrobasal crest to near apex; with another
carina between humeri and the former carina; both ca-
rina fused distally; with small, sparse tubercles on basal
quarter; coarsely, sparsely punctate; apex truncate, con-
cave centrally; with yellowish-white and orangish-brown
pubescence irregularly mixed, except: white V-shaped
band centrally on anterior third (encompassing both
elytra); irregular area with brown pubescence between
centrobasal crests (pubescence lost in the holotype and
most paratypes); oblique brown pubescent band on
sides of anterior third dorsally; oblique, large, irregular
brown pubescent band dorsally after middle; oblique,
moderately large, irregular brown pubescent band
dorsally near apex; with pubescent band along suture,
from V-shaped pubescent band to apex, with round-
ed brown pubescent spots interspersed. Legs: Femora
with pale-yellow pubescence on some areas partially
obscuring integument, forming two dense, longitudinal
bands ventrally on base of profemora. Tibiae with three
pale-yellow pubescent rings, one basally, one centrally,
another at apex; remaining surface with brownish pu-
bescence not obscuring integument. Sides of dorsal sur-
face of protarsomere I and tarsomere V with pale-yellow
pubescence; remaining surface of protarsomere I and
protarsomeres II-IV with dark pubescence. Meso- and
metatarsi with pale-yellow pubescence dorsally.
Abdomen: Ventrites with dense pale-yellow pubescence
laterally, sparser centrally, except glabrous, subround-
ed macula on each side, near apex in I-IV, near base in
V; apex of ventrite V moderately wide, truncate, centrally
emarginate.
Female (Fig.135): Differs from male by the shorter an-
tennae (1.2 times elytral length, reaching about distal
ninth of elytra), and apex of ventrite V narrower.
Variation: Area between upper eye lobes coarsely,
sparsely punctate; pubescence on dorsal surface of
scape mostly orangish-brown; elytral apex not centrally
concave, with outer angle slightly, triangularly projected.
Dimensions (mm), holotype/paratype males/paratype
females: Total length, 17.80/14.95-18.75/16.75-20.20;
prothoracic length, 3.30/2.80-3.40/2.95-3.20; anterior
prothoracic width, 4.60/3.80-4.75/4.25-5.00; posteri-
or prothoracic width, 4.70/3.95-4.80/4.40-5.10; maxi-
mum prothoracic width, 6.10/5.30-6.30/5.70-6.25; hu-
meral width, 7.25/6.20-7.50/7.05-8.05; elytral length,
12.70/10.30-12.95/12.10-14.05.
Type material: Holotype male from BOLIVIA, Santa
Cruz: Andrés Ibáñes (Jardin Botanico), 02-03.XII.2010, J.L.
Castro R. Flores col. (FSCA), formerly ACMT). Paratypes –
BOLIVIA, Santa Cruz: same data as holotype, 2male, 2fe-
males (MNKM; 1male, 1female, ACMT); 4males, 2females,
same data as holotype except, 26.27.XI.2010, J.L. Castro
M. Perez col. (MNKM; 1male, ACMT; 1male, 1 female,
MZSP); 20kmN Camiri (Road to Eyti; 1250m; 6-8 km E
Hwy 9; 19°52S, 63°29W), 1 female, 05-10.XII.2012,
Wappes, Bonaso & Skillman col. (ACMT); (6-8 km E Hwy
9; 1250 m; 19°52S, 63°29W), 1 female, 26.XI.2013,
Wappes & Skillman col. (ACMT); 4kmN Bermejo (Refugio
los Volcanes; 1045-1350 m; 18°06S, 63°36W), 1 male,
17-24.X.2014, Wappes & Morris col. (ACMT).
Remarks: Aegomorphus robustus sp. nov. differs from
other species of the genus with a similar appearance
(e.g., A.circumflexus) by the mesoventral process distinct-
ly longitudinally tumid centrally, and by lacking antero-
lateral tubercles (similar species have the mesoventral
process flattened or somewhat depressed centrally, and
with distinct anterolateral tubercles).
Etymology: This species name “robustus” simply refer-
ences its robust appearance.
Taxonomic notes in Eupromerella Fisher,1938;
Miriochrus Galileo & Martins, 2012; and
PlagiosaurusBates,1880.
Plagiosaurus Bates, 1880
Plagiosarus literatus Bates, 1885
(Figs.136-141)
Plagiosarus literatus Bates, 1885: 382; Aurivillius,
1923: 383 (cat.); Blackwelder, 1946: 610 (checklist);
Gilmour, 1965:611 (cat.); Chemsak et al., 1992: 132
(cat.); Monné, 1994: 51 (cat.); Monné & Giesbert,
1994:237 (checklist); Monné, 2005:198 (cat.); Hovore,
2006:376 (distr.); Monné, 2019:287 (cat.).
Description: Male (Figs. 136-140): Integument most-
ly black; mouthparts dark reddish-brown except pal-
pomeres black with yellow apex; posterior area of gula-
mentum dark reddish-brown; anteclypeus, labrum, most
of tarsomeres V reddish-brown; basal half of antennom-
eres III-IV orangish-brown; basal third of antennomeres
V-VIII reddish-brown; femora mostly brown with irregular
reddish-brown areas; protibiae with four rings, from base
to apex their color is: reddish-brown, dark-brown, red-
dish-brown, and then black; meso- and metatibiae dark-
brown brown with three reddish-brown rings, one basal-
ly, one centrally (widest), another at apex (narrowest).
Head: Frons finely, sparsely punctate; with white,
pale-yellow and yellowish-brown pubescence inter-
mixed; with a few long, erect dark setae close to eyes.
Vertex with punctures as on frons, nearly absent toward
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
31/40
prothoracic margin; pubescence as on frons between
antennal tubercles and upper eye lobes, forming semi-
circular yellowish-brown macula on each side of median
groove close to prothorax. Area behind eyes finely punc-
tate (punctures finer than on frons), denser close to eye,
sparser toward prothorax; area behind upper eye lobes
with yellowish-brown pubescence; area behind lower
eye lobes with pale-yellow pubescence close to eye, with
white setae interspersed, wide area close to prothorax
glabrous. Genae 1.3 times longer than lower eye lobe;
with dense pale-yellow pubescence close to eye, area
close to frons glabrous, with sparse pale-yellow pubes-
cence toward glabrous apex, with white setae inter-
spersed. Postclypeus centrally and laterally glabrous, with
bristly pale-yellow and yellowish-brown pubescence on
remaining surface; with one long dark seta on each side
of pubescent area. Posterior of labrum coplanar with
anteclypeus, inclined at anterior fifth; with pale-yellow
pubescence on coplanar area not obscuring integument,
inclined area nearly glabrous, distal margin with golden
pubescent fringe; with long dark setae directed forward
at interface of coplanar and inclined area. Gulamentum
smooth, wide posterior area glabrous, depressed, with
short yellowish-white setae not obscuring integument
anteriorly. Distance between upper eye lobes 0.51 times
length of scape; in frontal view, distance between low-
er eye lobes 0.87 times length of scape. Antennae 1.55
times elytral length, reaching elytral apex at basal third of
antennomere IX. Scape clavate, slightly sulcate dorsally at
basal third; with dark reddish-brown and brown pubes-
cence intermixed, central pubescent ring with dense, yel-
lowish-brown on outer side, yellowish-white, sparse on
remaining surface (sparser dorsally), and narrow pubes-
cent area at apex. Basal ring of pedicel with pale-yellow
pubescence, dark-brown pubescence on remaining sur-
face. Antennomere III with yellowish-white pubescence
from base to after middle, not obscuring integument,
with black pubescence on remaining surface, forming
dense tuft of long setae ventrally and on inferior surface
of sides; with a few long, erect brownish setae ventrally
on light area. Antennomeres IV-X with basal white pu-
bescent ring, and black pubescence on remaining sur-
face; antennomeres IX-XI with erect black setae on distal
half of ventral surface. Antennal formula (ratio) based on
length of antennomere III (only one female measured):
scape=0.62; pedicel=0.24; IV=0.54; V=0.38; VI=0.30;
VII=0.25; VIII=0.22; IX=0.21; X=0.12; XI=0.18.
Thorax: Lateral tubercles of prothorax large, conical,
slightly inclined upward, with apex acute. Pronotum with
large, elevated tubercle each side of central area, inclined
sideways, with apex blunt; central area with elongate
tubercle, from anterior margin to posterior sulcus, cari-
na-shaped from anterior margin to near middle, gradu-
ally widened from this point to posterior sulcus; coarsely,
sparsely punctate between tubercles, anteriorly and pos-
teriorly; central area with yellowish-brown pubescence,
except short yellowish-white pubescent band on central
tubercle close to anterior margin, and another more irreg-
ular one close to posterior margin, six white pubescent
irregular macula, one each side of anterior quarter, one
each side of posterior third, and one each side of posteri-
or quarter; remaining anterior surface of central tubercle
glabrous, and posterior area with brown pubescence not
obscuring integument; apex of lateral tubercles glabrous;
with dark-brown pubescent band close to outer side of
lateral tubercles, and remaining dorsal surface of lateral
tubercles on prothorax with yellowish-brown, pale-yellow
and white pubescence intermixed; with a few long, erect
dark setae laterally in posterior area. Sides of prothorax
coarsely, sparsely punctate; with yellowish-brown pubes-
cence and white pubescence interspersed. Prosternum
with moderately dense yellowish-brown pubescence
laterally, gradually whiter, distinctly sparser centrally,
anterior area glabrous. Prosternal process slightly wid-
er than half width of procoxal cavity; with sparse white
pubescence. Ventral surface of mesothorax with dense
abundant yellowish-brown pubescence laterally, white,
notably sparse on central area of mesoventrite, white
and sparse on mesoventral process. Mesoventral pro-
cess slightly wider than width of mesocoxal cavity; with
small tubercle each side of anterior area. Ventral surface
of metathorax with abundant yellowish-brown pubes-
cence laterally, whiter, sparser centrally. Scutellum with
yellowish-white pubescence centrally, dark brown later-
ally. Elytra: Humeri very slightly projected forward; cen-
trobasal crest short, elevated, covered with small tuber-
cles; with slightly distinct carina from apex of centrobasal
crest to posterior quarter, and another between the first
and the humeri; apex truncate, with outer angle triangu-
larly projected; coarsely, sparsely punctate on basal quar-
ter, gradually finer, sparser toward apex; with abundant
yellowish-brown pubescence with irregular white macu-
lae interspersed, and three black pubescent dorsal areas,
one at anterior third, one about middle, another at pos-
terior quarter; with white pubescent band along suture,
with small black pubescent maculae interspersed; with
long, erect, sparse dark setae on basal quarter, especially
on centrobasal crest. Legs: Femora with abundant yel-
lowish-brown and pale-yellow pubescence intermixed,
not obscuring integument. Protibiae with pale-yellow
pubescence on anterior not obscuring integument,
black on distal third; with sparse, long, erect black setae
interspersed. Meso- and metatibiae with pale-yellow
pubescence on light areas (partially white on distal light
ring), dark brown on dark areas. Protarsomeres I-IV with
black pubescence, white pubescence interspersed on
sides of I; protarsomere V mostly with white pubescence.
