Laemosaccus howdenae Hespenheide 2019, new species
Creators: name: Hespenheide, Henry A.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2019
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Curculionidae
Laemosaccus
Laemosaccus howdenae

description: Laemosaccus howdenae Hespenheide, new species
Zoobank.org/ urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 5ED47458-36C3-4C09-89E2-60324B061867 (Figs. 14, 24)
Description. Holotype Male. Length 5.4 mm, width 2.2 mm (Fig. 14). Robust, subcylindrical in cross section, slightly wider behind than in front, broadly rounded behind, more narrowly so in front, black except each elytron with large red-orange spot on anterior 3/5, from near lateral margin to 3 rd elytral interval, broader in anterior half, narrowing behind; pronotum and elytra distinctly setose, less conspicuously on pronotal disc; thorax and abdomen ventrally nearly covered with broad, silvery setae, head and rostrum with conspicuous setae, denser between and behind eyes, setae more slender and semi-erect on basal half of femora, tergite 8 and tergite 7 with conspicuous setae, hair-like and semierect on apical half of tergite 8. Head hemispherical, nearly invisible from above, 1.2 mm wide, rostrum rounded-terete, punctate, dorsally on apical half shallowly depressed with a fine medial carina, 0.8 mm long, antennae inserted at middle. Pronotum moderately convex in lateral view, somewhat flattened at base, 2.0 mm long, 1.95 mm wide, broadest at basal half and with lateral margins nearly parallel, abruptly rounded behind, more gradually so in front, constricted before anterior margin, finely, evenly punctate, punctures somewhat elongated and confluent near midline, with indistinct medial carina on basal half. Elytra slightly wider than pronotum at base, 3.2 mm long, 2.2 mm maximum width, elytral intervals wider than inconspicuously punctate striae, intervals rounded, interval 3 weakly toothed on middle third3, interval 5 very weakly toothed on apical fourth. Profemora with broadly acute ventral tooth beyond middle. Genitalia as in Fig. 24; aedeagus 1.25 mm long.
Allotype Female. As male but rostrum 1.1 mm long, more cylindrical, with medial carina on middle third; tergite 7 very weakly convex, coarsely punctate, conspicuously setose, setae hair-like and semi-erect just at apex; 5.5 mm long, 2.5 mm wide.
Specimens Examined. Holotype: Arizona: Cochise Co., Portal, 17.06.1956, H. & A. Howden, beating oak (CMNC). Allotype: Arizona: Cochise Co., S.W. Res. Sta., Portal, 24.06.1956, H. & A. Howden, beating oak (CMNC). Paratypes: USA: Arizona: Cochise Co., Chiricahua Mountains, Onion Saddle, 02, 03.07.1956, H. & A. Howden (4, CMNC), Onion Saddle, 21.07.1981, 2280 m, 30.07.1992, H. & A. Howden (1, CMNC), 7600’, 2.08.1995, J. & D. Pakaluk (2, CMNC), 18.08.1988, W. F. Barr, beating Quercus (1, WFBM), 7.08.1989, W.F. Barr, on oak (1, WFBM), 19.08.2008, C. W. O’ Brien (1, ASUHIC), Onion Saddle, 7600’, 31°56’N 109°16’W, 12.07.1981, H. A. Hespenheide, oak (1, CHAH), 26, 28.06.2001, H. A. Hespenheide, on Quercus hypoleucoides (14, AMNH, BMNH, CHAH); Chir. Mts., Onion Saddle, 7400’, 03.07.1956, H. & A. Howden (2, CMNC); Chiricahua Mts., The Saddle, 24.07.1966 (1, SWRS); Chiricahua Mts., Onion Saddle Back, 21.08.1940, J. J. DuBois (2, ASUHIC, EMEC), Onion Saddle, elev. 7570 ft., 31°56.1’N, 109°15.8’W, 23.07.2003, S. M. Clark (4, BYU); S. W. Res. Sta., Portal, 23.06.1956, H. & A. Howden (1, CMNC), 4.07.1956, H. & A. Howden, oak (1, CMNC), S.W.R. S., 5 mi. W Portal, 5400 ft., 08.1956, A. Archer (1, AMNH); Pinery Cyn., Chiricahua Mts., below Onion Saddle, 7200’, 31°56’N 109°16’W, 25.06.1999, 26.06.2001, H. A. Hespenheide, on Quercus hypoleucoides (13, BMNH, CHAH, TAMU), 26.06.2001, Quercus arizonicus (1, CHAH); Chir. Mts., Pinery Can., 6600’ 22.06.1956, H. & A. Howden (2, CMNC); Chiricahua Mts., Pinery Ca., 11.07.1958, C. W. O’ Brien (1, ASUHIC); Barefoot Park, 8500 ft, 06.08.1927, J.A. Kusche, ex ginseng flowers (1, CASC); Cave Creek, 6000’, 31.08.1974, F. T. Hovore (1, FSCA); Cave Ck. Cyn., Chiricahua