Melanesiandra solomonensis Santos-Silva & Heffern & Matsuda 2010
Creators: name: Santos-Silva, Antonio
name: Heffern, Daniel
name: Matsuda, Kiyoshi
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2010
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Cerambycidae
Melanesiandra
Melanesiandra solomonensis

description: Melanesiandra solomonensis (Arigony, 1983)   
(Fig. 24, 25, 83, 136, 137, 223, 266, 327, 379-381)  
 Parandra solomonensis Arigony, 1983: 40, fig. 1-18; 1984: 89, 94, 95, 96, 97, 111, 115, fig. 51, 63-66; Santos-Silva 2002: 32 (note).   
 Birandra (Birandra) solomonensis; Santos-Silva and Shute 2009: 32.   
 Description. Integument shining, dark-brown; anterior edge of head, parts of mandibles, lateral edges of pronotum and of scutellum, and elytral suture blackish or very dark-brown.   
Male (Fig. 379). Head wide, proportionally very large in relation to body size; gibbosities of dorsal surface with punctures coarse, abundant and not confluent; area between gibbosities and ocular carina smooth; area near ocular posterior edge and of occiput with coarse punctation; area behind eyes with punctures very coarse, abundant, in part confluent. Central region of clypeus strongly convex together with labrum. Central projection of labrum (Fig. 24), very distinct, wide, and with one small projection on each side. Eyes (Fig. 83) emarginate. Mandibles (Fig. 136) falciform, as long as or just shorter than head; inner margin with two large teeth together protracted. Submentum clearly delimited by fine suture; surface coarsely and abundantly punctate; margin close to mentum wide and barely elevated; pilosity moderately short and very sparse. Antennae not notably short (reaching basal fourth of pronotum); ventral sensorial area of antennae (Fig. 223) visible from side only in apical antennomeres; ventral sensorial area of antennomeres III-V not divided by carina; remaining antennomeres divided by carina gradually more elevated towards antennomere XI; dorsal sensorial area of antennomere XI large.  
Pronotum convex; disc punctation fine and sparse, gradually coarser laterally (mainly towards anterior angles); anterior margin concave; anterior angles not projected forward; lateral angles well marked, rounded or obtuse; posterior angle well marked. Elytra finely and abundantly punctate (punctures just coarser laterally); elytral carinae absent. Metasternum with some coarse punctures. Metafemur (Fig. 380) moderately short. Metatarsus (without claws) (Fig. 266) longer than metatibia; metatarsomere V longer than I-III together.  
Female (Fig. 381). Dorsal surface of head and area behind eyes with same kind of punctuation as in males, except sparser. Central projection of labrum (Fig. 25) narrow and rounded or subacute, without lateral projections. Mandibles as in Fig. 137.  
 Variability. Integument brown to dark-brown. Males: dorsal surface of head, between gibbosities and ocular carina, with some fine punctures; submentum clearly delimited by fine suture just laterally; antennae notably short (reaching the basal third of pronotum); antennomeres III-VI or III-VII not divided by carina; elytral punctures fine; elytral carinae barely visible.   
 Dimensions in mm (M / F). Total length (including mandibles), 16.8-20.5/17.7-20.0; prothorax: length, 3.4-4.3/3.5-4.2; anterior width, 4.5-5.5/4.4-4.8; posterior width, 3.6-4.3/4.1-4.6; humeral width, 4.4-5.4/ 5.0-5.7; elytral length, 9.4-11.3/10.3-11.9.   
 Geographical distribution (Fig. 327). Solomon Islands (Santa Ana Island, Santa Isabel Island).   
 Material examined. (6 M, 4 F), as follows: SOLOMON ISLANDS. Isabel: Santa Isabel Island (Molao), paratype F, VI.29.1960, C. W. O’Brien coll. (MCNZ). Makira-Ulawa: Santa Ana Island, 2 paratypes M, 1 paratype F, [no date indicated] (MCNZ); 3 M, 2 F [no date indicated] (USNM); M, [no date indicated] (MZSP); paratype F, [no date indicated] (MZSP).   
 Types, type locality. Holotype M, from Solomon Islands, Santa Ana Island, deposited at SMTD. Arigony (1983) stated that the material examined from the Solomon Islands included two pairs (deposited at the Museu de Ciências Naturais da FundaÇÃo Zoobotânica [MCN], Porto Alegre), the holotype and some paratypes (from Staaliches Mueum für Tierkunde [SMTD] Dresden), and the other paratypes at Bernice P. Bishop Museum (BPBM), Honolulu and Smithisonian Institution – United States National Museum (USNM), Washington. However, in the list of type material she listed: holotype at SMTD; 3 M and 2 F at MCN (paratypes), therefore, 5 paratypes and not two pairs; 3 M and 4 F at SMTD (paratypes); 1 F at BPBM. Therefore, there are not any types deposited at USNM, and there are five paratypes deposited at MCNZ (= MCN). Besides, one of the paratypes (female) deposited at MCNZ is not from Santa Ana Island, but from Santa Isabel Island, and the paratypes are 2 M and 3 F, not 3 M and 2 F. The number of males and females deposited at MCNZ was clearly an error, because Arigony (op.cit.) wrote in the list of type material: “3 [male symbol] MCN 56502, 56503, 2 [female symbol] MCN 56501, 56504, 61212”. We received all specimens of Parandrinae from the Oriental province deposited at USNM, among which, there are specimens of M. solomonensis, but none of them have a type label. Additionally, even if one of those specimens had a type label, it would not be a type, because it was not recorded in the list of type material. One paratype female originally deposited at MCNZ is currently deposited at MZSP (donation of Dr. Maria Helena Galileo). We concluded that the paratype female from Santa Isabel Island belongs to BPBM, and was forgotten in MCNZ by Tania Arigony. Dr. Maria Helena Galileo (MCNZ) authorized us to return the paratype to BPBM. This paratype from Santa Isabel Island was collected on VI.29.1960, and not VI.24.1960, as written by Arigony (1983). Additionally, this paratype has the number 61212, the same number listed by Arigony (1983) as a female from Santa Ana Island, deposited at MCNZ.   
 The most important problem, related to the “ paratype ” from Santa Isabel Island, is that the specimen is not a female of M. solomonensis, but a female of M. bougainvillensis.   
 Comments. Although the general appearance of the males of M. solomonensis (Fig. 379) is very different from that of M. striatifrons (Fig. 376), the females of both species are very similar, mainly in head shape.
description: Published as part of Santos-Silva, Antonio, Heffern, Daniel & Matsuda, Kiyoshi, 2010, Revision of Hawaiian, Australasian, Oriental, and Japanese Parandrinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae), pp. 1-120 in Insecta Mundi 2010 (130) on pages 45-47, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5164485