Pentacomia (Mesochila) procera Chaudoir 1860
Creators: name: Moravec, Jiří
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2016
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Carabidae
Pentacomia
Pentacomia procera

description: Pentacomia (Mesochila) procera (Chaudoir, 1860)
Odontochila procera Chaudoir, 1860: 324, 325.
Type locality. Brazil: Petrópolis (state of Rio de Janeiro).
Odontochila Chaudoiri Dokhtouroff, 1887: 157, 158 (synonymy by HORN 1892).
Type locality. Brazil: Petrópolis (state of Rio de Janeiro).
Pentacomia (Mesochila) procera: Rivalier 1969: 224 (222, fig. 15pr, fig. 16pr, 224, fig. 18pr.).
Misapplication. Non Odontochila procera sensu Horn (1929: 157 fig. 20, 158), which is Pentacomia (Mesochila) proceroides sp. nov.
Type material of Odontochila procera Chaudoir. Lectotype (designated here) ♂ in MNHN, labelled: “ procera / Chaud. / Brésil / Petropol. / 53. Sahlb. j.” [brownish-tarnished, with black frame, handwritten] // “Muséum Paris / Coll. Chaudoir 1874” [greenish with black border, printed] // “1521 / Rivalier” [handwritten, referring to aedeagus mounted separately by Rivalier] // “ Lectotype / Odontochila / procera Chaudoir, 1860 / design. Jiří Moravec 2014” [red label, printed] // “ Pentacomia (Mesochila) / procera (Chaudoir,1860) / det. Jiří Moravec 2014” [printed]. Paralectotype. 1 ♀ in MNHN: “Muséum Paris / Coll. Chaudoir 1874” [greenish with black border, printed] // “ AEruginosa / Reiche” (sic!) [additionally attached handwritten label].
Type material of the synonymous Odontochila chaudoiri Dokhtouroff. Holotype (by monotypy), labelled: “ Chaudoiri. Sahlb.” [ochre-tarnished, handwritten] / “ Type / Dokhthurow” [printed] // “ Holotypus ” [red, printed] // “Coll. W. Horn / DEI Eberswalde” [printed] // “(Chaudoiri / Dokht.)” [green with black frame, handwritten] // “ Pentacomia (Mesochila) / procera chaudoiri Dokthouroff / Type (DEI Eberswalde) / borrowed by D. L. Pearson / 23 Oct. 1996 (Drawer # 56)” [printed] // “ Pentacomia (Mesochila) / procera (Chaudoir,1860) / det. Jiří Moravec 2014” [printed].
Other material examined. 1 ♂ in MNHN: “Rio Jan.” // “Ex Musaeo / H. W. Bates / 1892” // “Muséum Paris, 1952 / Coll. R. Oberthür”. 1 ♂ in MNHN: “Muséum Paris / Coll. Chaudoir, 1874” // “1522 / Rivalier”. 1 ♂ in MNHN: “ Brésil ” // “Muséum Paris, 1952 / Coll. R. Oberthür” // “Ex Musaeo / Mniszech”. 1 ♀ in MNHN: “ Brasil ” // “Odont. / procera ” // “Muséum Paris”. 1 ♂ in BMNH: “Fry / Rio Jan.” // “9353” // “Fry Coll. / 1905–100”. 2 ♀♀ in BMNH [standing as “ conformis ”]: “Petropolis” // F. Bates Coll. / 1911–248” // “ procera Chd. / v. W. Horn”. 1 ♂ in BMNH: “Fry / Rio Jan.[eiro]” // Fry Coll. / 1905–100”. 2 ♀♀ in BMNH: “ Brasilia ” // “ Odontocheila / Conformis / Dejean”. 1 ♂ in BMNH: “Petropolis”. 1 ♀ in BMNH: “St. Paul[o]”. 1 ♀ in BMNH: “485” // “Fry / Rio Jan.”. 1 ♀ in MFNB: “ Brasilia ”. 1 ♀ in MFNB: “Rio Janeiro”. 1 ♀ in MFNB: “3626” // “attenuata [sic!] / N. / Bona S....[illegible] / “ Chaudoiri / Doct. / det. Horn”. 1 ♂ in SDEI: “ Brasilien / Sao Paulo”. 1 ♂ in SDEI: “ Brasil ”. 1 ♂ in SDEI: “Speyer / Brasilia ”. 1 ♀ in RLHC: “ Brazil, Sao Paulo / Cubatão River / 4.X.1960 / V.N. Alin / forest”. 1 ♂ in CEIOC: “ Brazil / Petrópolis, Itambraty / J. Zikan, 27.XI.1908 ”. 1 ♂ in DZRJ: “ Brasil, Rio de Janeiro / Teresópolis, Parque Nacional / da Serra dos Órgãos / PVE, Ponto 6A / 22°28'11,5"S, 43°00'06,0"W, 877m / XII.2014 Ricardo Monteiro Col. (Malaise Trap)”. 1 ♂ in MZH: “Petrop.” // "F. Sahlb." // " Odontochila / chaudoiri / Sahlb.". // " GAC 20273 / Brazil, Rio de Janeiro / Petrópolis / 22.49 S, 43.18 W / II.1850 / Ferdinand Sahlberg leg." [syntopic with HT of O. chaudoiri Dokhtouroff].
