Hovorodon maxillosum Drury 1773
Creators: name: Santos-Silva, Antonio
name: Swift, Ian P.
name: Nearns, Eugenio H.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2010
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Cerambycidae
Hovorodon
Hovorodon maxillosum

description: Hovorodon maxillosum (Drury, 1773)
(Figs. 8, 9, 16, 32, 33, 49, 50, 63, 78)
Cerambyx maxillosus Drury, 1773: 133; Gmelin, 1790: 1818.
Prionus maxillosus; Fabricius, 1775: 163; 1781: 208; 1787: 130; 1792: 249; 1801: 264; Anonymous, 1830: 115 (cat.).
Prionus Maxillosus; Schönherr, 1817: 344.
Prionus (Mallodon) maxillosus; Drury & Westwood, 1837: 82; Thomson, 1861: 320;
Mallodon Maxillosum; Thomson, 1864: 308.
Mallodon maxillosum; Thomson, 1867: 103; Gundlach, 1894: 330 (distr.); Gahan, 1895: 83 (distr.);
Mallodon maxillosus; Gemminger & Harold, 1872: 2770 (cat.); Fleutiaux & Sallé, 1889: 460 (hosts); Fleutiaux, 1892: 68;
Stenodontes (Nothopleurus) maxillosus; Lameere, 1902: 97; 1913: 13 (cat.); 1919: 33; Wolcott, 1951: 332; Duffy, 1960: 58 (Biol.); Gilmour, 1963: 76 (distr.); Peck, 2006: 191 (distr.);
Nothopleurus maxillosus; Leng & Mutchler, 1914: 443 (distr.); 1917: 209 (distr.); Wolcott, 1924: 108; 1936: 258; Villiers, 1980: 141; Fragoso & Monné, 1995: 219; Monné, 1995: 13 (cat.); Chalumeau & Touroult, 2005: 45; Santos-Silva & Martins, 2005: fig. 19; Monné & Hovore, 2005: 14 (cat.); 2006: 13 (cat.); Monné, 2006: 55 (cat.); Peck, 2009: 35 (distr.).
Stenodontes (Mallodon) maxillosus; Chemsak et al., 1992: 15 (cat.); Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 6 (cat.).
Male (Fig. 8). Central area of dorsal face of head, between the eyes, with punctures distinctly smaller than laterally and towards occiput, somewhat disperse. Area behind upper ocular lobe coarsely punctate, and partially anastomosed; area behind lower ocular lobe rugose. Clypeus slightly elevated laterally; anteriorly distinctly and widely emarginated centrally. Central projection of labrum narrow, acuminated, elongated. Distance between upper ocular lobes equal to 3.7 times the width of scape at apex; distance between lower ocular lobes equal to 4.4 times the width of scape at apex. Hypostomal area (Fig. 32) wholly vermiculated, more distinctly on the area strongly elevated near the gula, and strongly depressed close to the mentum; pilosity moderately short and disperse on elevated area, and distinctly longer and more abundant on depressed area. Hypostomal carina (Fig. 32) elevated throughout, but obliterated near the gula by the elevation of hypostomal area. Apex of gena not projected laterally. Maxillary palpomere III as long as IV. Apex of labial palps not reaching the fourth maxillary palpomere. Galea reaching the apex of the first maxillary palpomere.
Mandibles (Fig. 8) distinctly longer than head (major male); dorsal carina (Fig. 49) strongly elevated, narrow throughout, obliquely sloped near the apex; lateroexternal face oblique, somewhat concave, with punctures fine and disperse; pilosity of outer face moderately short and sparse at base, and shorter and sparser in the remaining; pilosity of inner face long and very abundant throughout; infero-inner margin projected in plate at apical half, in which there is a large tooth at apex and the remaining is somewhat irregular; area between the apex of the plate and the apex of inner margin with a large tooth somewhat acute; apex narrow, curved inward, with outer tooth long and acute, and inner tooth short and somewhat rounded. Scape reaching or just surpassing the posterior edge of eyes. Antennomere III longer than IV. Facets of pronotal disc relatively small, subtriangular, placed at anterior half. Lateral angles of pronotum rounded; posterior angles almost null. Elytra with some hairs at basal fifth. Metepisternum (Fig. 63) slightly narrowed and not concave in inner margin (width at central region equal to approximately 0.26 times the length).
