Pirangoclytus purus
Creators: name: Santos-Silva, Antonio
name: Nascimento, Francisco E. De L.
name: Biffi, Gabriel
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2019
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Cerambycidae
Pirangoclytus
Pirangoclytus purus

description: Pirangoclytus purus (Bates, 1870).
(Figs 19–34)
Mecometopus purus Bates, 1870: 398.
Mecometopus ellifranzae Fuchs, 1963: 456.
Bates (1870) described Mecometopus purus based on a single specimen from Brazil (Amazonas). In the same work he also described M. flavius from Brazil (Par). According to the original descriptions, these species would differ as follows: prothorax posteriorly with large macula grayish yellow on both sides in M. purus, smaller and grayish in M. flavius; lateroanterior area of the elytra with yellow pubescent band in M. purus, fused with dorsal band in M. flavius; anterior margin of anterodorsal pubescent macula obliquely truncate in M. purus, rounded in M. flavius; central pubescent maculae together triangular in M. purus, rhomboid in M. flavius; and transverse posterior pubescent macula narrow and arched in M. purus, wider, especially toward suture, in M. flavius. Comparing photographs of the holotypes (including Mecometopus ellifranzae) (see Bezark 2018), it is possible to see that the color of the pronotal pubescence is very similar in both species, only slightly less yellow in M. flavius, and not grayish as originally reported. The shape of the dorsal pubescent maculae is variable in M. flavius and M. purus; thus, it is not useful to separate the species. Actually, if those species are really different – we are not sure – the only reliable difference would be the shape of the anterolateral pubescent band: not fused posteriorly with anterodorsal pubescent macula in M. purus; fused in M. flavius. According to Martins & Galileo (2011), M. flavius has yellowish pubescence on apical area of the elytra. Bates (1870) did not report if the area close to the apex of the elytra has distinct pubescence. Looking at the photograph of the holotype, there is apparently no such pubescence. However, comparing two specimens with pubescence on the elytral apex (from Venezuela – deposited at MZSP) with the photograph of the holotype, we were not able to find a reliable difference to separate them. Thus, the presence or absence of pubescence on the distal area of the elytra cannot be used to separate M. flavius from M. purus either.
We examined two specimens of M. purus from Brazil (Amazonas) and two from Bolivia. The only small difference found is the width of the transverse pubescent macula on the elytra, which are somewhat wider in both specimens from Bolivia (i.e. Figs 27–30). In the Amazonian specimens, this transverse macula is narrower (i.e. Figs 31–34).
However, that macula could also be distinctly more scalene triangle-shaped (Figs 19–22, 23–26). This kind of variation is also common in other species of Clytini as, for example, in Mecometopus leprieuri (Laporte & Gory, 1838) (see Bezark 2018).
In the alternative of couplet 8, Martins & Galileo (2011) separated P. purus and P. jauffreti from P. chaparensis (translated): “Elytra with small, yellowish pubescent macula laterally near margin – leading to P. chaparensis; and – Elytra without small, yellowish pubescent macula near margin – leading to P. jauffreti and P. purus. We believe that this small macula may or may not be present in M. purus. It is not present in the typical form of P. purus, only because it is fused with the dorsal pubescent macula (imperfectly fused in the holotype – see Bezark, 2018).
We do not know if P. jauffreti Martins & Galileo, 2011, and P. chaparensis Martins & Galileo, 2011 are really different from P. purus and/or P. flavius. Only the examination of a large series could determine if they are different species. Additionally, the absence of a small pubescent macula on the middle side of the elytra in the female of P. purus from Brazil (Mato Grosso do Sul) examined by us, is present in the male from the same state, although fused with the dorsal macula.
The female of P. purus from Brazil (Mato Grosso do Sul) has the basal and middle pubescent maculae fused, except for a narrow notch laterally between them, distinctly not reaching the suture (Figs 19–22). Furthermore, the apex of those maculae are rounded and distinctly distant from the epipleural margin, especially the middle macula. In the typical form of P. purus there is a wide dark band between the anterior and middle maculae, which reaches the suture, the apex of the anterior macula is more acute, and the apex of both maculae reaches or almost reaches the epipleural margin. In the male (Figs 23–26), the anterior and central maculae are completely fused dorsally, with only a small notch laterally. Furthermore, the yellow prothoracic pubescence is distinctly sparser in males than in females, and forms a narrow median band on the prosternum, which is common in males of some species of Pirangoclytus Martins & Galileo, 2011 and Mecometopus Thomson, 1861.
Material examined. BOLIVIA, Santa Cruz: Buena Vista (17°29′96″S / 63°39′13″W, 440 m), 1 female, 30.IV.2005, R. Clarke & S. Zamalloa col. (MZSP); 1 female, 18.V.2005, R. Clarke & S. Zamalloa col. (MZSP) (Figs 27–30). BRAZIL, Amazonas: Benjamin Constant (Rio Javari, Alto Amazonas), 1 female, III.1951, former Dirings collection (MZSP); 1 female, X.1961, former Dirings collection (MZSP) (Figs 31–34); 1 female, XII.1961, former Dirings collection (MZSP). Mato Grosso do Sul (new state record): Selvíria (UNESP farm; “cerradão” fragment in advanced stage of regeneration; 20°23′01.3″S / 51°24′41.3″W), 1 male, 14.X.2017, G. C. Pinheiro col. (MZSP) (Figs 23–26); (20°23′22.5″S / 51°24′18.0″W), 1 male, 4.XI.2017, G. Paiola col. (MZSP) (Figs 19–22).
description: Published as part of Santos-Silva, Antonio, Nascimento, Francisco E. De L. & Biffi, Gabriel, 2019, A new species of Tropidion (Neoibidionini), synonymies in Rhinotragini, notes on Pirangoclytus (Clytini) andHemicladus (Calliini), andnew recordsin Cerambycidae (Coleoptera), pp. 449-460 in Zootaxa 4614 (3) on pages 455-457, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4614.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/3995226