Differential diagnosis. P. (M.) procera is distinguished from the externally similar P. (M.) conformis by its generally larger and slightly more elongated body, particularly so in female, pronotum with almost parallel lateral margins, elytra (Figs 58–62) with more parallel margins and finer punctation, white lateromedian macula mostly longitudinal or rounded and mostly more distant from the epipleuron, and immediately by the shape of its labrum, which is in male of P. (M.) procera (Figs 44-48) with subtruncate to semicircular anterior margin of the median lobe between rounded but prominent anterolateral teeth (in contrast to mostly truncate anterior lobe between flat, right-angled anterolateral teeth in the male labrum of P. (M.) conformis (Figs 9-12)); female labrum of P. (M.) procera (Figs 49–51) also significantly differs in having the prominent anterolateral teeth (of the same shape as in male), while they are blunt and flattened in female of P. (M.) conformis (Figs 8, 13). Males can be immediately distinguished by the shape of the aedeagi: in P. (M.) procera with distinctly hooked apex (Figs 67–70, 72–75), while in P. (M.) conformis the apex is always rounded, sometimes dorsally emarginated; a significant difference is also in the structure of the internal sac in the aedeagus of P. (M.) procera (Figs 74–75) from that in P. (M.) conformis (Figs 31-36).
P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov., also has its labrum in both sexes with prominent anterolateral teeth, and a similar structure of the internal sac as in P. (M.) procera, but the median lobe of the male labrum in the new species is always truncate, and the shape of the aedeagus distinctly differs (see under the new species below).
Redescription. Body (Figs. 37–42) medium-sized to large, length 11.7–13.6 (LT 11.7) mm (exceptionally only 10.2 mm long), width 3.10–3.70 (LT 3.50) mm, females mostly larger than males; body generally almost uniform, notably elongate, particularly so in female, similarly coloured as in P. (M.) conformis, but mostly with brighter and prevailing iridescent-green lustre, and darker appendages.
Head (Figs 43, 85) conspicuously large with wide eyes, but slightly narrower than body, width 2.80–3.50 mm; shape, surface sculpture and coloration of frons, vertex, genae and clypeus as in P. (M.) conformis.
Labrum primarily 4-setose, usually one or two lateral setae absent (either broken or rarely not developed), sexually dimorphic in shape; male labrum (Figs 44–48) ochre-yellow to brownish-testaceous with indistinctly black-brown darkened basal, sometimes with brown areas or patches, rather long, length 1.05–1.10 mm, width 1.30–1.45 mm, lateral margins moderately arcuate with indistinctly indicated or mostly entirely effaced basolateral teeth; anterolateral teeth always well pronounced, rounded, but prominent, anteriad-prolonged, but not surpassing the anterior margin of medial lobe; the rather variably shaped median lobe has right-angled or rounded lateral margins (rarely indicating blunt anterolateral teeth), its anterior margin subtruncate, rarely indicating indistinct median tooth (exceptionally the median tooth developed as in the aberrant male (Fig. 66)), or the anterior margin is moderately to more distinctly prolonged anteriad, of almost semicircular shape (as in LT, Fig. 45); female labrum (Figs 49–51) almost as long as wide, length 1.60–1.80 mm, width 1.60–1.75 mm, similarly shaped as in male, but median lobe with projecting, mostly subacute median tooth; coloration variable as in male, usually brownishtestaceous, rarely almost entirely blackened.
