Juninia Lane 1966
Creators: name: Heffern, Daniel
name: Santos-Silva, Antonio
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Cerambycidae
Juninia

description: Juninia Lane, 1966
(Figs 13–20, 31–32)
Juninia Lane, 1966: 247.
Remarks. Kirsch (1889) described Amphionycha annulifera based on a single specimen from Ecuador (Figs 18– 20). Later, Lane (1966) described Juninia for his new species J. leechi based on a pair from Peru. Martins & Galileo (1993) synonymized J. leechi with A. annulifera, and transferred it to Juninia, and only pointed out (translated): “Alerted about this synonymy by our colleague M.A. Monné, we thought it opportune to formalize it.” However, they examined a female from Ecuador, which belonged to the MNRJ. Martins & Galileo (2004) reported the species from Colombia.
Martins & Galileo (2014) mistakenly informed that Monné et al. (2012) had recorded J. annulifera from the Brazilian state of Rio de Janeiro. There are two works published in 2012 that could be “ Monné et al. (2012):” one published by Miguel A. Monné and collaborators (Monné et al. 2012a); another published by Marcela L. Monné and collaborators (Monné et al. 2012b). Only the first one mentions Juninia annulifera, and only lists the species in Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia.
Martins & Galileo (2014) separated Juninia from Sibapipunga in their key by the frons in the male uniformly convex in the former, and with two callosities in the latter. However, they also stated that in Juninia the elytron has two carinae, the humeral and another close to it, while in Sibapipunga there is only the humeral carina. This latter statement is not accurate because there is a second carina in Sibapipunga (Figs 24, 26). The difference is that the second carina in Juninia (Fig. 16) is separated from the humeral carina on basal third, while it is close to the humeral carina in Sibapipunga. See remarks in Purusia on the difference between females of Juninia and Sibapipunga.
The tarsal claws in the female (Fig. 31) of J. annulifera are considerably different from those in the male (Fig. 32): inner tooth widened basally and about as long as outer tooth, while in the male it is not noticeably widened basally and is shorter than the outer tooth. As we only had one male and one female, it was not possible to verify if this is a common variation in the species.
According to Kirsch (1889), the type locality of Amphionycha annulifera is “Patria: Ecuador (Huamboya, regione sylvarum, in 1000–2000 m alt. coll.).” This location is in the Ecuadorian province of Morona-Santiago. However, the label of the holotype (Fig. 19) makes it clear that the information is wrong. The holotype was collected in Latacunga, a place in the Ecuadorian province of Cotopaxi.
Specimens of J. annulifera examined. ECUADOR, Canar: Rte. Gun to El Triunfo, parroquial Chontamarca, 500 m, 1 female, 14.II.1980, Rec. Porion-Bertrand leg. (MZSP); Cotopaxi: Latacunga, holotype “examined through photographies.” (SMTD). PERU, Junin: Sanibeni, rain forest, paratype male of Juninia leechi, 26.X.1935, F. Woytkowski leg. (MZSP).
description: Published as part of Heffern, Daniel & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2022, Notes on Purusia Lane, Juninia Lane, and Sibapipunga Martins & Galileo (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae), and description of a new species of Juninia, pp. 151-162 in Zootaxa 5141 (2) on page 153, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5141.2.3, http://zenodo.org/record/6581636