Peridinetus ecuadoricus Casey
Creators: name: Prena, Jens
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2010
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Curculionidae
Peridinetus
Peridinetus ecuadoricus

description: 23. Peridinetus ecuadoricus Casey, resurrected
(Fig. 1, 4–8, 58, 59)
Peridinetus ecuadoricus Casey, 1922: 8 (in key).
Peridinetus irroratus ecuadoricus. Hustache (1938: 9), Blackwelder (1947: 887), Voss (1954: 306). Peridinetus maculiventris auctt. (not Chevrolat). Kuschel (1983: 41) [synonymy based on misidentification]. Peridinetus sp. 4. Marquis (1991: 181).
Peridinetus suturalis auctt. (not Chevrolat). Davis (2009: 5, 10).
Diagnosis. Peridinetus ecuadoricus has been lumped in collections with P. irroratus and, occasionally, with Pardisomus albescens Prena and Peridinetus jelskii Chevrolat. The latter species is restricted to South America and has a distinct sulcus above the antennal scrobe in the female (present but indistinct in the male); Pardisomus species generally lack a prosternal channel. Peridinetus ecuadoricus differs from the otherwise very similar P. i r ro r a t u s by indistinctly ridged interstriae 7 and 9 (shared with P. jelskii) and whitish vestiture on frons and pronotal apex. The studied specimens were 5.7–7.9 mm long (standard length 5.5–7.7 mm).
Distribution. This species has been found from Honduras south to the Pacific side of Colombia and Ecuador. It is here newly recorded for Middle America.
Plant association. Piper auritum (Marquis 14 ×; Nevermann 1 ×; Prena, many), larva in petiole and midrib of leaf (Prena, unpublished).
Type material. Holotype, Ecuador, Balzapamba (USNM).
Material examined. Honduras. Cortés: Muchilena (USNM 2). Nicaragua. Matagalpa: Matagalpa, Fuente Pura, 1400 m (JPPC 5, SEAN 1). Costa Rica. Alajuela: Dos Ríos (INBC 161); San Carlos (USNM 3). Cartago: Chitaría (USNM 1); La Gloria (USNM 1); Tuís (USNM 1); Turrialba (INBC 1, JPPC 1, USNM 18, MNHUB 5). Guanacaste: P.N. Guanacaste, Est. Maritza (INBC 1), Est. Cacao (INBC 153), Est. Pitilla (INBC 91, JPPC 3), Río Tempisquito (INBC 4). Heredia: Puerto Viejo, Est. La Selva, 100 m (CHAH 2, USNM 16). Limón: Amubri (INBC 7); Hamburg Farm (USNM 6); Hitoy Cerere (INBC 13); Las Mercedes, Santa Clara (USNM 4); Mancanillo (INBC 9); Philadelphia (USNM 13); Puerto Limón (USNM 2); Río Bananito (USNM 1); Río Sarapiquí, Ceiba (JPPC 1); Río Sardinas (INBC 20); Río Zapote (INBC 65, JPPC 1); Tortuguero (INBC 7). Puntarenas: Boruca (INBC 1); Carara (INBC 1); Coto Brus (INBC 1); Fila Cedro (INBC 4); Jiménez (INBC 1); Laguna Corcovado (INBC 6); Monteverde (INBC 9); Rincón (INBC 5). San José: Cerro Chucuyo, 12 km NE San Isidro del General (JPPC 2); Fila Negra (INBC 1); La Palma, Río Hondura (USNM 2); Río General (USNM 2); San José (USNM 1, MNHUB 1); Zeledón (USNM 4). Panamá. Bocas del Toro: Bocas del Toro (USNM 4); 15 km SSW Changinola (JPPC 1). Canal Zone: Margarita (USNM 1). Colombia. Nariño: Tumaco (USNM 4). Ecuador. Bolivar: Balzapamba (USNM 1, MNHUB 8); Manabí: El Carmen (JPPC 1). Pichincha: 45 km NNW Quito, Maquipucuna Station (CMNC 2); Tinalandia (CMNC 2). Total 690 specimens.
Note. In South America, on the Pacific side of the Andes, occurs a population that has less distinctly ridged elytral interstriae than typical P. irroratus from the Atlantic side. These two morphological forms are sympatric in Middle America although apparently not on the same plant species. Unfortunately, I was not fully aware of this deviant population during my fieldwork so did not systematically explore this phenomenon. Based on the morphology of the available specimens, I neither recognize random variation in the development of the interstrial ridges nor noticeable intergradation between the two populations in Middle America, although the difference can be quite subtle. These observations seem to support their distinction as separate taxa, as proposed or discussed in earlier studies (Casey 1922, Voss 1954, Kuschel 1983, Whitehead in Marquis 1991). Unfortunately, these studies do not reveal how this distinction was made or, if so, they describe what I consider individual variation. Whitehead’s criteria for distinguishing three informal species at La Selva, Costa Rica are documented in his personal notes (USNM, Systematic Entomology Lab). Species #4 differed from #5 and #6 by (1) white setae on frons and anterior portion of pronotum, (2) interstria 4 not ridged apically and (3) association with Piper auritum. The distinction between species #5 and #6 was apparently provisional and based on the association of #5 with Piper phytolaccaefolium and #6 with P. arieianum. These criteria do not always hold for specimens from other places, but the development of median ridges on the seventh and ninth interstriae seems to support at least the distinction of #4 from the other two. It should be mentioned that all populations have a conspicuous subapical constriction on the male middle tibia. Because the two forms do not seem to interbreed where they overlap, I consider them as good species. Peridinetus ecuadoricus Casey is an available name for Whitehead’s species #4 and is resurrected here from synonymy with P. m a c u l i v e n t r i s. The latter name is a junior synonym itself, i.e., of P. j e l s k i i Chevrolat, because the priority of these two simultaneously published names was fixed by Jekel (1883), the first revising author. The validity of P. ecuadoricus needs verification with ecological and molecular data.
description: Published as part of Prena, Jens, 2010, The Middle American species of Peridinetus Schönherr (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Baridinae), pp. 1-36 in Zootaxa 2507 on pages 30-32, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.195971