Entomobrya barbata Siqueira & Bellini 2020
Creators: name: Viana, Stéphanie Dos Santos
name: Morais, José Wellington De
name: Cipola, Nikolas Gioia
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Collembola
Entomobryomorpha
Entomobryidae
Entomobrya
Entomobrya barbata

description: Entomobrya barbata Siqueira & Bellini, 2020
Figs 10–11
Entomobrya barbata Siqueira & Bellini, 2020: 52, figs 25–45, Brazil, Bahia, Abaíra, Chapada Diamantina National Park (in Santos et al. 2020).
Examined material. 1 male on slide and 10 specimens in alcohol (INPA): Brazil, Goiás state, Mineiros municipality, “Parque Nacional das Emas”, 17°54’29.9”S, 52°58’58.1”W (Fig.11), about 860 m., 19.iv-23.v.2017, Malaise trap, Oliveira & Lopes coll. 1 female on slide and 7 specimens in alcohol (INPA): idem, except 11.xi-12.xii.2017. 1 specimen in alcohol (UFG): idem, except 12.xii.2017 - 09.i.2018. 1 male in slide (INPA): Brazil, Paraná state, Serranópolis do Iguaçu municipality, “Parque Nacional do Iguaçu”, Community “Divisa do Parque”, 25°27’00.6”S, 54°01’41.8”W (Fig.11), 290 m., 19-21.xii.2019, white plate, NG Cipola & NGC Vanzin coll. 1 female in slide (INPA): Guaira municipality, forest beside the Frontier squad, in “Barão do Rio Branco” boulevard, 24°05’36”S, 54°16’33”W (Fig.11), 241 m., 26-28.x.2019, Pitfall trap, NG Cipola, JMC Nascimentos, N Hamada coll. 2 females on slides and 12 specimens in alcohol (INPA): Minas Gerais state, Conselheiro Pena municipality, Cuieté Velho district, “Serra do Padre Ângelo”, 1 st plateau of “Pico da Bela Adormecida”, “Capão” in rocky field, 19°18’50”S, 41°34’37”W (Fig. 11), 1.250 m., ii-iii.2021, Malaise-Gressit trap over wetland, PR Bartholomay & DP Cordeiro coll. 1 female on slide (INPA): Santa Catarina state, Itapoá municipality, “ Brasil ” Avenue, N ° 900, in sandbank vegetation, 26°05’46”S, 48°36’11”W (Fig. 11), 5m., 07-09.ix.2018, white plate trap, NG Cipola, PA Scapellato, D Hirooka & MS Yamaji coll.
Remarks. Entomobrya barbata was only known from its type locality (Chapada Diamantina National Park, Bahia state), Caatinga biome until now (Santos et al. 2020), but its distribution is herein extended to the Atlantic Forest (Minas Gerais, Paraná and Santa Catarina states) and Cerrado (Goiás state) biomes (Fig. 11).
In the original description of E. barbata, it was compared with E. linda Soto-Adames, 2002 from Virgin Islands, due to its specific body color pattern (Fig. 10), but this same pattern is similar to other congeners such as E. trifasciata Handschin, 1927, E. simulans Denis, 1931 and E. protrifasciata Denis, 1931, all from Costa Rica (Handschin 1927; Denis 1931; Bonet 1933). All these Neotropical species show few or no clear differences between them, and therefore they need to be revised as they can be synonyms of each other or a species complex. For instance, comparing E. trifasciata and E. simulans, both have the unguiculus ai lamella truncate, and there is no obvious difference between them, except for minor color variations. Then, E. protrifasciata has unguiculus ai lamella acuminate, as well as E. barbata and E. linda, and they can be junior synonyms. On the other hand, between E. barbata and E. linda, the only clear difference is the length of the l.p. of labial papilla E, short in E. barbata and longer in E. linda, therefore it is difficult to say if it is an intraspecific variation. Still in relation between these last two species, differences reported in the comparison of the Th II dorsal chaetotaxy, are very likely to be different interpretations of each researcher to differentiate meso and macrochaeta (Soto-Adames 2002; Santos et al. 2020). This shows that, nowadays, perhaps the greatest need is in the revision of previously described species, as this allows the description of new species to be properly compared and synonyms to be avoided.
The situation becomes more complex when compare the above cited species with E. spectabilis from Finland, due to same body color pattern and which even today is the only diagnostic character of this species (see Reuter 1892a: 25, fig. 7; Gisin 1960: 224, fig. 408). Jordana (2012: 172) studying specimens of E. spectabilis from Germany reported the unguiculus ai lamella is acuminate (as in E. protrifasciata, E. barbata and E. linda), and absence of unguis a.t., and only this last feature clearly differs from the other Neotropical species reported above. However, it is quite obvious that the veracity of this characteristic must be observed in the type material.
Entomobrya spectabilis, in addition to being known from different European countries, was recorded over 100 years ago in “San Francisco”, Brazil (Reuter 1892b, 1895; Kraepelin 1901). Some authors have reported (certainly by speculation) that such a locality is “São Franscisco River”, between Alagoas and Sergipe states (Abrantes et al. 2010, 2012; Zeppelini et al. 2022), but such a statement is not evident in the literature, so it is not valid (e.g. Reuter 1892b, 1895; Kraepelin 1901). Furthermore, there is a probability that “São Francisco” is a coastal city in Santa Catarina state, in the same region where we found a specimen of E. barbata (Fig. 11). If so, then there is a high probability that E. spectabilis has been misidentified with E. barbata, or indeed any other Neotropical species mentioned above. Thus, due to the lack of concrete evidence of the locality and morphological data, the record of E. spectabilis is herein dismissed from Brazil.
description: Published as part of Viana, Stéphanie Dos Santos, Morais, José Wellington De & Cipola, Nikolas Gioia, 2022, A new species of Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 (Collembola, Entomobryidae, Entomobryinae) from Brazil, including new records of E. barbata Siqueira & Bellini, 2020, pp. 261-279 in Zootaxa 5155 (2) on pages 274-276, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5155.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/6673490