Meso- and metatarsomeres I and most of V with white
pubescence; tarsomeres II and IV with black pubescence;
tarsomeres III, partially with black pubescence and white
pubescence interspersed.
Abdomen: Ventrites I-IV with abundant yellowish-brown
pubescence laterally, gradually whiter, sparser central-
ly; ventrite V with sparse yellowish-brown pubescence,
slightly whiter centrally; ventrite V with apex concave.
Dimensions (mm), male (1)/female (2): Total length,
8.90/9.70-12.10; prothoracic length, 1.70/1.75-2.10; ante-
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
32/40
rior prothoracic width, 2.10/2.30-2.80; posterior protho-
racic width, 2.20/2.40-2.90; maximum prothoracic width,
2.85/3.25-3.80; humeral width, 3.40/3.70-4.50; elytral
length, 5.65/6.40-7.70.
Material examined: MEXICO, Veracruz: Los Tuxtlas
(UNAM), 1male, 05-06.V.1994, J.E. Wappes col. (ACMT);
15 km W Sontecomapan, 2 females, 10-13.IV.1993, J.E.
Wappes col. (ACMT; MZSP).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019): Mexico (Veracruz),
Guatemala.
Remarks: Plagiosarus literatus was originally described
base on a single female from Guatemala with Monné &
Giesbert (1994) subsequently listing the species from
Mexico (Veracruz). Recently, the species has only been
mentioned in catalogs and checklists and until now the
male had never been described.
Eupromerella Fisher, 1938
Eupromerella inaequalis (Galileo & Martins, 2011),
comb.nov.
Psapharochrus inaequalis Galileo & Martins, 2011: 177;
Wappes & Arias, 2016:8 (holotype); Monné, 2019:296
(cat.).
Galileo & Martins (2011) described Psapharochrus in-
aequalis based on a single male from Bolivia. According to
Martins & Santos-Silva (2013): “The main feature that al-
lows the separation of Eupromerella from Psapharochrus
is the shorter body when the proportion between the
head and prothorax is compared with the elytra. No
other reliable character can be used to distinguish these
genera. The main problem is that there are currently sev-
eral different forms placed in Psapharochrus. However,
this does not prevent the transfer of species from
Psapharochrus to Eupromerella and does not classify it as
a doubtful genus.
Psapharochrus inaequalis is nearly identical to
Eupromerella orbifera (Aurivillius, 1908). The latter species
was originally described in Psapharochrus and transferred
to Eupromerella Fisher, 1938 by Monné & Giesbert (1994).
In reality, E.orbifera is a problematic species that could
be included in either Psapharochrus (now Aegomorphus)
or Eupromerella. Also, it is probable that P.inaequalis may
only be a variation of E.orbifera, a species that also occurs
in Bolivia. For now, it will be kept as a different species
because the apex of the protibiae is entirely dark (only
apex in the holotype and specimens examined), and its
elytral pubescence slightly sparser (but with same pat-
tern). It will be necessary to examine the holotype before
a synonymy could be considered.
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019): Bolivia (Santa Cruz).
Eupromerella quadrituberculata (Zajciw, 1964),
comb.nov.
(Figs.142-146)
Acanthoderes quadrituberculata Zajciw, 1964: 160,
1969a:198 (distr.), 1974:67 (distr.); Julio etal., 2000:31
(holotype).
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) quadrituberculata; Zajciw,
1969b:608; Monné, 1994:67 (cat.); Monné & Giesbert,
1994:231 (checklist).
Psapharochrus quadrituberculatus; Monné, 2005: 212
(cat.); Monné & Monné, 2016:57 (holotype); Monné,
2019:304 (cat.).
The eyes of Acanthoderes quadrituberculata (Fig.146)
are not distinctly finely granulated hence its inclusion in
this genus is incorrect. Furthermore, its general shape indi-
cates that it is much better placed in Eupromerella than in
Aegomorphus (see comments in Eupromerella inaequalis).
Unfortunately, both the holotype and all paratypes
were destroyed during the 2018 fire in the MNRJ.
Material examined: BRAZIL, Espírito Santo: Parque
Sooretama, 2males, 27.XI.1967, F. Oliveira col. (MZSP).
Known geographical distribution (Monné, 2019;
Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2019): Brazil (Espírito Santo).
Eupromerella boliviana sp.nov.
(Figs.147-151)
Description: Female: Integument mostly black; mouth-
parts dark reddish-brown, except palpi black with red-
dish-brown apex of last palpomeres; antennomere III
brown on basal , black on distal third (slightly red-
dish-brown on apical area); remaining antennomeres
yellowish-brown on basal half/third, black on remaining
surface; anteclypeus and labrum mostly testaceous.
Head: Frons finely, densely punctate; with yellow-
ish-brown and pale-yellow pubescence intermixed,
nearly obscuring integument, with yellowish-white setae
interspersed, large yellowish-white pubescent macula
between eyes and antennal tubercles centrally. Vertex
finely, abundantly punctate; area between antennal tu-
bercles with yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring
integument centrally, with yellowish-white setae inter-
spersed, and dense yellowish-white pubescence lateral-
ly; area between upper eye lobes and beginning of area
behind upper eye lobes with yellowish-white pubes-
cence not obscuring integument, with yellowish-brown
setae interspersed, dense yellowish-brown pubescence
on remaining surface, except brown pubescent macula
between the two pubescent areas; area close to protho-
rax nearly glabrous; remaining surface area behind upper
eye lobes close to eye with yellowish-brown and brown
pubescence not obscuring integument, glabrous to-
ward prothorax. Area behind lower eye lobes with sparse
yellowish-white pubescence close to superior area of
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
33/40
eye, denser toward ventral surface, distinctly sparser to-
ward prothorax. Genae about as long as lower eye lobe;
with yellowish-brown pubescence, denser close to eye,
sparser on remaining surface. Postclypeus with bristly
yellowish-brown pubescence on wide central area not
obscuring integument, central area nearly glabrous lat-
erally glabrous. Posterior ¾ of labrum coplanar with an-
teclypeus, inclined on anterior quarter; with abundant
yellowish-white pubescence on coplanar area, becoming
yellowish toward anterior margin. Gulamentum glabrous
except narrow anterior area with yellowish-white pubes-
cence not obscuring integument. Distance between up-
per eye lobes 0.73 times length of scape; in frontal view,
distance between lower eye lobes 1.17 times length of
scape. Antennae 1.6 times elytral length, reaching ely-
tral apex at basal third of antennomere IX. Scape near-
ly straight at outer surface, strongly, gradually widened
from base to middle of inner surface, then slightly nar-
rowed toward apex; with yellowish-brown and brown
pubescence mixed dorsally, not obscuring integument,
except dense, narrow yellowish pubescent macula on
apex; with yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring
integument on remaining surface. Pedicel brown pu-
bescent dorsally, with yellowish-brown pubescence in-
terspersed, especially basally; remaining surface with
yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument.
Light area of antennomeres with yellowish-white pubes-
cence (sparser on some areas of III), and dark brown pu-
bescence on dark area; ventral surface of antennomeres
III-IV with short, sparse, erect yellowish-brown setae; apex
of antennomeres V-X with short, erect, brownish setae at
apex. Antennal formula (ratio) based on length of anten-
nomere III: scape=0.78; pedicel=0.24; IV=0.87; V=0.58;
VI=0.51; VII=0.42; VIII=0.37; IX=0.36; X=0.31; XI=0.33.
Thorax: Lateral tubercle of prothorax large, coni-
cal, slightly curved upward, with apex nearly acute.
