Laparocerus hupalupa Machado, 2007, n. sp.
Creators: name: Machado, Antonio
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2007
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Curculionidae
Laparocerus
Laparocerus hupalupa

description: Laparocerus hupalupa n. sp.
(Figs. 6 A, 12A–B, E–F, 16D, 18N)
Dimensions, holotype (ɗ). Length: total (without rostrum) 7.25 mm, head 1.54 mm, rostrum 0.82 mm, eyes 0.48 mm, scape 1.76 mm, funicle 1.88 mm, segments (1st/ 2nd/ 3rd/ 4th) 0.44 /0.44 /o.26 / 0.23 mm, club 0.58 mm, pronotum 1.66 mm, elytra 5.00 mm, and tibiae (pro- /meso- /meta-) 2.00 /1.80 / 2.08 mm. Width: head (with eyes) 1.22 mm, head (between eyes) 0.64 mm, rostrum (with pterygia) 0.74 mm, rostrum (minimum dorsal /ventral) 0.50 / 0.68 mm, eyes 0.39 mm, scape (apicad) 0.18 mm, club 0.22 mm, pronotum (anterior / maximum /posterior) 1.36 /2.07/ 1.78 mm, elytra (maximum) 3.35 mm. Height: abdomen 2.10 mm.
Male. Length 6.7–10.1 mm, oblong-oval, moderately convex. Integument subnitid, piceous (extremities usually somewhat ferrugineous), devoid of scales on dorsum, appearing bare. Antenna slender; scape longer than pronotum, slightly sinuate, clearly capitate in last third; funicle almost as long as scape, 2nd segment equal or slightly longer than 1st; club oval, large, as long as three previous segments combined, almost twice as thick; 7th incrassate. Head small and elongate; rostrum narrow, longer than broad (L/W ratio 1.64 ×), parallel-sided, dorsally almost parallel or slightly convergent apicad, not canaliculate, sparsely punctate (small hair-like scales on sides and periocular area, occasionally with a few dorsally); frons almost flat, with very short median incision; pterygia small, not protruding; base of antennae exposed; pregenal area and outer faces of mandibles densely hairy. Eyes oval (L/W ratio 1.23), almost evenly convex, moderately prominent (29%), reaching border of frons. Pronotum 0.62 × width of elytra, moderately transverse (L/W ratio 0.8 ×), convex, sides strongly and evenly rounded; anterior margin slightly narrower than posterior, strongly and conspicuously constricted into a thin and deep collar, basal margin rimmed. Surface notably consperse, with irregularly dispersed, slightly larger, more or less conspicuous punctures; without trace of median line. A few tiny hairs (visible at 100 ×) usually on sides. Scutellum triangular, with obtuse angle; punctate. Elytra about 3 × longer than pronotum, elongate-oval (L/W ratio 1.5 ×), evenly convex (transverse convexity of abdomen 62%); sides uniformly curved, maximum width at middle, apical declivity slanting, not vertical; shoulders completely rounded. Striae shallow, marked by small punctures (separated by 1–1.5× diameter). Dorsal intervals flat, very occasionally weakly convex, strongly rugose and generally minutely alutaceous; on flanks and apex weakly convex and microreticulation transversely disposed. Devoid of visible scales except for tiny microscopic hairscales laterally at base, apex and occasionally sparsely along intervals, where shallow micropunctures are visible. 7th and 8th intervals slightly but visibly swollen at humeri. Legs slender; protibia gently sinuate, with apical quarter slightly curved downwards; apex truncate, strongly expanded inwards, less so outwards where almost right-angled; mucro small, absent or obsolete in meso- and metatibia; apical setal brush present; dorsal pilosity usually abraded at outer margin; pro- and mesotibia externally angled, with a few small teeth or granules on inner edge; metatibial apex extended into longitudinal, blade-like lobe armed with 4–6 broad short teeth (often abraded); onychia thin. Ven te r. Integument shiny, with vestiture of separate, decumbent, linear scales, denser on sides; coxae and metasternum at middle beset with conspicuous tufts of setae; intermesocoxal ridge narrow, cariniform, very slightly elevated; truncated posterior margin of last ventrite shortly concave in middle. Abdominal convexity 62%. Aedeagus (fig. 12A–B) in profile moderately bent; apically clearly sinuate, apex ending in extended, narrow, almost parallel-sided, blunt plate, sometimes with faint medio-apical keel; apodemes shorter than body of median lobe. Internal sac short, with very large and dense field of thick denticles and two additional, paired, shorter ones.
