Caledonandra austrocaledonica Santos-Silva & Heffern & Matsuda 2010
Creators: name: Santos-Silva, Antonio
name: Heffern, Daniel
name: Matsuda, Kiyoshi
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2010
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Cerambycidae
Caledonandra
Caledonandra austrocaledonica

description: Caledonandra austrocaledonica (Montrouzier, 1861)   
(Fig. 12, 13, 80, 130, 131, 197, 220, 263, 319, 369-372)  
 Parandra austrocaledonica Montrouzier, 1861: 278; Lameere 1902: 94, 104; Fauvel 1906: 40; Hayashi 1961b: 10.   
 Parandra (Parandra) austrocaledonica; Lameere 1913: 6 (cat.); 1919: 17; Arigony 1984: 113; Webb 1994: 327 (note); Santos-Silva 2002: 32 (note).   
 Parandra austro-caledonica; Thomson 1867: 107, 113.   
 Parandra neocaledonica; Borre 1881: 138 (error).   
 Birandra (Birandra) austrocaledonica; Santos-Silva and Shute 2009: 32.   
 Description. Integument shining, dark-brown; parts of head, mandibles and legs, margins of pronotum and elytral suture, blackish.   
Male (Fig. 370). Head wide, proportionally large in relation to body size; dorsal surface convex to sides of depression in “V”, without gibbosities; punctation fine, sparse, close to clypeus, gradually coarser towards occiput, not confluent; area behind eyes with coarse punctures, deep, in part confluent; area between depression in “V” and ocular carina, near clypeus, without circular depression; ocular carina elevated, not bifurcated in “Y” near posterior edge of eyes (Fig. 370). Eyes (Fig. 80) moderately wide. Labrum clearly sub-oblique; central projection (Fig. 12) with anterior margin clearly emarginate, with surface strongly concave (the whole with bifid aspect). Mandibles as in Fig. 130. Submentum flat in central area, separated from gula and part of gena, by semi-circular furrow, narrow and not deep; punctation fine and sparse; edge close to mentum moderately large and elevated laterally, absent at central area; area close to anterior margin with large depression at sides; pilosity very short and sparse. Antennae (Fig. 220) reaching base of prothorax.  
Pronotum punctation coarse, shallow, confluent laterally (mainly close to anterior angles); sides microsculptured; center of disc with punctation very fine and sparse; anterior angles subacute, projected forward; anterior margin sinuous. Elytra moderately coarsely, abundantly punctate, except at apical fifth, where punctures are finer; each elytron with two carinae barely visible. Metasternum with coarse punctures at sides. Femora (Fig. 263) short, moderately enlarged at middle. Metatarsus (without claws) barely shorter than metatibia (excluding the apical spines); metatarsomere V as long as I-III together.  
Female (Fig. 372). Punctation of dorsal face of head, of submentum, of pronotum, and of elytra as in males. Depression in “V” of dorsal face of head shallower than in males. Labrum without tubercles and without semi-circular projection; apex (Fig. 13) narrow and rounded or sub-rounded. Submentum without transversal depression close to anterior edge. Mandibles (Fig. 131). Anterior angles of prothorax projected forward; anterior margin sinuous.  
 Variability. Integument pale-brown to dark-brown. Males: dorsal surface of head, close to clypeus, with fine punctures; punctures close to occiput, in part confluent; area behind eyes with punctures slightly coarse, shallow and sparse; submentum slightly elevated at central area; furrow that separates submentum from gula barely defined at central region; fine punctures of submentum mixed with coarse, shallow punctures; anterior edge of submentum narrow and elevated throughout; area close to anterior edge of submentum with wide furrow throughout; submentum glabrous or almost glabrous; lateral sides of pronotum, close to anterior angles, with small tubercles; center of pronotal disc with fine, sparse punctures; anterior angles of prothorax rounded and slightly projected forward; elytral carinae absent; metatarsus (without claws) just as long as metatibia. Female: submentum with transverse depression, shallow, close to anterior edge; punctation of submentum barely coarse and abundant.   
 Dimensions in mm (M / F). Total length (including mandibles), 15.5-22.4/16.1-21.8; prothorax: length, 3.3-4.8/3.3-4.5; anterior width, 4.1-6.4/3.9-5.4; posterior width, 3.5-5.0/3.8-5.1; humeral width, 4.2-6.5/ 4.4-6.4; elytral length, 9.1-13.6/10.3-13.2.   
 Geographical distribution (Fig. 319). New Caledonia (Grande Terre).   