Pronotum with large gibbosity on each side of central
area, and slightly elevated central gibbosity on pos-
terior half, becoming carina-shaped on anterior half;
coarsely, densely punctate, except smooth posterior
area of central gibbosity; with irregular tufts of light
yellowish-brown pubescence (more pale yellow pos-
teriorly), and moderately spare brown pubescence be-
tween them, except glabrous posterior area of central
gibbosity; with a few long, erect dark setae on sides of
posterior area. Sides of prothorax coarsely, abundant-
ly punctate; with light yellowish-brown pubescence
throughout. Ventral surface of thorax with moderately
dense pale-yellow pubescence laterally, gradually spars-
er, whiter centrally. Narrowest area of prosternal process
slightly less than half width of procoxal cavity. Apex of
mesoventral process about as wide as mesocoxal cav-
ity. Scutellum with short brownish pubescence not ob-
scuring integument, with yellowish-brown setae inter-
spersed. Elytra: Coarsely, abundantly punctate on basal
third, punctures gradually sparser on remaining surface
toward apex; apex obliquely truncate; with dense light
yellowish-brown pubescence nearly entirely obscur-
ing integument, except: irregular, narrow, fragmented
V-shaped (across both elytra) brownish pubescent area
on center of basal third; small, irregular white pubes-
cent spot on base of each arm of V-shaped area; large,
irregular white pubescent macula dorsally on basal half;
irregular, nearly triangular brown pubescent macula dor-
sally after middle, laterally margined with narrow, white
pubescence, especially on outside edge; irregular, white
pubescent macula dorsally on posterior quarter close to
latter dark macula; small, irregular white pubescent spot
near apex; narrow white pubescent macula along suture
and epipleural margin (nearly absent on basal quarter of
sutural area), with brown pubescent areas interspersed.
Legs: Femora with yellowish-white pubescence on pe-
duncle and basal area of club, remaining surface densely
pale-yellow. Tibiae with yellowish-white pubescence, ex-
cept two brown pubescent macula covering dorsal area
and sides, one less conspicuous on basal third, another
wider on posterior half (more conspicuous in protibiae).
Tarsomeres I and V with yellowish-white pubescence
dorsally (sparser on protarsomere I); tarsomeres II-IV with
brown pubescence dorsally.
Abdomen: Ventrites with yellowish-white pubescence
not obscuring integument, slightly yellower and denser
on V; ventrite V centrally sulcate at basal third; apex of
ventrite V truncate.
Dimensions (mm), holotype female/paratype female:
Total length, 6.30/6.25; prothoracic length, 1.25/1.20; an-
terior prothoracic width, 1.80/1.80; posterior prothoracic
width, 1.80/1.80; maximum prothoracic width, 2.40/2.30;
humeral width, 2.85/2.80; elytral length, 4.50/4.35.
Type material: Holotype female from BOLIVIA, Santa
Cruz: Potrerillo del Guendá (Reserva Natural, Snake Farm;
400 m; 17°4015S, 63°2726W), 23-30.X.2013, Wappes
& Kuckartz col. (FSCA, formerly ACMT). Paratype female
from BOLIVIA, Santa Cruz: Andrés Ibáñes (Potrerillo del
Guendá; 370 m; 17°40S, 63°27W), 23-27.X.2007, S.W.
Lingafelter col. (SWLC).
Remarks: Eupromerella boliviana sp. nov. is similar to
E.plaumanni (Fuchs, 1959) but females differ as follows:
size smaller; lower eye lobes proportionally smaller; fem-
oral peduncle shorter; elytral pubescent pattern with
posterior dark macula not arch-shaped; and metaven-
trite not punctate laterally. Females of E.plaumanni are
larger, lower eye lobes are proportionally larger, femoral
peduncle are longer, posterior dark macula of the elytra
is arch-shaped, and the metaventrite is punctate laterally.
The new species differs from E.picturata Martins, Galileo
& Limeira-de-Oliveira, 2009 (females) by the smaller size,
metaventrite not punctate laterally (punctate in E. pic-
turata), the pubescence of the scape is sparser (denser
in E.picturata), and posterior dark macula of the elytra
not arch-shaped (arched in E.picturata). Eupromerella bo-
liviana also differs from E.propinqua (Melzer, 1931), and
E.pseudopropinqua (Fuchs, 1959), by the different pubes-
cent pattern of the elytra (see photographs of the types
of those two species at Bezark, 2019).
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
34/40
Etymology: This species is named “boliviana” after the
country (Bolivia) where it is found.
Miriochrus Galileo & Martins, 2012
Miriochrus Galileo & Martins, 2012:66; Monné, 2019:256
(cat.).
Miriochrus was described to include M. minimus
Galileo & Martins, 2012 from Paraguay (see photograph
of the holotype at Bezark, 2019). In the original descrip-
tion, the genus was compared to Nesozineus Linsley &
Chemsak, 1996 (translated): Miriochrus gen.nov. by the
pronotum lacking tubercles, and by the small dimen-
sions, resembles Nesozineus Linsley & Chemsak, 1966,
but differs by the eye lobes nearly divided (one omma-
tidium in the narrowest area between the lobes), scape
piriform, short elytra with 1.5 times the humeral width,
and presence of white seta inside of the elytral punc-
tures. In Nesozineus, the eye lobes are separated between
them by three or four rows of ommatidia, the scape is
subcylindrical, the elytra are longer, with more than 1.5
times humeral width, and the elytral punctures have no
white seta.” Actually, Miriochrus is much more similar to
Eupromerella Fisher, 1938, and primarily differs by the
presence of white seta inside its elytral punctures, which
are absent in Eupromerella. This feature is also shared
with the Plistonax Thomson, 1864, and Melzerus Monné,
2005. The species of Plistonax are slenderer, and the apex
of the prothoracic tubercles is blunt (acute in Miriochrus);
Melzerus has a distinct cavity in the ventral surface of the
femora of males, which are absent in males of Miriochrus,
and the apex of the prothoracic tubercles is rounded.
The following list of Acanthoderini genera and spe-
cies reflects the taxonomic changes made based on the
results of our studies. It also indicates the type of change
made, such as: syn.nov., comb.nov., nomen protectum,
nomen oblitum, sp.nov. and revalidation or resurrection,
as appropriate.
Aegomorphus Haldeman, 1847. American species.
= Psapharochrus Thomson, 1864 syn.nov.
Aegomorphus albosignus Chemsak & Noguera, 1995
Aegomorphus arietis (Bates, 1885) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus arizonicus Linsley & Chemsak, 1984
Aegomorphus auratus (Garcia & Nascimento, 2019) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus atrosignatus (Melzer, 1932) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus bezarki (Santos‑Silva & Galileo, 2016) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus bicuspis (Germar, 1823) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus bimaculatus (Fuchs, 1958) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus binocularis (Martins, 1981) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus bivittus (White, 1855) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus borrei (Dugés, 1885) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus chamelae Chemsak & Giesbert, 1986
Aegomorphus brevicornis (Zajciw, 1964) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus brunnescens (Zajciw, 1963) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus carinicollis (Bates, 1880) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus cerdai (Tavakilian & Néouze, 2013) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus chrysopus (Bates, 1861) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus circumflexus (Jacquelin DuVal, 1857) nomem protectum, comb.nov.
= Acanthocinus rusticus Klug, 1829 nomen oblitum
= Psapharochrus histrio Casey, 1913 syn.nov.
= Psapharochrus guatemalensis Casey, 1913 syn.nov.
Aegomorphus clericus (Bates, 1880) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus comptus (Marinoni & Martins, 1978) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus coniferus (Zajciw, 1963) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus consentaneus (Thomson, 1865) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus contaminatus (Thomson, 1965) revalidat., comb.nov.
Aegomorphus corticarius (Tippmann, 1960) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus crocostigma (Bates, 1880) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus cylindricus (Bates, 1861) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus doctus (Bates, 1880) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus excellens (Zajciw, 1964) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus flavitarsis (Fuchs, 1962) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus galapagoensis galapagoensis (Linell, 1898) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus galapagoensis vonhageni (Mutchler, 1938) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus galapagoensis williamsi (Linsley & Chemsak, 1966) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus geminus (Galileo & Martins, 2012) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus gigas (Galileo & Martins, 2012) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus hebes (Bates, 1861) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus homonymus (Blackwelder, 1946) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus inquinatus (Bates, 1872) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus irumus (Galileo & Martins, 2011) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus itatiayensis (Melzer, 1935) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus jaspideus (Germar, 1823) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus juno (Fisher, 1938) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus laetificus (Bates, 1880) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus lanei (Marinoni & Martins, 1978) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus langeri (Martins, Santos‑Silva & Galileo, 2015) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus lateralis (Bates, 1861) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus lengii (Wickham, 1914) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus leucodryas (Bates, 1880) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus longipennis (Zajciw, 1963) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus longispinis (Bates, 1861) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus longitarsis (Bates, 1880) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus lotor (White, 1855) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus luctuosus (Bates, 1880) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus maccartyi (Chemsak & Hovore, 2002) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus maculatissimus (Bates, 1861) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus magnus (Marinoni & Martins, 1978) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus meleagris (Bates, 1861) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus mexicanus Martins, Santos‑Silva & Galileo, 2015
Aegomorphus modestus (Gyllenhal, 1817)
Aegomorphus morrisii (Uhler, 1855)
Aegomorphus mourei (Zajciw, 1964) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus nearnsi (Martins & Galileo, 2010) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus nigricans (Lameere, 1884) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus nigromaculatus (Fuchs, 1958) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus nigropunctatus (Tippmann, 1960) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus nigrovittatus (Zajciw, 1969) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus pantherinus (Tavakilian & Néouze, 2013) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus peninsularis (Horn, 1880)
Aegomorphus penrosei Chemsak & Hovore, 2002
Aegomorphus pereirai (Prosen & Lane, 1955) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus peritapnioides (Linsley, 1958) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus phasianus (Bates, 1861) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus pictus (Galileo & Martins, 2012) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus pigmentatus (Bates, 1861) comb.nov.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
35/40
Aegomorphus pinima (Galileo & Martins, 2006) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus piperatus (Gahan, 1892) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus piraiuba (Martins & Galileo, 2003) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus polystictus (Bates, 1885) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus pseudosatellinus (Tavakilian & Néouze, 2013) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus pupillatus (Bates, 1880) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus purulensis (Bates, 1885) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus quadrigibbus (Say, 1831) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus ramirezi (Chemsak & Hovore, 2002) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus ridleyi (Waterhouse, 1890) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus rileyi (Tavakilian & Néouze, 2013) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus robustus sp.nov.