Female (Fig. 9). Central area of dorsal face of head, between the eyes, coarsely punctate (punctures usually distinctly coarser than in male). Distance between upper ocular lobes equal to 1.8 times the width of a lobe; distance between lower ocular lobes equal to 1.7 times the width of a lobe. Gena as in male. Hypostomal area (Fig. 33) punctate-vermiculate throughout, with transversal furrow, deep, close to the anterior edge. Mandibles (Fig. 50) with long hairs at base of outer face. Lateral angles of pronotum very projected, subspiniform; lateral margins crenulated; disc distinctly punctate, coarser laterally. Elytra with very disperse short hairs at basal fifth. Width of metepisternum equal to 0.30 times the length.
Variation. Male: central area of dorsal face of head, between the eyes, with punctures just smaller than laterally and towards occiput, abundant (sometimes partially anastomosed); area behind lower ocular lobe with punctures somewhat fine and sparse on the region close to eye, and rugose towards the base of the head (punctures finer and sparser, and rugosity less conspicuous towards the apex of the eye); distance between upper ocular lobes from 3.6 to 4.0 times the width of scape at apex; distance between lower ocular lobes from 4.1 to 4.4 times the width of scape at apex; hypostomal area not distinctly vermiculated on depressed area; width of metepisternum at central region from 0.26 to 0.28 times the length.
Dimensions in mm (male/female). Total length (including mandibles), 53.5–68.5/52.3–53.8; prothoracic length, 9.0–10.2/8.0–8.1; anterior prothoracic width (between the apices of anterior angles), 12.5–15.7/11.0– 11.1; posterior prothoracic width (between the apices of lateral angles), 14.6–18.1/16.2–16.5; humeral width, 14.0–16.4/16.4–16.8; elytral length, 31.5–38.5/35.6–36.1.
Types, type-locality. Drury (1773) did not record the sex of the holotype specimen, from Barbuda, but the description and figure from Drury (1770) indicates that the specimen is a male. Unfortunately, the specimens from Drury’s collection are believed to be lost. Ferrer et al. (2004) recorded the following regarding Drury’s collection: “ Hayek (1985: 150) lists T. cornutus among Fabrician species described from Drury’s material, but she does not uncover its whereabouts, or that of the majority of Coleoptera types from the Drury Collection. She observes that most of the type material was absent from the sale catalogue prepared upon Drury’s death in 1804, and states that there is ’ convincing evidence ‘ that ' someone who understood the value of this material acquired it before the collection was offered for sale by public auction ‘. Hayek also cites four occasions where Staig (1931, 1940) records possible Fabricius (1775) types described from ’Dom. Drury‘, in the collection of William Hunter…In each case Staig states that Hunter probably acquired the material from Drury…However, Hayek herself refers to the possibility that Drury may have sold part of his collection in or after 1777, when he suffered financial difficulties (and was declared bankrupt), and it seems very possible that part of the type material was acquired, either directly as this time or indirectly later, by Hunter”.
There are two specimens of Hovorodon in the HMUG. The specimen with catalogue number GLAHM 139035 is a male of H. bituberculatum. The other specimen (catalogue number GLAHM 139034) (Fig. 16) agrees very well with Drury’s (1770) original description and figure. Dr. Geoff Hancock, Curator of Entomology Department in HMUG, provided the authors with information and photographs of specimens in the Hunter collection. According to Dr. Hancock (pers. comm.): “One photograph [Fig. 65] is of the original drawer which is exactly how they were received here after William Hunter died (1783). The other photograph shows the pair closer up, together with the only label, which they share. The cabinet label gives the information from Fabricius (1781). It is very common in the collection for the insects to be in pairs like this. Often this was because they were thought to be a male and a female. Also it is extremely unusual with these old collections to find any specimen labels on the pin which is a pity. There are none on these specimens’; and: “In some cases we have in Glasgow Drury's specimens of so-called 'missing' types. We also have some Banksian types. Many of these got moved between collections by Fabricius, who was Hunter's curator. His task was to make Hunter's collection as good as possible. So Fabricius took specimens (presumably 'duplicates') from other museums and placed then in Hunter's cabinet and also took some home to Copenhagen or Kiel for his own collection. He was well-known for the redistribution of specimens in this way, as you probably know. In the case of Drury sometimes Hunter could buy specimens from him. For these reasons it is not necessary to have to explain how Hunter had Drury specimens even though Drury did not die until 1804, many years after Hunter did”.
