Teleorhinus Uhler, and 1890
Creators: name: Wyniger, Denise
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2010
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Miridae
Teleorhinus

description: GENUS TELEORHINUS UHLER
Type species: Teleorhinus cyaneus Uhler, 1890: 74 (by monotypy).
Teleorhinus Uhler, 1890: 74 (original description); Kirkaldy, 1906: 128 (catalog); Reuter, 1909: 65 (description, comments), 1910: 166 (catalog); Van Duzee, 1917: 367 (catalog); Knight, 1922: 67 (note), 1923: 474 (key), 1941: 15 (description), 17 (description), 52 (comments), 1968b: 64 (key to species); Blatchely, 1926: 915 (key); Carvalho, 1952: 71 (catalog), 1955a: 60 (key), 1958: 179 (catalog); Schuh, 1974: 298 (description, discussion), 303 (note); McIver and Stonedahl, 1987a: 258 (note), 1987b: 278 (note).
DIAGNOSIS: Recognized by complete black dorsal surface with deep punctation on pronotum and hemelytra; head elongate, vertical (fig. 7); second antennal segment inflated distally; vesica simple; secondary gonopore not readily identifiable as closed sclerotized ring, but rather as elongate structure with lobes laterally bearing distinct denticles, dorsal labiate plate of female genitalia with large rings. Distinguished from Orectoderus by shape of metathoracic pleuron and scent-gland auricle with evaporatory area (figs. 4B, 10B) and by vesica (figs. 5, 9), shape of head (figs. 4A, 10A), and shape of pronotum (figs. 3, 7). Females in Teleorhinus always macropterous (fig. 7) whereas in Orectoderus females brachypterous (fig. 3).
REDESCRIPTION: Male: Total length 5.99–8.23, length apex clypeus-cuneus fracture 4.41– 5.77, width across pronotum 1.50–1.55. COLORATION: Entire dorsal surface black (fig. 7), sometimes vertex castaneous; cuneus reddish black; antennal segments 1 to 4 black with second antennal segment sometimes yellowish; venter black; pro-, meso- and metapleuron black; coxae lighter than femora, yellowish or orange, with brown base; trochanter and femora bright redorange or femora red-orange and tibiae more yellow-brown; tibia usually brown basally; all tarsal segments brown or second segment lighter. SURFACE AND VESTITURE: General aspect very shiny; pronotum and scutellum rugose; dorsal surface including antennal segments clothed with reclining short black setae or lighter golden shiny setae (fig. 10D); dull area below ventral margin of eye (fig. 7); tibia with strong long black spines; claws over most of length straight, curved apically; pulvillus connate to claw on its entire length (fig. 10C). STRUCTURE: Elongate to elongate ovoid (fig. 7); pronotum and corium punctated; head elongate and vertical (figs. 7, 10A); labium reaching to mesocoxa or beyond; vertex with or without carina; second antennal segment inflated (fig. 7). GENITALIA: Phallotheca elongate or short and stout (fig. 9); vesica simple, apical part beyond secondary gonopore bent or straight, tapering into point (fig. 9); anterior process of leπ paramere rounded apically; right paramere straight or apical part distinctly bent (fig. 9).
Female: Total length 5.91–7.15, length apex clypeus-cuneus fracture 4.60–5.72, width across pronotum 1.54–1.77. Coloration, surface, vestiture and structure as in male, except second antennal segment more inflated distally (fig. 7); body more strongly ovoid than male. GENI-
TALIA: Dorsal labiate plate sclerotized laterally; sclerotized rings of dorsal labiate plate ovoid and roundish apically or distinctly elongated and pointed apically; dorsal labiate plate sometimes with medioposterior triangular sclerotized process caudally; posterior wall with spinose field on surface; sclerotized part of posterior wall with lobe medially (fig. 12).
HOSTS: Asteraceae, Ericaceae, Fabaceae, Grossulariaceae, Pinaceae, Rhamnacea, and Rosaceae.
DISTRIBUTION: United States, Canada, and Mexico.
DISCUSSION: Knight (1968b) based his species key mainly on characters of the second antennal segment. Although there is a faint difference in the inflation of the apical part of the second antennal segment, it is difficult to characterize. The genitalic structures are a far more reliable indicator of species differences (figs. 9, 11). For the females the posterior wall seems to be the best character to separate the species (fig. 11).
A very similar looking Mirinae species, Ectopiocerus anthracinus Uhler, 1890, can be collected in the same habitats as Teleorhinus and confused with Teleorhinus species on the great similarity of appearance, but its pretarsal and genitalic characters clearly distinguish E. anthracinus as a member of the Mirinae.
description: Published as part of Wyniger, Denise, 2010, Resurrection of the Pronotocrepini Knight, with Revisions of the Nearctic Genera Orectoderus Uhler, Pronotocrepis Knight, and Teleorhinus Uhler, and Comments on the Palearctic Ethelastia Reuter (Heteroptera: Miridae: Phylinae), pp. 1-68 in American Museum Novitates 2010 (3703) on pages 48-49, DOI: 10.1206/3703.2, http://zenodo.org/record/4565685