Aegomorphus rufitarsis (Kirsch, 1889) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus satellinus (Erichson, 1847) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus schmithi (Melzer, 1935) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus signatifrons (Zajciw, 1964) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus signatus (Gahan, 1892) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus socorroensis (Linsley, 1942) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus travassosi (Monné & Magno, 1992) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus umbratus (Bates, 1885) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus vetustus (Bates, 1880) comb.nov.
Aegomorphus wappesi (Galileo, Martins & Santos‑Silva, 2015) comb.nov.
= Psapharochrus jameswappesi Tavakilian, 2018 syn.nov.
Eupromerella Fisher, 1938
Eupromerella boliviana sp.nov.
Eupromerella clavator (Fabricius, 1801)
Eupromerella fuscicollis (Bates, 1861)
Eupromerella gallardi Tavakilian & Néouze, 2013
Eupromerella griseofasciata (Fuchs, 1958)
Eupromerella inaequalis (Galileo & Martins, 2011) comb.nov.
Eupromerella leucogaea (Erichson, 1847)
Eupromerella maculata Martins, Galileo & Limeira‑de‑Oliveira, 2009
Eupromerella minima (Bates, 1861)
Eupromerella nigroapicalis (Aurivillius, 1916)
Eupromerella nigro ocellata (Tippmann, 1960)
Eupromerella orbifera (Aurivillius, 1908)
Eupromerella picturata Martins, Galileo & Limeira‑de‑Oliveira, 2009
Eupromerella plaumanni (Fuchs, 1958)
Eupromerella propinqua (Melzer, 1931)
Eupromerella pseudopropinqua (Fuchs, 1958)
Eupromerella quadrituberculata (Zajciw, 1964) comb.nov.
Eupromerella semigrisea (Bates, 1861)
Eupromerella travassosi (Melzer, 1935)
Eupromerella versicolor (Melzer, 1935)
Scythropopsis Thomson, 1864 resurrection of the
original status
Scythropopsis abstersa (Bates, 1880)
Scythropopsis albitarsis (Laporte, 1840)
Scythropopsis barrerai (Chemsak & Hovore, 2002) comb.nov.
Scythropopsis boucheri Tavakilian & Néouze, 2013
Scythropopsis cornuta (Bates, 1880) comb.nov.
Scythropopsis intricata sp.nov.
Scythropopsis lacrymans (Thomson, 1865) comb.nov.
Scythropopsis lugens (Thomson, 1865) comb.nov.
Scythropopsis melanostictica (White, 1855) comb.nov.
= Pteridotelus contaminatus Thomson, 1865 syn.nov.
Scythropopsis nigritarsis (White, 1855) comb.nov.
Scythropopsis pupillata (Bates, 1880)
Scythropopsis sallei (Thomson, 1865) comb.nov.
Scythropopsis wappesi (Chemsak & Hovore, 2002) comb.nov.
Symperasmus Thomson, 1864 resurrection of the
original status
Symperasmus affinis (Thomson, 1865)
Symperasmus alboniger (Bates, 1861) comb.nov.
= Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) albomaculatus Fuchs, 1963 syn.nov.
= Acanthoderes griseomaculata Zajciw, 1971 syn.nov.
Symperasmus thoracicus (White, 1855) comb.nov.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to the individuals who loaned speci-
mens from their collections, or those in their care, for in-
clusion in this study. They include Kyle Schnepp and Paul
Skelley (FSCA), Steven W. Lingafelter, Roy F. Morris and Fred
W. Skillman. The second author is grateful to the “Fundação
de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo” (FAPESP) for
a postdoctoral fellowship (process number 2017/17898-0).
REFERENCES
Alexander, D.R. 1958. A preliminary survey of the Cerambycids (Insecta:
Coleoptera) of Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of
Sciences, 38: 43‑52.
Audinet‑Serville, J.G. 1835. Nouvelle classification de la famille des
longicornes. (suite). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 4(1):
5‑100.
Audureau, A. 2008. Contribution a la connaissance des Cerambycidae
de la reserve privée forestière de Domitila (Nicaragua). Lambillionea
Supplement, 108(3): 3‑20.
Audureau, A. 2010. Complément a l’inventaire faunistique des Cerambycidae
de la reserve privée forestière de Domitila (Nicaragua) aves description
de nouvelles espèces (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Les Cahiers Magellanes,
110: 1‑10.
Audureau, A. & Roguet, J.P. 2018. Contribution à la connaissance des
Cerambycidae de la région nord du Nicaragua (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae).
Les Cahiers Magellanes (N.S.), 30: 56‑104.
Aurivillius, C. 1923. Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 74, Cerambycidae: Lamiinae.
Berlin, W. Junk. p.323‑704.
Bates, H.W. 1861. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon Valley.
Coleoptera: Longicornes. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Série
3, 8(23): 212‑219.
Bates, H.W. 1872. On the longicorn Coleoptera of Chontales, Nicaragua. The
Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1872: 163‑238.
Bates, H.W. 1880. Biologia Centrali-Americana, Insecta, Coleoptera. London.
v.5, p.17‑152.
Bates, H.W. 1885. Biologia Centrali-Americana, Insecta, Coleoptera, suppl. to
Longicornia. London. v.5, p.249‑436.
Beal, J.A. & Massey, C.L. 1945. Bark beetles and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera,
Scolytoidea) with special reference to species occurring in North Carolina.
Bulletin of the Duke University School of Forestry, 10: 1‑178.
Beaulne, J.I. 1932. Longicornes nuisibles aux végétaux ligneux du Canada.
Naturaliste Canadien, 59(11): 219‑222.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
36/40
Berry, P.A. & Salazar‑Vaquero, M. 1957. Lista de insectos clasificados de El
Salvador. Boletín Técnico del Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, 21: 1‑134.
Beutenmuller, W. 1896. Food habits of North American Cerambycidae. Journal
of the New York Entomological Society, 4: 73‑81.
Bezark, L.G. 2019. A photographic Catalog of the Cerambycidae of the New
World. Available at: https://apps2.cdfa.ca.gov/publicApps/plant/
bycidDB/wsearch.asp?w=n. Access in: 02/2019.
Blackwelder, R.E. 1946. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico,
Central America, the West Indies and South America. Part4. Bulletin of the
United States National Museum, 185: 551‑763.
Bland, J.H.B. 1861. Catalogue of the longicorn Coleoptera taken at the vicinity
of Philadelphia. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia,
1: 93‑101.
Blatchley, W.S. 1910. On the Coleoptera known to occur in Indiana. An
illustrated descriptive catalogue of the Coleoptera or beetles (exclusive
of the Rhynchophora) known to occur in Indiana. Bulletin of the Indiana
Department of Geology and Natural Resources, 1: 1‑1386.
Brimley, C.S. 1938. The insects of North Carolina, being a list of the insects
of North Carolina and their close relations. Raleigh, North Carolina
Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology. 560p.
Buck, P. 1959. Cerambycidae in der Sammlung des Instituto Anchietano de
Pesquisas. Pesquisas, Porto Alegre, 3: 577‑609.
Casey, T.L. 1913. Further studies amongst the American Longicornia. In:
Cassey, T.L. Memoirs on the Coleoptera. Lancaster, PA., The New Era
Printing Co. v.4, p.193‑388.
Caulfield, F.B. 1890. Insects injurious to the oak. Annual Report of the
Entomological Society of Ontario, 1889: 55‑66.
Champlain, A.B.; Kirk, H.B. & Knull, J.N. 1925. Notes on Cerambycidae.
Entomological News, 36(5): 139‑142.
Chemsak, J.A. 1969. Records and descriptions of Cuban Cerambycidae
(Coleoptera). Acta Musei Moraviensis, 54: 185‑190.
Chemsak, J.A. 1977. A list of types of Cerambycidae at the Field Museum of
Natural History, Chicago (Coleoptera). The Coleopterists Bulletin, 31(2):
173‑179.
Chemsak, J.A. & Hovore, F.T. 2002a. New Mexican and Central American
species of Acanthoderini with notes on others, Part I. (Coleoptera,
Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). Les Cahiers Magellanes, 15: 1‑32.
Chemsak, J.A. & Hovore, F.T. 2002b. New Mexican and Central American
species of Acanthoderini with notes on others, Part II (continued).
(Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). Les Cahiers Magellanes, 16: 1‑26.
Chemsak, J.A. & Linsley, E.G. 1980. Records of Cerambycidae from Cocos
Islands (Coleoptera). The Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 56(4): 310.
Chemsak, J.A. & Noguera, F.A. 1995. Annotated checklist of the Cerambycidae
of the Estación de Biologia Chamela, Jalisco, Mexico (Coleoptera), with
descriptions of a new genera and species. Folia Entomologica Mexicana,
89: 55‑102.
Chemsak, J.A.; Linsley, E.G. & Mankins, J.V. 1980. Records of some
Cerambycidae from Honduras (Coleoptera). The Pan-Pacific Entomologist,
56(1): 26‑37.
Chemsak, J.A.; Linsley, E.G. & Noguera, F.A. 1992. Listados faunísticos de
México. II. Los Cerambycidae y Disteniidae de Norteamérica, Centroamérica
y las Indias Occidentales (Coleoptera). México, D.F., Universidad Nacional
Autónoma. 204p.
Chevrolat, L.A. 1862. Coléoptères de l’Ile de Cuba. Notes, synonymies et
descriptions d’espèces nouvelles. Familles des cérambycides et des
parandrides. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (4)2: 245‑280.