Female. As male but shorter (length 7.5–9.8 mm), elytra completely oval and inflated (L/W ratio 1.4 instead of 1.5), declivity almost vertical except at apex (pre-apically concave); intervals 5–7 at base more elevated; humeri more marked. Metasternum and coxae without dense tufts but hairy; last ventrite rounded apically. Tibiae without visible mucro; protibia straighter, with symmetrical, lateral, fan-like enlargements at apex; metatibia without terminal protruding spur. Sternite VIII as in fig. 16D, spermatheca as in fig. 18N. Hemisternites blade-like, obliquely truncate at apex; styli distant from apical border, not protruding (fig. 12F).
Etymology. The specific epithet is a noun in apposition taken from Hupalupa, the name of an aborigin from the island of La Gomera, which means “great king” or “lord of everything”.
Remarks. Laparocerus hupalupa belongs to the group of L. undatus Wollaston, 1864 (subgenus Machadotrox Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999). It is externally almost identical to another Gomeran species, L. inermis (see differential diagnosis of the latter), but the presence of a terminal spur on the male metatibia and the more evenly convex eyes are good identifying characters. When in doubt (i.e. spur broken), the male genitalia must be examined. Other similar species in this group are L. laevis Roudier, 1957 (from La Palma) and L. aethiops Wollaston, 1864 (with subspecies on El Hierro and La Gomera). Laparocerus hupalupa is easy to distinguish from these species by its more slender head, parallel and narrower rostrum (rostrum 1.7× longer than eye diameter, 1.5× in L. laevis), the pronotum with a conspicuous, deep and narrow premarginal collar and less obvious double punctation, the more strongly rounded humeri, curved male protibia and the characteristic protruding terminal spur of the male metatibia. Likewise, due to its bare, dark, piceous integument, oblong-oval appearance and long and narrow snout, L. hupalupa also resembles L. boticarius Machado, 2007 from Tenerife, which belongs to another group. This latter species usually bears scales and erect setae on the elytra, has quite hairy legs, a laterally less strongly curved pronotum, a shinier integument, more widely separated and thicker punctures and a very differently shaped aedeagus.
Material examined. Holotype; La Gomera: Las Hayas, 800 m (UTM = 28R 0 27410 311365), 17-4-2000, leg. A. Machado, 1ɗ (TFMC, reg. CO-155517). Paratypes: same data, 38 exx. (AMC, 1 MNCN, 2 NHM, ZMUH); same data, 31-3-2001, 36 exx. (AMC); same locality, 6-12-2002, leg. A. Aguiar, 1 ex. (AAC); same locality, 20-12-2003, leg. P. Oromí, 1 ex. (POM); Cruce de las Hayas, 1100 m, 31-3-2001, 10 exx. (AMC); same data, 4-1-2003, leg. P. Oromí, 1 exx. (POM), Cementerio de Arure, 850 m, 31-3-2001, 13 exx.; same data, 6-12-2002, 2 exx. (AMC), same data, 6-12-2003, leg. A. Aguiar, 13 exx. (teneral) (AAC, TFMC); same data, 6-12-2002, leg. R. García, 16 exx. (RGB). Other specimens: Alojera: Tegueguenche, 500 m, 15-3-2003, 1 ex.; supra Tazo, 630 m, 2-1-2005, 7 exx. (teneral); Chorros de Epina, 800-1000 m, 17-4-2000, leg. A. Machado, 3 exx.; same data, 7-12-1992, 2 exx. (AMC).
Distribution and ecology. Laparocerus hupalupa is endemic to La Gomera and occurs at least in the upper western parts of the island, above 500 m. Occasionally found in the forest, it is not uncommon on scrub vegetation or forest margins feeding on woody plants such as Cistus monspeliensis, Erica arborea, Chamaecytisus proliferus, Artemisia thuscula, Adenocarpus foliososus, Argyranthemum sp., Micromesia sp. and Rubus ulmifolius. It is a nocturnal species, active in winter and spring.
description: Published as part of Machado, Antonio, 2007, New species of Laparocerus Schönherr, 1834 from La Gomera, Canary Islands (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Entiminae), pp. 1-38 in Zootaxa 1643 on pages 16-18, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.179691