Mts., 6 mi. W Portal, 6700’, 31°55’N 109°15’W, 11.07.1981, W. P. Weaver, Jr., Quercus (1, CHAH), Turkey Creek 4 mi. NW Southwestern Rsch. Sta., 25.07.1989, Andrews & Eichlin, sweeping Quercus (1, CSCA); Rustler Park, 8500 ft, 12.07.1957, F. X. Williams (1, CASC); Rustler’ s Camp, 20.08.1940, J. J. DuBois (1, ASUHIC); same data as holotype (1, CMNC); Chiricahua M., 14.07.1936, J. N. Knull (2, OSU), 26.07.1937, 15.06.1939, 28.08.1940, 27.06,1949, 19.07, 02, 12.08.1952, 20, 22.07.1953, 24.07.1955, D. J. & J. N. Knull (26, OSU), 30.07.1959, D. J. & J. N. Knull (1, CHAH), 7.08.1941, R. H. Beamer (1, SEMC), 14.07.1938, L. W. Hepner (1, SEMC); Douglas, 24.07.1938, W. W. Jones (1, EMEC); Palmerlee, 07.27, H. A. Wenzel (1, OSU); 8.1 mi. SE Sunnyside, 11.08.1977, G. C. Duffy (1, LACM); Huachuca Mtns, Carr Canyon, 14.07.1982, J. E. Wappes (1, ASUHIC); Huachuca M., 20.07.1937, D. J. & J. N. Knull (1, OSU); Huachuca Mts., 20.07.1936, J. N. Knull (1, OSU), July 1905, C. W. Leng (1, BYU), 18.07.1938, R. H. Beamer (1, SEMC); Miller Can, Huachu. Mts, 21.07.1907, H. A. Kaeber (2, USNM); Montezuma Pass, Huachuca Mts., 6.07.1956, H. & A. Howden (2, CMNC), Copper Cyn., 2 mi. W Montezuma Pass, 6000’, 9.09.1965, C. W. O’ Brien, on Quercus (1, ASUHIC); Sunglow, 15.06.42, A. W. Ford (1, ASUHIC); Pima Co., Rosemont, 14.07.42, C. W. Sones (1, LACM); Santa Rita Mt., 05.1976, Dr. Lenczy, reared from sotol (1, USNM); Sta Rita Mts, Upper Madera Cyn, 1650 m., 4.08.2005, S. Kazantsev (1, ASUHIC), Green Valley, 05.1973, Dr. Lenczy (1, USNM); 7 r.s. mi. up Kitt Peak rd., 14.08.1976, J. M. Cicero (1, FSCA); Santa Cruz Co., Santa Rita Mountains, Upper Madera Canyon, 5500’, 5.08.1982, R. S. Anderson, on Quercus hypoleucoides (2, CMNC); Madera Canyon, Bog Spring Camp, 4.08.1950, B. E. White (3, CASC); Santa Rita Mts., Madera Cyn., 26.07.1970, K. Stephan (1, ASUHIC); Madera Cn., 06.1973, Dr. Lenczy (1, USNM); Madera Cyn., 4880 ft., 08, 18.07.1963, V. L. Vesterby (2, UCDC); Madera Canyon, 24- 31.07.1977, W. H. Tyson, collected at black light (1, ASUHIC), 7- 11.07.1977, A. E. Lewis (1, ASUHIC), Madera Canyon, 30.07.1947 (1, EMEC); Santa Rita M., 11.07.1949, D. J. & J. N. Knull (1, OSU), Ruby Rd. @ Sycamore Cyn., 8.08.2009, F. E. Skillman Jr., MV & UV light (1, ASUHIC); Tumacacori Mts. 07.08.1950, D. J. & J. N. Knull (1, OSU), Pena Blanca Cyn., 22.07.2006, C.W. O’ Brien, UV & MV light (3, ASUHIC). Mexico: Durango: 3 mi. W El Salto, 9000’, 22.07.1964, J. A. Chemsak (1, EMEC).
Hosts. One older specimen from the Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona is labeled as having been reared from sotol (Dasylirion wheeleri S. Watson ex Rothr., Asparagaceae), but this record is questionable and should be verified. Many adults are labeled as having been collected on oaks, many specifically on Q. hypoleucoides and one on Q. arizonica.
Etymology. This species is named in honor of Anne T. Howden, whose studies of the southwestern species in the weevil genus Pandeleteius Schönherr (Howden 1959), many of which also occur on oaks, recommend this recognition.
Discussion. This is the largest and most distinctive species of Laemosaccus in the L. nephele group of species, uniquely being setose throughout, even dorsally, producing an overall greyish appearance, and on the rostrum. The female rostrum is unusual in being about 1.5X times as long as that of the male. Males vary in length from 3.90 to 5.80 mm (mean = 4.95 mm, n = 42); females vary from 4.70 to 6.50 mm (mean = 5.79 mm, n = 50).
description: Published as part of Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, pp. 905-939 in The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and " subspecies ") of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric " subspecies " of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and " subspecies ") of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric " subspecies " of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4) on pages 927-928, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-73.4.905, http://zenodo.org/record/4790165