Chittenden, F.H. 1894. On the habits of some longicorns. Proceedings of the
Entomological Society of Washington, 3(2): 95‑102.
Craighead, F.C. 1923. North American cerambycid larvae. Bulletin of the
Canada Department of Agriculture (n.s.), 27: 1‑239.
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1835. Catalogue des Coléopteres de la collection de M. le Comte
Dejean. Livraison 4. Promecops. Paris, Méquignon‑Marvis. p.257‑360.
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1835. Catalogue des coléopteres de la collection de M. le comte
Dejean. Troisieme édition, revue, corrigée et augmentée. Livraisons 1‑5.
Paris, Méquignon‑Marvis Pere et Fils.442 p.
Duffy, E.A.J. 1960. A monograph of the immature stages of Neotropical timber
beetles (Cerambycidae). London, British Museum (Natural History). 327p.
Dury, C. 1902. A revised list of the Coleoptera observed near Cincinnati, Ohio,
with notes on localities, bibliographical references and descriptions of
six new species. Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 20:
107‑196.
Erichson, W.F. 1847. Conspectus insectorum coleopterorum quae in Republica
Peruana observata sunt. Archiv für Naturgeschichte, 13: 67‑185.
Fattig, P.W. 1947. The Cerambycidae or long‑horned beetles of Georgia. Emory
University Museum Bulletin, 5: 1‑48.
Felt, E.P. 1906. Insects affecting park and woodland trees. Memoirs of the New
York State Museum, 8: 1‑877.
Fernández García, I.; Favila Castillo, M.E. & López Iborra, G. 2009. Coleópteros
(Insecta, Coleoptera) del área protegida de recursos manejados Mil
Cumbres, Sierra del Rosário, Cuba. Boletin Sociedad Entomológica
Aragonesa, 45: 317‑325.
Fisher, W.S. 1944. Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of Caripito, Venezuela.
Zoologica, 29(1): 3‑12.
Fisher, W.S. & Kirk, H.B. 1912. Cerambycidae of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and
vicinity with notes. Entomological News, 23: 308‑316.
Franz, E. 1954. Cerambycidae (Ins., Col.) aus El Salvador. Senckenbergiana,
34(4‑6): 213‑229.
Fuchs, E. 1963. 5. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der neotropischen Cerambyciden.
Koleopterologische Rundschau, 40/41: 10‑16.
Gahan, C.J. 1892. Additions to the Longicornia of Mexico and Central America,
with notes on some previously recorded species. The Transactions of the
Entomological Society of London, 1892: 255‑274.
Gahan, C.J. 1895. On the longicorn Coleoptera of the West Indian islands. The
Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1895: 79‑140.
Galileo, M.H.M. & Martins, U.R. 2011. Novas espécies de Acanthoderini,
Onciderini e Pteropliini (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae) do Brasil e
da Bolívia. Acta Amazonica, 41(1): 175‑182.
Galileo, M.H.M. & Martins, U.R. 2012. Novos táxons e nova sinonimia em
Acanthoderini neotropicais (Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). Les Cahiers
Magellanes (N.S.), 7: 61‑69.
Galileo, M.H.M.; Martins, U.R. & Santos‑Silva, A. 2015. Five new Lamiinae
(Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) from Bolivia in honor of James E. Wappes.
ZooKeys, 488: 77‑89.
García Morales, L.J.; García Jiménez, J.; Toledo, V.H. & Cantú Ayala, C.M. 2014.
Lista anotada preliminar de los Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) de Tamaulipas,
México. Biodiversidade Tamaulipeca, Instituto Tecnológico de Ciudad
Victoria, 2(2): 97‑115.
Gemminger, M. 1873. In: Gemminger, M. & Harold, E. Catalogus Coleopterorum
hucusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus. Monachii, Gummi.
v.10, p.2989‑3232.
Gilmour, E.F. 1965. Catalogue des Lamiaires du Monde (Col., Cerambycidae).
Museum G. Frey, Tutzing bei München, 8: 559‑655.
Gilmour, E.F. 1968. The Coleoptera Cerambycidae of Curaçao, Aruba and
Bonaire. Studies on the Fauna of Curaçao, 25(100): 83‑178.
Gistel, J.N.F. 1857. Achthunfert und zwanzig neue oder unbeschriebene
wirbellose Thiere. Straubing, 94p.
Gregoire, C. 1957. Studies by phase‑contrast microscopy on distribution of
patterns of hemolymph coagulation in insects. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections, 134(6): 1‑5.
Gundlach, J. 1891. Contribución a la entomologia cubana. La Habana, 3: 1‑494.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
37/40
Haldeman, S.S. 1847. Material towards a history of the Coleoptera Longicornia
of the United States. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,
10: 27‑66.
Hamilton, J. 1895. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of southwestern Pennsylvania,
with notes and descriptions. Transactions of the American Entomological
Society, 22: 317‑381.
Harrington, W.H. 1884. Injurious insects infesting the hickory. Annual Report
of the Entomological Society of Ontario, 14(1883): 42‑52.
Harrington, W.H. 1897. Some beetles occurring upon beech. Annual Report of
the Entomological Society of Ontario, 27(1896): 69‑75.
Hernández‑Fuentes, L.M.; Gómez‑Jaimes, R.; López‑Martínez, V. & Castañeda‑
Vildozola, A. 2018. Xylophagous insects associated with Soursop (Annona
muricata L.) branches, affected by Lasiodiplodia. The Southwestern
Entomologist, 43(2): 543‑546.
Hoffman, C.H. 1942. Annotated list of elm insects in the United States.
Miscellaneous Publications United States Department of Agriculture, 466:
1‑20.
Holt, B.D. 2013. A preliminary checklist of the Cerambycidae and Disteniidae
(Coleoptera) of Alabama. The Coleopterists Bulletin, 67(3): 241‑256.
Horn, G.H. 1880. Notes on some genera of Cerambycidae with descriptions
of new species. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 8:
115‑138.
Hovore, F.T. 2006. The Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of Guatemala. In: Cano,
E. Biodiversidad de Guatemala. Guatemala, Universidade del Vale de
Guatemala. p.363‑378.
Hovore, F.T.; Penrose, R.L. & Neck, R.W. 1987. The Cerambycidae or longhorned
beetles of Southern Texas: a faunal sur vey (Coleoptera). Proceedings of the
California Academy of Sciences, 44(13): 283‑334.
Hubweber, L. 2008. Longhorn beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) of the
Golfo Dulce region, Costa Rica. Stapfia, 88: 249‑256.
ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). 1999.
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. London, ICZN. xxx+306p.
Jacquelin du Val, P.N.C. 1857. Insectes. Ordre des coléoptères. In: Sagra, R.
Histoire physique, politique et naturelle de l’Ile de Cuba. Paris, Bertrand.
v.7, 328p.
Jaques, H.E. 1951. How to know the beetles. Dubuque, Iowa, Willian C. Brown
Co. 865p.
Johnson, H.L. 1915. Coleoptera found in the vicinity of Meriden, Connecticut.
Entomological News, 26(7): 307‑319.
Julio, C.E.A.; Giorgi, J.A. & Monné, M.A. 2000. Os tipos primários de
Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) da coleção do Museu Nacional – Rio de
Janeiro. Publicações Avulsas do Museu Nacional, 84: 1‑54.
Kaston, B.J. 1938. Check List of Elm Insects. Bulletin of the Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station, 408: 235‑242.
Kirk, H.B. & Knull, J.N. 1926. Annotated list of the Cerambycidae of
Pennsylvania. The Canadian Entomologist, 58(2): 39‑46.
Klingeman, W.E; Youssef, N.N.; Oliver, J.B. & Basham, J.P. 2017. The longhorned
beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of Tennessee: distribution of species,
seasonal adult activity, and new state records. Florida Entomologist,
100(2): 292‑302.
Klug, J.C. 1829. Preis‑Verzeichniss vorrathiger Insecten‑doubletten des
Konigl. Berlin, Zoologischen Museums der Universität. 18p.
Knobel, E. 1895. Beetles of New England and their kind. A guide to know them
readily. Boston, Bradlee Whidden. 45p.
Knull, J.N. 1944. New Coleoptera with notes (Buprestidae and Cerambycidae).
Ohio Journal of Science, 44(2): 90‑93.
Knull, J.N. 1946. The long‑horned beetles of Ohio (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae).
Bulletin of the Ohio Biological Survey, 39: 133‑354.
Knull, J.N. 1958. One new species and one subspecies of Cerambycidae from
Texas (Coleoptera). Ohio Journal of Science, 58(5): 282.
Lacordaire, J.T. 1872. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Genera des Coléoptères,
ou exposé méthodique et critique de tous les genres proposés jusqu’ici dans
cet ordre d’insectes. Paris, Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret. v.9, pt.2,
p.411‑930.
Lameere, A.A. 1883. Liste des cérambycides, décrits postérieurement au
catalogue de Munich. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique,
26: 1‑78.
Lameere, A.A. 1884. Longicornes recueillis par feu Camille van Volxem au
Brésil et à La Plata. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 28:
83‑99.
Lanuza‑Garay, A. & Barrios, H. 2015. Plantas hospederas de Cerambycidae
(Coleoptera, Chrysomeloidea) del paisaje protegido de Isla Galeta, Colón,
Panamá. Scientia, Panama, 25(2): 63‑71.
LeConte, J.L. 1852. An attempt to classify the longicorn Coleoptera of the part
of America, north of Mexico. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia, 2(2): 139‑178.
LeConte, J.L. 1873. Classification of the Coleoptera of North America. PartII.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 11(265): 279‑348.
LeConte, J.L. 1880. The coleopterous parasites of the common hickory (Carya
tomentosa). The American Entomologist (n.s.), 3(10): 236‑237.