Mandibles (Figs 43, 65, closed ones Figs. 47, 49), shape and coloration as in P. (M.) conformis, but each mandible notably wider.
Palpi (Figs 43, 47, 51, 65), shape and coloration as in P. (M.) conformis, but the terminal palpomeres mostly almost entirely black, exceptionally pale testaceous (Fig. 65).
Antennae as in P. (M.) conformis, but generally much darker.
Thorax. Pronotum (Figs 52–57), glabrous, iridescent reddish-cupreous on median area, with iridescent-green lateral areas, the cupreous median area rarely prevailing, slightly or more distinctly longer than wide, length 2.10– 2.50 mm, width 1.80–2.10 mm, sulci well pronounced; anterior lobe as wide as posterior lobe, or very slightly wider, and almost as wide as the disc, its anterior margin usually almost transverse, or only moderately prolonged anteriad; surface of anterior lobe coarsely and very irregularly rugulose; disc with mostly notably parallel to subparallel, or only slightly convex lateral margins (including margins of proepisterna), notopleural sutures rather distinct, clearly visible from above, almost subparallel with the proepisternal lateral margins, or even narrowed in middle; medial line distinct; discal surface sculpture as in P. (M.) conformis, but notably coarser; posterior lobe basically as in P. (M.) conformis, but the posterior margin less emarginated; all lateral and ventral thoracic sterna generally as in P. (M.) conformis.
Elytra (Figs 58–64) elongate, particularly markedly elongate in female, length 6.90–8.40 mm (exceptionally 6.20mm), in both sexes with rounded humeri; elytral margins as in P. (M.) conformis, but more subparallel in male and markedly parallel in female; shape of anteapical angles and apices as in P. (M.) conformis; elytral dorsal surface even, except for rather distinct humeral and apical impressions, while discal impression and basodiscal convexity are only indicated, the even surface is particularly notable in female; elytral coloration as in P. (M.) conformis, but the cupreous or green lustre generally much brighter (depending on angle of illumination, the chatoyant reddish-cupreous coloration may change to iridescent green); elytral surface glabrous except for the usual, a few and often very indistinct hairlike sensory setae as in P. (M.) conformis and other species; whole elytral surface rather densely and regularly punctate, pattern of the punctation similar as in P. (M.) conformis, but generally finer and more isolated (the sculpture optically changeable depending on angle of illumination); particularly much finer and almost uniform punctures on female elytra; whitish elytral maculation consisting of three maculae as in P. (M.) conformis, but the sublateral-median macula rounded, or irregularly rhombiform, or slightly longitudinal- prolonged (never mesad-prolonged).
Legs as in P. (M.) conformis, but mostly much darker.
Abdomen generally as in P. (M.) conformis.
Aedeagus (Figs 67–73), elongate, ventral side almost straight, while dorsal outline dilated in middle, apical half attenuated towards distinctly hooked apex; internal sac (Figs 74–75) containing ventral spur of characteristic, wing-like dilated base and short, thin projection; other sclerites are: small basodorsal spike, dorsal ovaliform piece (its shape better visible in right lateral view (Fig. 75), combined with longitudinal dorsal tooth (never distinctly protruding from dorsoapical orifice), and central, partly membranous piece with sclerotized hook, combined ventrally with barely defined longitudinal pieces.
Note. The aedeagus (Fig. 67) of the lectotype of P. (M.) procera (MNHN) shows only its outer membrane, because the internal sac was extracted by Rivalier and mounted together with the empty aedeagus between two glasses, numbered as “1521 / Rivalier”. The internal sac has been destroyed by such wrong mounting treatment using a brown glue, which in time dried out and destroyed the shape of the internal sac (as in many type specimens of other tiger beetles –see Moravec 2010, 2014).
