Oectropsis pusillus
Creators: name: Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De L.
name: Monné, Miguel A.
name: Santos-Silva, Antonio
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Cerambycidae
Oectropsis
Oectropsis pusillus

description: Oectropsis pusillus (Blanchard, 1851)
(Figs. 14–17)
Exocentrus pusillus Blanchard, 1851: 502; Fairmaire & Germain, 1859: 514; Strauch, 1861: 134; Lacordaire, 1872: 806; Gemminger, 1873: 3167 (cat.); Philippi, 1887: 777 (cat.); Aurivillius, 1923: 444; Blackwelder, 1946: 619 (cat.); Bosq, 1953: 84 (distr.); Ringuelet, 1955: 100 (distr.); Cerda, 1986: 36 (distr.).
Oectropsis? pusillus; Gilmour, 1965: 603 (cat.).
Oectropsis pusillus; Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 258 (checklist); Monné, 1995: 151 (cat.); Monné, 2005: 109 (cat.); Monné, 2020: 155 (cat.); Bezark, 2020a: 222 (checklist).
Oectropsis franciscae Barriga & Cepeda, 2005: 48; Machado et al., 2012: 192 (hosts); Monné, 2020: 155 (cat.). Syn. nov.
Remarks. The drawing of Exocentrus pusillus Blanchard, 1851 (Fig. 17) is, at best, significantly different from the original description. According to him (translated): “the species from Chile [E. pusillus], which we attributed to this genus, differs [from E. balteatus, in fact Cerambyx lusitanus, currently, Exocentrus lusitanus] by its more elongate shape, and prothorax with a much smaller spiniform tubercle [lateral tubercles], which contributes to give it a little more general appearance of Saperda; however, all its features have determined us to put it in the genus Exocentrus.” Notwithstanding, the drawing does not show any lateral tubercle in the prothorax. Still according to him in the description of the species: elytra with coarse punctures arranged in longitudinal series (which agrees with the drawing), with a grayish pubescence that forms toward the middle of the elytra an oblique transverse band, and toward the extremity, a larger and more or less distinct macula, and always poorly determined (which evidently, does not agree with the drawing).
Oectropsis franciscae Barriga & Cepeda (2005) (Figs. 15–16) agrees very well with the photograph of the “ holotype ” of Exocentrus pusillus in Tavakilian & Chevillotte (2020) (Fig. 14). However, Blanchard (1851) probably described the species based on more than one specimen because he reported that the pubescence on the posterior area of the elytra is always poorly defined, which suggests more than one specimen. Accordingly, O. pusillus sensu Barriga & Cepeda (2005) corresponds to O. chilensis sp. nov., and O. franciscae is a junior synonym of O. pusillus.
As we have no specimens of O. pusillus, it is not possible to be sure about the genus or even of the tribe. Evidently, it does not belong to Oectropsis (different pronotal shape; absence of tufts of setae on the elytra, etc.), and may be a Desmiphorini. According to Lacordaire (1872), E. pusillus does not belong to Exocentrus, and we agree with this assessment. It would be necessary to check details that we cannot see in the photograph of the “ holotype ” and in photographs by Barriga & Cepeda (2005), and were also not discussed in the descriptions. Accordingly, the only possible option is to keep it provisionally in Oectropsis.
It is not possible to know if O. pusillus sensu Bosq (1953), Ringuelet (1955), and Cerda (1986) really belongs to this species. We believe it is doubtful that O. pusillus sensu Bosq (1953) and Ringuelet (1955) really belong to this species because the specimens were collected in the department of Neuquén located at east of the Andes, while the species was described from material from the west of the Andes.
description: Published as part of Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De L., Monné, Miguel A. & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2020, On the enigmatic genus Oectropsis Blanchard (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae Lamiinae): tribal allocation, synonymy, and new species, pp. 211-224 in Zootaxa 4845 (2) on pages 218-221, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4845.2.3, http://zenodo.org/record/4406558