LeConte, J.L. 1891. The complete writings of Thomas Say on the entomology of
North America. Philadelphia, A.E. Foote. v.2. 814p.
LeConte, J.L. & Horn, G.H. 1883. Classification of the Coleoptera of North
America. Prepared for the Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, 26(507): xxxvii1‑567.
Leng, C.W. & Hamilton, J. 1896. The Lamiinae of North America. Transactions
of the American Entomological Society, 23: 101‑178.
Leng, C.W. & Mutchler, A.J. 1914. A preliminary list of the Coleoptera of
the West Indies as recorded to January 1, 1914. Bulletin of the American
Museum of Natural History, 33: 391‑493.
Leonard, M.D. 1928. A list of the insects of New York with a list of the
spiders and certain other allied groups. Memoirs of the Cornell University
Agricultural Experiment Station, 101: 1‑1121.
Lingafelter, S.W. & Horner, N.V. 1993. The Cerambycidae of North Central
Texas. The Coleopterists Bulletin, 47(2): 159‑191.
Lingafelter, S.W.; Nearns, E.H.; Tavakilian, G.L.; Monné, M.A. & Biondi, M.
2014. Longhorned Woodboring Beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae and
Disteniidae) Primary types of the Smithsonian Institution. Washington.
D.C., Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. 390p.
Linsley, E.G. & Chemsak, J.A. 1966. Cerambycidae of Cocos Island
(Coleoptera). Procedings of the California Academy of Sciences, Serie 4,
33(9): 237‑248.
Linsley, E.G. & Chemsak, J.A. 1985. The Cerambycidae of North America.
PartVII, No. 1. Taxonomy and classification of the subfamily Lamiinae,
tribes Parmenini through Acanthoderini. University of California,
Publications in Entomology, 102: 1‑258.
Linsley, E.G. & Chemsak, J.A. 1997. The Cerambycidae of North America.
PartVIII. Bibliography, Index and Host Plant Index. University of California,
Publications in Entomology, 117: 1‑534.
Loding, H.P. 1945. Catalogue of the beetles of Alabama. Alabama, University
of Alabama. 172p. (Monograph of the Geological Survey of Alabama,
11).
Lozada Piña, A.; García, F. & Trujillo Anaya, M. 2004. Lista preliminar de los
coleópteros (Insecta, Coleoptera) de Topes de Collantes, Trinidad, Sancti
Spíritus, Cuba. Boletín de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa, 34:
101‑106.
Luna‑León, C.; Domínguez‑Márquez, V.M.; Ordoñez‑Reséndiz, V.M. & Mundo ‑
Bahena, A. 2015. Diversidad de la família Cerambycidae (Coleoptera)
de um bosque tropical caducifólio de la comunidade de Taxco el Viejo,
Guerrero, México. Entomologia Mexicana, 2: 835‑839.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
38/40
MacRae, T.C. 1993. Annotated checklist of the longhorned beetles (Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae and Disteniidae) occurring in Missouri. Insecta Mundi, 7:
223‑252.
Maes, J.M. 1998. Catálogo de los insectos y artrópodos terrestres de Nicaragua.
Managua, Setab Bosawas, Marena.
Maes, J.M.; Allen, A.; Monné, M.A. & Hovore, F.T. 1994. Catálogo de los
Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) de Nicaragua. Revista Nicaraguense de
Entomologia, 27: 1‑58.
Maes, J.M.; Berghe, E.; Dauber, D.; Audureau, A.; Nearns, E.; Skilman, F.;
Heffern, D. & Monné, M.A. 2010. Catálogo ilustrado de los Cerambycidae
(Coleoptera) de Nicaragua. Parte IV – Lamiinae – Disteniinae. Revista
Nicaraguense de Entomologia, 70(Supl.1‑4): 1‑879.
Martins, U.R. & Santos‑Silva, A. 2013. Transfers, new records and redescriptions
in Lamiinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Les Cahiers Magellanes (NS), 13:
12‑20.
Martins, U.R.; Santos‑Silva, A. & Galileo, M.H.M. 2015. Fourteen new species,
one new genus, and eleven new country or state records for New World
Lamiinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Zootaxa, 3980(1): 81‑105.
Martorell, L.F. 1939. Insec ts observed in the State of Aragua, Venezuela, South
America. Journal of the Agriculture University of Puerto Rico, 23(4): 177‑232.
Melsheimer, F.E. 1853. Catalogue of the described Coleoptera of the United
States. Washington, Smithsonian Institution. 174p.
Melzer, J. 1932. Vinte espécies novas de cerambycideos neotrópicos,
principalmente do Brasil. Revista de Entomologia, 2(2): 216‑238.
Mermudes, J.R.M. & Monné, M.L. 2001. Descrição da larva e pupa de
Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) melanosticta White, 1855 (Coleoptera,
Cerambycidae, Lamiinae, Acanthoderini). Revista Brasileira de
Entomologia, 45(4): 331‑334.
Monné, M.A. 1994. Catalogue of the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of the
Western Hemisphere. Part XVII. Subfamily Lamiinae: Tribes Anisocerini,
Polyrhaphidini, Xenofreini, Acrocinini and Acanthoderini. São Paulo,
Sociedade Brasileira de Entomologia. 110p.
Monné, M.A. 2001. Catalogue of the Neotropical Cerambycidae (Coleoptera)
with known host plant – PartIII: Subfamily Lamiinae, Tribes Acanthocinini
to Apomecynini. Publicações Avulsas do Museu Nacional, 92: 1‑94.
Monné, M.A. 2005. Catalogue of the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of the
Neotropical Region. PartII. Subfamily Lamiinae. Zootaxa, 1023: 1‑759.
Monné, M.A. 2019. Catalogue of the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of the
Neotropical region. Part II. Subfamily Lamiinae. Available at: http://
cerambyxcat.com. Access in: 08/2019.
Monné, M.A. & Chaboo, C.S. 2015. Beetles (Coleoptera) of Peru: A Survey of
the Families. Cerambycidae, Disteniidae, Vesperidae. Journal of the Kansas
Entomological Society, 88(1): 34‑120.
Monné, M.A. & Giesbert, E.F. 1992. Nomenclatural notes on Western
Hemisphere Cerambycidae (Coleoptera). Insecta Mundi, 6(2): 249‑255.
Monné, M.A. & Giesbert, E.F. 1994. Checklist of the Cerambycidae and
Disteniidae (Coleoptera) of the Western Hemisphere. Burbank, Wolfsgarden
Books. 409p.
Monné, M.A. & Hovore, F.T. 2006. A Checklist of the Cerambycidae, or longhorned
wood-boring beetles, of the Western Hemisphere. Rancho Domingues, Bio
Quip Publications. 393p.
Monné, M.A. & Monné, M.L. 2016. Checklist of Cerambycidae (Coleoptera)
primary types of the Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, with a brief
history of the collection. Zootaxa, 4110(1): 1‑90.
Monné, M.A.; Nearns, E.H.; Carbonel, S.H.; Swift, I.P. & Monné, M.L. 2012.
Preliminary checklist of the Cerambycidae, Disteniidae, and Vesperidae
(Coleoptera) of Peru. Insecta Mundi, 213: 1‑48.
Monné, M.L. & Monné, M.A. 2006. Notes on Acanthoderini (Coleoptera,
Cerambycidae, Lamiinae) described by Ernst Fuchs, now in the Herbert
Schmid Collection, Vienna, Austria. Zootaxa, 1365: 37‑47.
Monné, M.L.; Monné, M.A. & Wang, Q. 2017. Chapter1. General Morphology,
Classification, and Biology of Cerambycidae. In: Wang, Q. Cerambycidae of
the World: Biology and Pest Management. Boca Raton, CRC Press. 642p.
Monné, M.L.; Monné, M.A.; Martins, R.S.; Simões, M.V.P. & Machado, V.S. 2010.
Espécies de Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera) ocorrentes no Estado do
Rio de Janeiro (Brasil). Arquivos do Museu Nacional, 67(3‑4): 235‑251.
Morales‑Morales, C.J.; Aguilar‑Astudillo, E; Rosales‑Esquinca, M.A.; Quiroga‑
Madrigal, R.R.; Alonso‑Bran, R.A. & Gutiérrez‑Hernández, R.C. 2012.
Cerambícidos (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) asociados al piñon (Jatropha
curcas L.), en cinco municípios de la Depresión Central de Chiapas, México.
Biota Colombiana, 13(1): 35‑46.
Nicolay, A.S. 1919. A list of the Buprestidae and Cerambycidae taken on Long
Island, N.Y. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 14(2): 63‑72.
Noguera, F.A. & Chemsak, J.A. 1996. Cerambycidae (Coleoptera). In:
Biodiversidad taxonomía, y biogeografía de artrópodos de Mexico: Hacia
una síntesis de su conocimiento. México, D.F., Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México. p.381‑409.
Noguera, F.A.; Ortega‑Huerta, M.A.; Zaragoza‑Caballero, S.; González‑
Soriano, E. & Ramírez‑García, E. 2017. Species richness and abundance
of Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) in Huatulco, Oaxaca, Mexico; relationships
with phenological changes in the Tropical Dry Forest. Neotropical
Entomology, 47(4): 457‑469.
Noguera, F.A.; Or tega‑Huerta, M.A; Zaragoza‑Caballero, S.; González‑Soriano,
E. & Ramírez‑García, E. 2009. A faunal study of Cerambycidae (Coleoptera)
from one region with tropical dry forest in Mexico: Sierra de San Javier,
Sonora. The Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 85(2): 70‑90.
Noguera, F.A.; Zaragoza‑Caballero, S; Chemsak, J.A.; Rodriguez‑Palafox, A.; Ramírez,
E.; González‑Soriano, E. & Ayala, A. 2002. Diversity of the family Cerambycidae
(Coleoptera) of the Tropical Dry Forest of Mexico, I. Sierra de Huautla, Morelos.
Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 95(5): 617‑627.
Ordóñez‑Reséndiz, M.M. & Martínez‑Ramos, Y. 2017. Diversidad y fenologia
de Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera) em bosques de la Sierra de Taxco,
México. Entomologia Mexicana, 4: 826‑831.
Packard, A.S. 1881. Insects injurious to forest and shade trees. Bulletin of the
United States Entomological Commission, 7: 1‑275.
Packard, A.S. 1890. Insects injurious to forest and shade trees. Bulletin of the
United States Entomological Commission, 7: 1‑955.
Pascoe, F.P. 1866. List of the Longicornia collected by the late Mr. P. Bouchard,
at Santa Marta. The Transactions of the Entomological Society of London,
1866: 279‑296.
Pechuman, L.L. 1937. An annotated list of insects found in the bark and
wood of Ulmus americana L. in New York State. Bulletin of the Brooklyn
Entomological Society, 32(1): 8‑21.
Peck, S.B. 2005. A checklist of the beetles of Cuba with data on distributions
and bionomics. (Insecta, Coleoptera). Arthropods of Florida and
neighboring land areas, 18: 1‑214.
Peck, S.B. & Thomas, M.C. 1998. A distributional checklist of the beetles (Coleoptera)
of Florida. Arthropods of Florida and neighboring land areas, 16: 1‑180.
Perrault, G.H. 1978. Peuplement entomologique des Marquises. Cahiers du
Pacifique, 21: 359‑388.
Pittier, H. & Biolley, P. 1895. Invertebrados de Costa Rica I. Coleópteros. San
José, Instituto Físicogeográfico Nacional. 40p.
Rice, M.E. & Enns, W.R. 1981. The longhorned beetle subfamily Lamiinae
(Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) in Missouri. Transactions of the Missouri
Academy of Sciences, 15: 89‑109.
Riley, C.V. 1880. Food habits of the longicorn beetles or woodborers. The
American Entomologist, 3(11): 270‑271.
Santos‑Silva, A. & Nascimento F.E.L. 2018. Synonymies, transferences,
redescriptions and new species in Lamiinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae).
Zootaxa, 4462(2): 192‑210.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical Acanthocinini Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
39/40
Santos‑Silva, A.; Botero, J.P. & Le Tirant, S. 2018. A new genus, four new
species and taxonomic and geographic notes in Mexican Cerambycidae.
Zootaxa, 4420(2): 189‑210.
Say, T. 1831. Descriptions of new species of North American insects found in
Louisiana by Joseph Barabino. New Harmony, School Press. 19p.
Say, T. 1835. Descriptions of New North American coleopterous insects, and
observations on some already described. Boston Journal of Natural History,
1(2): 151‑203.
Schiefer, T.L. 1998. A preliminary list of the Cerambycidae and Disteniidae
(Coleoptera) of Mississippi. Transactions of the American Entomological
Society, 124(2): 113‑131.
Schottfeldt, C.S. 1944. Insetos encontrados em plantas cultivadas e comuns,
Viçosa, Minas Gerais. Ceres, 6(32): 108‑127.
Shufeldt, R.W. 1884. Observations upon a collection of insects made in the
vicinity of New Orleans, Louisiana, during the years 1882 and 1883.
Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 7(21‑22): 331‑338.
Silva, A.G. d’Araujo; Gonçalves, C.R.; Galvão, D.M; Gonçalves, A.J.L; Gomes,
J.; Silva, M.N. & Simoni, L. 1968. Quarto catálogo dos insetos que vivem
nas plantas do Brasil. Seus parasitos e predadores. Vol.1(2). Ministério de
Agricultura, Rio de Janeiro, 622p.
Smith, J.B. 1900. Insects of New Jersey. A list of the species occurring in New
Jersey, with notes on those of economic importance. Annual Report of the
State Board of Agriculture, Supplement, 1899(27): 1‑755.
Smith, J.B. 1910. A report of the insects of New Jersey. Annual Report of the
New Jersey State Museum, 1909: 1‑888.
Solomon, J.D.; Doolittle, R.E. & Spilman, J.T. 1976. Cerambycid beetles captured
in sticky‑traps in Mississippi. The Coleopterists Bulletin, 30(3): 289‑290.
Swift, I.P.; Bezark, L.G.; Nearns, E.H.; Solís, A. & Hovore, F.T. 2010. Checklist of
the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of Costa Rica. Insecta Mundi, 131: 1‑68.
Tavakilian, G.L. 2018. New nomenclatural changes for 2018 (Coleoptera,
Cerambycidae). Les Cahiers Magellanes (NS), 30: 38‑43.
Tavakilian, G.L. & Chevillotte, H. 2019. Titan: base de données internationales
sur les Cerambycidae ou Longicornes. Available at: http://titan.gbif.fr/
index.html. Access in: 08/2019.
Terrón, S.R.A. 1997. Cerambyciae. In: Gonzáles Soriano, E.; Dirzo, R. & Vogt,
R.C. (Ed.). Historia Natural de Los Tuxtlas, Mexico, Universidad Nacional
Autonoma do Mexico. p.215‑226.
Thomas, M.C.; Turnbow, R.H. & Steiner, W. 2013. An annotated checklist of the
Coleoptera (Insecta) of the Cayman Islands, West Indies. Insecta Mundi,
280: 1‑56.
Thomson, J. 1861. Essai d’une classification de la famille des cérambycides et
matériaux pour servir a une monographie de cette famille. Paris, Bouchard‑
Huzard. p.129‑396.
Thomson, J. 1864. Systema cerambycidarum ou exposé de tous les genres
compris dans la famille des cérambycides et familles limitrophes.
Mémoires de la Société Royale des Sciences de Liège, 19: 1‑352.
Thomson, J. 1865. Diagnoses d’espèces nouvelles qui seront décrites dans
l’appendix du systema cerambycidarum. Systema cerambycidarum ou
exposé de tous les genres compris dans la famille des cérambycides et
familles limitrophes. Liége, H. Dessain. p.353‑578.
Thomson, J. 1878. Typi cerambycidarum Musei Thomsoniani. Paris, E. Deyrolle. 21p.
Townsend, C.H.T. 1884. Notes on some Coleoptera taken in South Louisiana.
Psyche, 4(126‑129): 219‑222.
Townsend, C.H.T. 1885. A list of Coleoptera collected in Louisiana, on or south
of Parallel 30. The Canadian Entomologist, 17(4): 66‑73.
Turnbow, R.H. & Franklin, R.T. 1980. An annotated checklist of the
Cerambycidae of Georgia (Coleoptera). Journal of the Georgia
Entomological Society, 15: 337‑349.
Turnbow, R.H.; R.D. Cave & Thomas, M.C. 2003. A list of the Cerambycidae of
Honduras, with additions of previously unrecorded species. Ceiba, 44(1): 1‑43.
Ulke, H. 1903. A list of the beetles of the District of Columbia. Proceedings of
the United States National Museum, 25(1275): 1‑57.
Vargas‑Cardoso, O.R.; Corona‑López, A.M.; López‑Martínez, V.; Flores‑Palacios,
A.; Figueroa‑Brito, R. & Toledo‑Hernández, V.H. 2018. New host records of
Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) from central Mexico. Pan-Pacific Entomologist,
94(2): 91‑102.
Vlasak, J. & Vlasakova, K. 2002. Records of Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) in
Massachusetts with notes on larval hosts. The Coleopterists Bulletin, 56(2):
203‑219.
Wappes, J.E. & Arias, J.L. 2016. Updated list of Coleoptera holotypes in Museo
de Historia Natural, Noel Kempff Mercado, Universidad Autónoma “Gabriel
Rene Moreno”, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia. Insecta Mundi, 497: 1‑27.
Wappes, J.E.; Lingafelter, S.W.; Monné, M.A. & Arias, J.L. 2013. Additions to
the known Vesperidae and Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of Bolivia. Insecta
Mundi, 0319: 1‑28.
Wappes, J.E.; Morris, R.F.; Nearns, E.H. & Thomas, M.C. 2006. Preliminary list
of Bolivian Cerambycidae (Coleoptera). Insecta Mundi, 20(1‑2): 1‑45.
White, A. 1855. Catalogue of the coleopterous insects in the collection of the
British Museum. Longicornia 2. Fam. 2Cerambycidae. London, Order of the
Trustees. v.8: 175‑412.
Wickham, H.F. 1897. The Coleoptera of Canada. The Cerambycidae of Ontario
and Quebec. The Canadian Entomologist, 29(9): 201‑208.
Wolcott, G.N. 1948. The insects of Puerto Rico. Coleoptera. Journal of
Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico, 32(2): 225‑416.
Yanega, D. 1996. Field guide to northeastern longhorned beetles (Coleoptera,
Cerambycidae). Manual 6. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, 174p.
Zajciw, D. 1963. Novas espécies neotrópicas do gênero Acanthoderes Serville,
1835. I. (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). Anais da Academia
Brasileira de Ciências, 35(4): 585‑590.
Zajciw, D. 1964. Novas espécies neotrópicas do gênero Acanthoderes Serville,
1835. III (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). Anais da Academia
Brasileira de Ciências, 36(2): 159‑164.
Zajciw, D. 1966. Contribuição para o estudo da fauna dos longicórneos do
Estado do Ceará. (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Boletim da Sociedade
Cearense de Agronomia, 7: 1‑11.
Zajciw, D. 1969a. Contribuição para o estudo da distribuição geográfica do
gênero Acanthoderes Serville, 1835 no Brasil (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae,
Lamiinae). Atas da Sociedade de Biologia, 12(4): 197‑199.
