Phaeoxantha (Phaeoxantha) laminata
Creators: name: Moravec, Jiří
name: Dheurle, Charles
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Carabidae
Phaeoxantha
Phaeoxantha laminata

description: Phaeoxantha (Phaeoxantha) laminata (Perty, 1830)
(Figs 98–126)
Megacephala laminata Perty, 1830: 2.
Non Phaeoxantha laminata sensu Fleutiaux (1894: 27), nec sensu auctorum (partim), which is in fact P. nocturna (Dejean, 1831)!
Megacephala limata Perty, 1833 – unjustified emendation.
Megacephala asperula Westwood, 1852: 53 – synonymy by Naviaux (2008).
Tetracha asperula: Thomson 1857: 48.
Tetracha laminata: Thomson 1857: 48.
Phaeoxantha asperula: Chaudoir 1865: 42.
Phaeoxantha limata [wrongly credited to “ Perty, 1830 ”] sensu auctorum (partim) – see “Remarks” below).
Phaeoxantha nocturna sensu auctorum (partim). Non Phaeoxantha nocturna (Dejean, 1831)! – see under that taxon below.
Phaeoxantha laminata: Naviaux 2008: 312–313, figs 6–9 – rectified concept of the taxon.
Phaeoxantha laminata: Wiesner 2020: 30, 31.
Unavailable names. Megacephala brevis: Westwood (1852 in litt.).
Megacephala brevipennis: Westwood (1852 in litt.).
Type locality. “Brasilia”.
Type material. Holotype (by monotypy), ♀ in ZSM [standing as Megacephala nocturna (sic!)], labelled: “9 / Brasilia / Megaceph. / laminata [subsequently crossed “amin”, while with additionally written “im” into the label, changing the name to “limata ”] / Perty / nocturna Klg. ” [additionally added at the bottom of the large, square, whitish-tarnished handwritten label with green border and two green transverse lines (Fig. 102)] // “ Holotype / Phaeoxantha / laminata / (Perty, 1830) / R. Naviaux test. 2008” [red, printed] // “SNSB Staatssammlung München / digital imaging / ZSM-COL-0113” [printed].
Other material examined. Historical specimens. 1 ♂ in BMNH: “Rio Tocau / Brazil ” // “laminata? / brevipennis Mus. Cat. / Brazil ” // “F. Bates Coll. / B.M 1911–248” // “ Phaeoxantha / laminata (Perty, 1830) / R. Naviaux det 2008” // “ Phaeoxantha / laminata (Perty, 1830) / R. Naviaux det 2009”.
Specimen standing as Megacephala or Phaeoxantha asperula (Westwood, 1852). 1 ♂ in BMNH: “Rio Araguay / Brazil ” // “ T. asperula, West. / Brazil ” // “F. Bates Coll. / B.M 1911–248” // “Ex Cab / Castelnau” // “ Phaeoxantha / laminata (Perty, 1830) / R. Naviaux det 2008” // “ Phaeoxantha / laminata (Perty, 1830) / R. Naviaux det 2009”. 1♂ in MNHN: “brevicollis / Chaud. / Amazones / 59 Bates” // “Muséum Paris / Coll. Chaudoir 1874”. 6 ♂♂, 4 ♀♀ in MNHN: “Muséum Paris / Ht Amazone / Pebas / de Castelnau 1874”.
Differential diagnosis. Phaeoxantha (P.) laminata is immediately distinguished from all species of the nominotypical subgenus including similarly small species by its mutually markedly ovoid elytra which are notably dimorphic, being distinctly dilated towards anteapical elytral angles in males, and elytral surface (in both sexes) densely tuberculate throughout (Figs 98–100, 103–106, 111–114, 123–125). Also the pronotal surface is sparsely, but distinctly tuberculate (Figs 101, 109–110, 116–117). Body 9.30–10.2 (HT 9.60) mm long, 3.90–4.30 (HT 3.9) mm wide.
Distribution. Although the type locality was simply designated as “Brasilia”, the examined specimens standing in MNHN and BMNH under the synonymous name Phaeoxantha asperula come from the upper parts of the Amazon Basin, namely from the area of Pebas (very probably in the Peruvian province of Loreto), and Rio Araguay in the Brazilian state of Matto Grosso and Pará; one specimen, originally standing in BMNH under the unavailable name Megacephala brevipennis, comes from an area of Rio Tocau in Brazil. Naviaux (2008) examined and illustrated also a male from an area near the confluence of the Amazon rivers Rio Marañón and Rio Ucayali in the Peruvian province of Loreto, and listed also a specimen from Rio Madeira (in the Brazilian state of Amazonas).
Remarks. As explained in “Introduction” and mentioned in “Note” under the genus name above, Megacephala limata Perty, 1833 is an unjustified emendation for M. laminata Perty, 1830 and its junior synonym. The elytral surface in the original description of Megacephala laminata Perty, 1830 is characterized as: “ Elytra oculo nudo subtiliter rugulose ” = elytra to the naked eye finely rugulose. It means that the surface sculpture was clearly obvious, thus the original description corresponds to the species characterized by such densely tuberculate elytral surface (combined with ovaliform elytral shape), as represented by the ZSM female holotype of P. laminata (designated by Naviaux 2008).
In contrast, the illustration in Perty (1830, pl. 1, fig. 3), shows the black elytral areas notably expanded, reaching both sutures and elytral outer margins. In the original description, however, Perty described the black markings as “ sutura ad basin obscuriore, nigredine pone medium dilatata, maculam ideo communem referente, quae vero elytrorum marginem non attingit ”, which means that the black area does not touch the elytral margin (as corresponding to the holotype of Megacephala laminata in ZSM). Furthermore, the basic elytral coloration was described by Perty as “ brunneo-testacea, which corresponds to the coloration in the holotype of P. laminata as well. The elytral shape was omitted in the original description by Perty, but apart from the distinctly tuberculate elytral surface, the female holotype (ZSM) possesses notably ovaliform elytral shape as in the other female specimens of P. (P.) laminata (Westwood, 1852); male elytra exhibit rather distinct sexual dimorphism being notably wider as in the male illustrated by Naviaux (2008, fig. 6) and demonstrated here in Figs 103–104, 106, 111.
Consequently, we should consider the figure 3 of Megacephala laminata in the plate 1 by Perty (1830) to be only scholastic and unequal to the description; it neither corresponds to the female holotype of M. laminata, nor to the original description.
In contrast to P. (P.) laminata, the female specimen inappropriately subsequently labelled in ZSM as a holotype of “ Megacephala limata Perty, 1830 ” clearly differs in having its elytra subparallel and almost smooth, only finely punctate and notably pale yellow-ochre coloured. Moreover, as the name is in fact an unjustified emendation (never was described as a species), the specimen cannot be a type. It was later correctly identified and labelled as Phaeoxantha nocturna by Naviaux (2008).
Consequently, the concept of Phaeoxantha laminata with the holotype designation by Naviaux (2008) is fully accepted here as it corresponds to the original description by Perty (1830), while the scholastic figure 3 in the plate 1 by Perty should be declared as ambiguous, misleading and irrelevant to the taxonomy.
Despite the paper by Naviaux (2008), where Phaeoxantha laminata is clearly redescribed and illustrated with tuberculate and notably ovaliform elytra (in males abruptly dilated posteriad), specimens of these two species have remained confused in many collections.
description: Published as part of Moravec, Jiří & Dheurle, Charles, 2023, Taxonomic and nomenclatorial revision of the Neotropical genus Phaeoxantha Chaudoir (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), pp. 1-83 in Zootaxa 5386 (1) on pages 28-33, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5386.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/10376586