In Anonymous (1784) (it was from these lists that E. Donovan prepared the Drury Sale Catalogue) appears that Drury had nine specimens of Cerambyx maxillosus from Barbuda (near Antigua), collected by W. Killingly in 1767 (with a reference to the illustration 3 of the plate 38). However, when Drury described the species he had a single specimen: “I received it from the island of Barbuda near Antigua, where it was found dead at the foot of a tree”. Drury did not mention the collector or date. Thus, apparently, he acquired the other eight specimens after the description.
The Drury sale catalogue (Donovan, 1805) does not mention Cerambyx maxillosus specifically. A number of species of Cerambyx are mentioned by name but then it goes on to say e.g. “16 others or similar”.
It is possible that the specimen in the HMUG (GLAHM 139034) is a specimen from Drury’s collection, perhaps even the true holotype of Cerambyx maxillosus. Unfortunately there is no correspondence between Hunter and Drury that might shed any light on this problem (Hunter 2008).
Geographical distribution (Fig. 78). Antigua and Barbuda (Barbuda - Drury 1770; Antigua – Chalumeau & Touroult 2005), Cuba (Thomson 1867), Puerto Rico (Gundlach 1894), Guadeloupe (Gahan 1895), Saint Kitts (= Saint St. Christophers) and Nevis (Gahan 1895), Saint Martin (Lameere 1902), Saint Barthélemy (Lameere 1902), Barbados (Duffy 1960), Martinique (Duffy 1960), Dominica (Villiers 1980), Montserrat (Chalumeau & Touroult 2005).
Thomson (1867) recorded this species from Cuba, and this country has been listed in catalogues and works as area of distribution of the species. However, Zayas (1957, 1975) did not record H. maxillosum from Cuba. We believe that Thomson (op.cit.) confused H. maxillosum with H. bituberculatum, and thus, the first one needs to be excluded from Cuban fauna, as already pointed out by Gahan (1895) and ignored by all subsequent authors: “In the Catalogue of Gemminger and Harold, Cuba is given as the locality of this species, apparently on the authority of Thomson (Physis i., 2, p. 103), whose citations of localities are not to be always relied upon”.
Chalumeau & Touroult (2005) wrote: “Villiers mentione un exemplaire de Martinique [Le Prêcheur, Pointe La Mare (Bonfils)]; il s’agit certainement d’une confusion ave Mallodon spinibarbis – espèce dont Villiers n’avait pas eu connaissance”. We do not know if the specimen mentioned by Villiers (1980) is H. maxillosum. However, according to seen above, Villiers (op.cit.) was not the first to record H. maxillosum from Martinique.
Duffy (1960) recorded H. maxillosum to the USA (Florida). After this, the species was not recorded to this country by any author. Probably, the species confused with H. maxillosum by Duffy (op.cit.) is Stenodontes chevrolati Gahan, 1890.
Frenzel (1891) recorded this species to Argentina. Without doubt, it was an error of identification. Probably the species is Mallodon spinibarbis (Linnaeus, 1758).
Material examined. West Indies, female, [no date indicated], H. A. Ballou col. (USNM). DOMINICA: Clarke Hall Estate (in rotten log), male, 6.VIII.1965, R. M. Anderson col. (USNM). SAINT KITTS & NEVIS: Saint Kitts, 1 male, 1 female (ex-Wickhan collection), 3.V.1904, [name of collector illegible] (USNM). ANTIGUA & BARBUDA: Antigua (Five Islands Peninsula), male, [no date indicated], Raeburn col. (USNM). GUADELOUPE: Les Grands Fonts, female, 27.IV.1979, [no collector indicated] (EMEC).
Comments. We believe that the specimens recorded as Stenodontes maxillosus by Redtenbacher (1868) and by Ramos-Elorduy (2006) are not of that species (error of identification).
Hovorodon maxillosum is very similar to H. bituberculatum, but can be identified, mainly, by the fore angles of genae without protuberance oriented toward the extending laterally in both sexes (with the protuberance in both sexes of H. bituberculatum).
description: Published as part of Santos-Silva, Antonio, Swift, Ian P. & Nearns, Eugenio H., 2010, Division of the genus Nothopleurus Lacordaire, 1869 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Prioninae), pp. 1-44 in Zootaxa 2643 on pages 23-25, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.276171