Parestola Bates 1880
Creators: name: Heffern, Daniel
name: Santos-Silva, Antonio
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Cerambycidae
Parestola

description: Parestola Bates, 1880
Parestola Bates, 1880: 119; Breuning, 1974: 46 (rev.); Monné, 2020b: 619 (cat.).
Falsestoloides Breuning, 1954: 12; 1974: 110 (rev.); Monné, 2020b: 604 (cat.). Syn. nov.
Bates (1880) described Parestola as follows (translated): “Near the genus Estola, differing by the legs longer, with femoral peduncle longer, as well as the thorax with a sharp spine laterally. Body oblong-ovate, finely pubescent. Head narrow, depressed between antennae; antennal tubercles elevated. Antennae slender, albomaculata, inferiorly ciliate, scape slightly elongated, dilated just from base; antennomere III the longest, IV slightly shorter, the others moderately shortened, with similar length. Eyes large, coarsely granulated. Thorax distinctly narrower than elytra, with acute spine laterally. Elytra oblong-ovate, moderately convex, coarsely, subaligned punctate, apex rounded. Legs elongated, slender; femora clavate, femoral club long; mesotibiae slightly sinuous dorsally. Prosternal process arched, apex dilated. Mesosternum arched; mesocoxal cavities slightly opened laterally.” Additionally, he pointed out: “The insect for which this genus is constituted differs from Estola by its oblong-ovate elytra, relatively much narrower head and thorax, and its longer legs with longer and more slender peduncle to the clavate femora. It also differs by the lateral armature of the thorax consisting of a short sharp spine instead of a conical tubercle. The sculpture and clothing are very similar.”
Breuning (1954) described Falsestoloides as follows (translated): “Elongate oval. Antennae slender, slightly longer than body, fringed below with short setae; scape moderately long and little thick, antennomere III distinctly longer than IV, much longer than the scape, the IV much longer than one of the following articles. Antennal tubercles slightly elevated. Eyes coarsely faceted, strongly emarginate, lower eye lobes longer than wide. Frons as long as wide. Pronotum transverse, convex, with two fine transverse sulci: one anteriorly, another posteriorly, and with a small lateral spine, slightly directed upward. Elytra elongated, convex, distinctly wider than pronotum across humeri, strongly narrowed in posterior third, slightly truncate at apex. Head not retractile. Prosternal process very narrow, less elevated than coxae, regularly arched. Mesoventral process rounded forward. Metaventrite with normal length. Mesocoxal cavities closed. Legs very long; femora claviform, subpedunculate; mesotibiae with a weak sulcus dorsally; tarsal claws divaricate. The entire body with moderately short and erect setae.”
Breuning (1974) separated Parestola from Falsestoloides in the alternative of couplet “19” of his key (translated): “19. Mesotibiae without dorsal sulcus… 20 (leading to Parestola) / Mesotibiae with dorsal sulcus… 30 (leading to Falsestoloides).” Actually, the shapes of the mesotibiae in the type species of Parestola and Falsestoloides are identical. Although we do not know the real identity of F. tubericollis Breuning, 1980, P. hoegei Breuning, 143, and P. zapotensis sensu Breuning (1974), there is no difference between the type species of Falsestoloides and Parestola: Parestola zapotensis Bates, 1880 and Falsestoloides mexicana Breuning, 1954. Therefore, they are synonyms, making these two genera also synonyms. The differences pointed out by Breuning (1974) between these two genera are also not valid. For example: “scape assez long [scape very long]” to Parestola; “scape modérément long [scape moderately long]” to Falsestoloides; “Tête retractile [head retractile]” to Parestola; “Tête non retractile [head not retractile]” to Falsestoloides; “tibias intermédiaires avec un failbe sillon dorsal [mesotibiae with dorsal sulcus]” to Falsestoloides; “tibias intermédiaires sans sillon [mesotibiae without dorsal sulcus]” to Parestola.
Comparison of the drawing and photograph of the holotype of Falsestoloides mexicana with a photograph of the holotype of Parestola zapotensis, allows affirming the following: the length of the scape is very similar in both specimens, not very long in P. zapotensis (scape slightly elongated, according to Bates 1885); the head is not retractile in both specimens; and the dorsal surface of the mesotibiae is identical in both specimens.
Our colleague Alain Drumont (ISNB), sent us a photograph of the holotype of Falsestoloides mexicana that allows seeing some details in the specimen. Furthermore, he also compared the holotype with a photograph of a specimen from Panama sent by us and informed us that he was not able to find a reliable difference between them, thus, confirming our opinion. It is important to report here that Alain Drumont offered to send the holotype to us. However, we considered it unnecessary, especially because the transportation of specimens through the post always involves some risk. Thus, we only request the sending of a holotype when other options do not allow us to be sure about the identity of a particular specimen.
Falsestoloides tubericollis is provisionally transferred to Parestola, until the holotype can be examined to confirm or not its allocation in the genus: Parestola tubericollis (Breuning, 1980) comb. nov.
description: Published as part of Heffern, Daniel & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2020, New records, notes and new synonymies in American Cerambycidae (Coleoptera), pp. 553-562 in Zootaxa 4767 (4) on pages 558-559, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4767.4.5, http://zenodo.org/record/3774933