Variability. The male (Fig. 39) from Rio de Janeiro (BMNH) has anomalously wide pronotum (resembling that of P. (M.) conformis), but its aedeagus (Fig. 68) has the distinctly hooked apex as in other males of P. (M.) procera. The aberrant male (Fig. 40) from Sao Paulo (SDEI) notably differs in its much smaller size and much paler legs, labrum with more pronounced median tooth (Fig. 66), the lateromedian macula closer to the epipleuron (Fig 61), paler palpi (Fig.65) and somewhat less distinctly hooked aedeagus (Fig. 72). The differences are considered here a variability of the probably juvenile male, rather than to consider this aberrant male to be another undescribed species.
Distribution, ecology and biology. The type locality of P. (M.) procera is situated in the large area near the municipality of Petrópolis in the Brazilian state of Rio de Janeiro, 70 km from the state capital. The Petrópolis area covers the valley of the Quitandinha and Piabanha rivers with forested hills of the Serra dos Órgãos National Park near Teresópolis with still well preserved biotopes of the Atlantic Rainforest. The “ Mata Atlantica” included also the forested area of Sao Paulo. The specimen (SDEI) labelled “Sao Paulo” comes probably from the area of today’s Reserva Biológica do Alto da Serra de Paranapiacaba, located at Paranapiacaba district (municipality of Santo André, São Paulo Metropolitan Region). The female (RLHC) comes from Rio Cubatão in the same metropolitan region.
P. (M.) procera is obviously sympatric with P. (M.) conformis in the state of Rio de Janeiro, as two specimens in MNHN (ex H. W. Bates) bear identical handwritten labels “Rio Jan.”, but there is no proof of also syntopic occurrence of these two species in the large area. In addition, several other species of Mesochila occur in the same area, as already mentioned by Horn (1910, 1926) and Zikán (1929). Rivalier (1969), obviously in error, mentioned the occurrence of P. (M.) procera also in the states of Bahia and Matto Grosso, but no specimen with such labels has been found in MNHN or in other collections within the present revision.
Little is known of the habitat and behaviour of adults and larvae. The behaviour of adults described by Erwin & Pearson (2008) are without a reference to any exact locality and experience, but they refer to Zikán (1929).
Zikán (1929) described and illustrated larval tunnels and development of adults from their immature stages during rearing of P. (M.) procera, but in fact mostly of P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. (see under this new species below).
Remarks. Chaudoir (1860) based the original description of this species on two specimens of both sexes: one male caught by Sahlberg in Petrópolis (the lectotype designated here to assure stability of this taxon), and one female from “interior Brésil ” received from a collection Laferté. Chaudoir (1860) described the coloration of the labrum of the female syntype as “ piceo ”, which means pitchy-black. Unfortunately, Chaudoir never labelled type specimens of his taxa by type labels. The only female that corresponds by its black labrum with the female syntype, is that from the Chaudoir collection (MNHN), and is therefore considered here to be the paralectotype. It bears the additional label “ aeruginosa / Reiche”, evidently attached to the female subsequently, probably by Reiche, and it has no impact to the individuality of the syntype. It is noteworthy that the unavailable name Cicindela aeruginosa was listed without any description by Dejean (1831: 208) under Cicindela smaragdula Dejean, 1825 with only a note that he received the specimen under the name “ AEruginosa ” from Schönherr; the name is therefore a nomen nudum.
Examination of the holotype (Figs 42, 49, 57, 64) of Odontochila chaudoiri Dokhtouroff, 1887 has confirmed the synonymy with P. (M.) procera by Horn (1892). Fleutiaux (1892), evidently without examination of the holotype in SDEI, listed inappropriately O. chaudoiri as a synonym of Odontochila virens Audouin & Brullé, 1839, which is in fact a junior synonym of Pentacomia (Mesochila) smaragdula (Dejean, 1825), as stated by Horn (1892) and confirmed within the present revision.
description: Published as part of Moravec, Jiří, 2016, Taxonomic and nomenclatorial revision within the Neotropical genera of the subtribe Odontocheilina W. Horn in a new sense — 16. Pentacomia (Mesochila) procera (Chaudoir), P. (M.) conformis (Dejean), and P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), pp. 276-300 in Zootaxa 4127 (2) on pages 285-292, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4127.2.3, http://zenodo.org/record/255358