Zajciw, D. 1969b. Distribuição geográfica do gênero “Acanthoderes Serville,
1835 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). Revista Brasileira de Biologia,
29(4): 607‑614.
Zajciw, D. 1970a. Novas ocorrências de Acanthoderes Serv., 1835. II (Col.,
Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). Atas da Sociedade de Biologia, 13(1‑2): 5.
Zajciw, D. 1970b. Contribuição para o estudo das espécies do gênero
Acanthoderes Serv. 1835 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). Atas da
Sociedade de Biologia, 13(5‑6): 187‑190.
Zajciw, D. 1971. Novos longicórneos neotrópicos. XVIII (Col., Cerambycidae).
Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 31(3): 305‑308.
Zajciw, D. 1974. Contribuição para o estudo da fauna dos longicórneos
(Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) das florestas do Estado do Espírito Santo
e principalmente da Reserva Biológica Soôretama. Boletim Técnico do
Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal, 4: 37‑91.
Zajciw, D. & Seabra, C.A.C. 1968. Longicórneos da Serra da Bocaina, Estado
de São Paulo (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Atas da Sociedade de Biologia,
12(2): 69‑72.
Zaragoza‑Caballero, S. & Pérez‑Hernández, C.X. 2017. An annotated catalogue
of the Coleoptera types deposited in the National Insect Collection (CNIN)
of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Zootaxa, 4288(1): 1‑128.
Zayas, F. 1975. Revisión de la família Cerambycidae (Coleoptera,
Phytophagoidea). Habana, Academia de Ciencias de Cuba. 443p.
Santos‑Silva, A. etal.: Taxonomical and geographical notes on Neotropical AcanthocininiPap. Avulsos Zool., 2020; v.60: e20206006
40/40
Published with the nancial support of the "Programa de Apoio às Publicações Cientícas Periódicas da USP"
... succinctus (Linnaeus) (Trachyderini). From the subfamily Lamiinae Oreodera bituberculata Bates (Acanthoderini), Psapharochrus longitarsis (Bates) (Acanthoderini) which recently was synonymized with Aegomorphus longitarsis(Santos-Silva et al., 2020), Discopus eques Bates (Acanthoderini), Steirastoma aethiops Bates (Acanthoderini), Polyrhaphis angustata Buquet (Polyrhaphidini), Colobothea hirtipes (Degeer) (Colobotheini) and Anisocerus stellatus Guérin-Méneville (Anisocerini)(Fig. 1, ...
Article
• Semiochemicals are powerful tools for the surveillance and suppression of forest insects. Although the literature on the chemical ecology of and use of semiochemicals to manage the Cerambycidae is growing, little is known about the chemical ecology of Cerambycidae fauna in Peru. • Trapping studies that screen known attractants in off-shore mitigation programs can provide valuable baseline knowledge to inform management of species introduced outside their native range. • Known Cerambycidae pheromones were screened for activity in a year-long field study in Peru to look for activity in the local Cerambycidae fauna. • The most frequently captured species were Megacyllene andesiana (Casey), Oreodera bituberculata Bates, Aegomorphus longitarsis (Bates) and Discopus eques Bates. • The activity period of A. longitarsis, O. bituberculata and D. eques occurred in mid-September 2020 and for M. andesiana occurred in early October 2020. • Responses to anti-2,3-hexanediol, fuscumol and fuscumol acetate by M. andesiana, O. bituberculata and D. eques were observed. • We observed antagonism of the responses of M. andesiana, O. bituberculata and D. eques when anti-2,3-hexanediol, fuscumol and fuscumol acetate were tested in blends.
... Despite the frequent publication of taxonomic contributions on Acanthoderini (descriptions of species, genera, and reviews) (e.g., Martins and Galileo 2001, 2007a, 2007b, 2008aGalileo and Martins 2007;Machado and Monné 2009;Martins et al. 2015;Vlasak 2016;Perger and Santos-Silva 2018;Santos-Silva and Nascimento 2018;Wappes and Santos-Silva 2020), there have been very few phylogenetic analyses of the tribe or its components. Often, new genera are described, and broad taxonomic shifts are made based on traditional taxonomy (Restello et al. 2001;Julio and Monné 2005;Martins and Galileo 2008b;Nascimento et al. 2019;Santos-Silva and Nascimento 2019;Santos-Silva et al. 2020a). Recently, Souza et al. (2020) discussed some relationships in Acanthoderini in a broad phylogenetic study of the Lamiinae tribes. ...
Article
Plistonax is a Neotropical genus of Acanthoderini flat-faced long-horned beetles with nine species. Since it was established without clear diagnostic characteristics, the subsequent classification of species in it was unstable. This work aims to clarify the taxonomic limits of Plistonax employing a phylogenetic analysis based on morphological data. A matrix was developed including 26 species and 37 characters. Two types of analyses were implemented: parsimony and Bayesian inference. The analyses show that Plistonax is a polyphyletic group, with Plistonax insolitus recovered singly, and the other eight species of the genus were recovered in a clade together with three species of other genera: Acanthoderes (Acanthoderes) ariasi, Melzerus difficilis, and Aegomorphus signatifrons. Based on these results, we redefine Plistonax to include 11 species and propose three new combinations: Plistonax ariasi comb. nov., Plistonax difficilis comb. nov., and Plistonax signatifrons comb. nov. Melzerus, a monotypic genus, is now a junior synonym of Plistonax. We also provide a redescription for Plistonax and some of its species, propose a new genus Miguelmonneus gen. nov., and redescribe Miguelmonneus insolitus comb. nov. An identification key is given for Plistonax and the geographical records of its species are listed and updated.
Article
Full-text available
Le bilan de quatre années de collecte dans la région du nord du Nicaragua est présenté sous forme d'un inventaire. Based on the four seasons of capture of the longhorned beetles in the north region of Nicaragua, the results are summarised by a faunistic list.
Chapter
Full-text available
The chapter deals with our current knowledge on morphology of adults and immature stages, the current classication system, the identication of adults and immatures to subfamily, and biology, global diversity, and distribution of subfamilies.
Article
Full-text available
Longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) feed during their larval stage on wood from recently dead or diseased trees and may have a wide variety of hosts. However, reports of larval hosts for Cerambycidae could be misinterpreted from field observations. The use of freshly cut branches to attract longhorn beetles is a method that provides reliable information about which hosts they use. This study reports new records of larval hosts of longhorn beetles in the tropical dry forest of San Andres de la Cal, Morelos, Mexico. In the study area, species of woody plants were sampled, from each of which sections of branches were cut and left exposed to local field conditions for two months to attract beetles. Branches were later collected and placed in emergence chambers. A total of 26 species of Cerambycidae emerged from the branches of 51 species of woody plants of the families Apocynaceae, Araliaceae, Burseraceae, Celastraceae, Convolvulaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Juglandaceae, Malpighiaceae, Malvaceae, Moraceae, Oleaceae and Rubiaceae. For all 26 cerambycid species, we found previously unreported hosts, and for nine species, the hosts we report are the first recorded in the literature. The nine species whose host relationships have not been previously reported are: Euderces basimaculatus Giesbert & Chemsak 1997; E. pulcher (Bates, 1874); Elytroleptus grandis Linsley 1935; Neocompsa puncticollis asperula (Bates, 1885); Acanthoderes (Pardalisia) lacrymans (Thomson, 1865); Olenosus serrimanus Bates, 1872; Oreodera brailovskyi Chemsak & Noguera, 1993; O. copei McCarty, 2001 and Spliaenothecus picticornis Bates, 1880. ©2018 Pacific Coast Entomological Society. All Rights Reserved.
Article
The differences between Psapharochrus Thomson, 1864 and Acanthoderes Audinet-Serville, 1835 (as well as the current subgenera of the latter) are discussed. Pteridotelus hematopus (Lameere, 1884) is synonymized with Pteridotelus laticornis White, 1855, and the species is redescribed. Psapharochrus abstersus (Bates, 1880) and Psapharochrus pupillatus (Bates, 1880) are transferred to Acanthoderes (Scythropopsis) and redescribed. Desmiphora (Desmiphora) senicula Bates, 1866 is synonymized with D. (D.) elegantula White, 1855; the species is redescribed, the holotype of D. (D.) elegantula figured for the first time, and newly recorded for the Brazilian states of Mato Grosso do Sul and São Paulo. Desmiphora (Desmiphora) normae sp. nov. from the Brazilian state of Bahia, is described and illustrated.
Article
Xylophagous insects of Soursop's (Annona muricata L.) are reported from Mexico. The relationship between soursop as host of Acanthoderes quadrigibba (Say), Oreodera fasciculosa Thomson (Cerambycidae), and Chrysobothris totonaca Domínguez y Márquez (Buprestidae), represents a new association. Branches affected by the pathogen Lasiodiplodia theobromae Pat. could be a potential source for further damage by these insects. © 2018 Southwestern Entomological Society. All rights reserved.
Article
Four new Mexican species are described: Ironeus curoei from Guerrero state, Psyrassa garciai from Tamaulipas state, Psyrassa belangeri from Guerrero state (Elaphidiini, Cerambycinae); and Cirrhicera bankoi from Chiapas state (Hemilophini, Lamiinae). A new Hesperophanini genus, Makromastax, and a new combination, Makromastax mandibularis are proposed. The current key to the Mexican genera of Hesperophanini is updated to include the new genus. Haplidus nitidus Chemsak and Linsley, 1963 is proposed as synonyms of Haplidus mandibularis Chemsak and Linsley, 1963. The male of Eburia (E.) girouxae is illustrated by the first time and Anelaphus hirtus is redescribed and figured. The geographical distribution of 9 species is expanded, the type locality of Osmidus guttatus is corrected, and Neocompsa intrincata is excluded from the fauna of the United States of America.