 Material examined. (12 M, 7 F), as follows: new caledonia. 3 M, 3 F, [date not indicated] (IRSN). Grande Terre: Forêt Thy Reserve (150 m), F, 21.V.1984, G. Monteith and D. Cook coll. (QMCO); Kanala, M, [date not indicated] (IRSN); La Foa, M, XII.2000, S. Bily coll. (OMCO); Moindou – Prony, M, [date not indicated] (IRSN); Mount Koghi, M, F, I.27.1963, C. M. Yoshimoto coll. (BPBM); M, F, III.22-25-1999, S. Bily coll. (OMCO); M, III.22-25-1999, S. Bily coll. (DHCO); Nouméa, F, [no date indicated] (IRSN); Pic du Grand Kaori (22 o 17’D, 166 o 54E; 250 m;), M, 21.XI.2001 - 29.I.2002, G. Monteith coll. (QMCO); Reviere Bleue, 1 M, 1 F, XII.30.1997, Y. Johki coll. (KMCT); Yahoué, M, [date not indicated] (IRSN); M, [date not indicated] (MZSP).   
 Type, type locality. Holotype M, from New Caledonia, Balade (north-east coast of Grande Terre). According to Damoiseau (1966) the holotype is lost: “De Nouvelle-Calédonie, les premiers envois de Montrouzier furent addresses au collectionneur amateur Doué. Une partie des envois ultérieurs fut perdue au cours de leur expedition vers l’Europe; l’auteur n’en publia pas moins la description des espèces nouvelles que contenaient ces envois” [English translation: “From New Caledonia, the first parcels of Montrouzier were sent to the amateur collector Doué. A part of the following parcels to Europe was lost during their travel to Europe; nevertheless the author published the description of the new species that were contained inside these parcels”]. We verified in many museums where the types of Montrouzier are, or could be deposited, with help from Gérard Tavakilian (MNHN) and Alain Drumont (IRSN), without success. Arigony (1984) stated that according to Horne and Kahle (1935:37), the type was deposited in MNHN, however Horn and Kahle (1935) did not make that statement. We thus concur with Damoiseau (1966) that the holotype is lost.   
 Designation of neotype. As there are two very similar species in New Caledonia, it is important to designate a neotype for Parandra austrocaledonica. We chose a specimen from the collection of IRSN, because there are a great number of types of Montrouzier deposited in that Museum (Damoiseau 1966 ). The neotype male (Fig. 370) has the following labels:   
1. Pink [printed]: Coll. I. R. Sc. N. B.  
2. White (glued on the pink label) [printed]: N.lle Calédonie; Coll. Schramm; Achat Le Moult  
3. White: Parandra austrocaledonica; T. Arigony det. 1972 (austrocaledonica and 72 handwritten)  
 Comments. Although Lameere (1913, 1919) had mentioned “ neocaledonica Borre ” and Arigony (1984) had written “ Parandra neocaledonica Borre, 1881 ”, the epithet “ neocaledonica ” was just a spelling error. Borre (1881) was not describing any species or giving name to a monstrosity. This is very clear in the text: “M. de Borre communique des corrections... Il met enfin sous les yeux de sés collègues um coléoptère anormal, à propos duquel il lit la note suivante: Dans un envoi d’insectes de la Nouvelle-Calédonie que le Musée a reÇu il y quelques jours de M. Hanckar, se trouve un exemplaire du Parandra neocaledonica Montrouzier, présentant un cas de monstruosité par excès assez développé” [English translation: “M. De Borre communicates of corrections... He finally places under the eyes of his colleagues an abnormal beetle, regarding which he reads the following note: In a dispatch of insects from New Caledonia that the Museum has received a few days ago from Mr. Hanckar, was found a specimen of Parandra neocaledonica Montrouzier, presenting a case of monstrosity by excess development”]. Besides, as it is actually understood, the published text was not written by Borre, but by the secretary of the Société Entomologique de Belgique, who inserted the text read by Borre, from the minutes of the meeting.   
 The galea described and figured by Arigony (1984: fig. 36) is extremely short, reaching the base of the second segment of the maxillary palp, identical to that of Hawaiiandra puncticeps. In all specimens examined by us (Fig. 197), the galea is clearly longer, reaching the apex of the second segment of the maxillary palp.   
  On the lectotype of Parandra gabonica Thomson, 1858 . Quentin and Villiers (1975) designated two lectotypes for Parandra gabonica Thomson and thus by the ICZN Code in force at that time and currently, both of those designations are invalid. Quentin and Villiers (1975) designated a lectotype for Parandra gabonica: “ P. gabonica Thomson est représenté dans la collection de cet auteur par trois exemplaires du Gabon et quelques exemplaires de Côte d’Ivoire (Bassam); dans sa description il cite également des exemplaires de Benguella (coll. Mniszech). Nous désignons comme lectotype [male symbol] un exemplaire de 17 mm de longueur et comme lectotype [female symbol] un exemplaire de 20 mm de longueur”. The designation actually has two problems. The first one is that Quentin and Villiers (1975) designated two lectotypes. In 1975, the Code in force (ICZN 1964) did not permit designation of two specimens for lectotype. As in ICZN (1999), only one specimen can be designated as lectotype, and the remaining become paralectotypes. That problem, by itself, makes the designations invalid, but there is another problem that permits the inclusion of that discussion here. The “ lectotype ” male of Parandra gabonica (Fig. 369) is a specimen of C. austrocaledonica (Montrouzier, 1861). We believe that the mistake was not made by Thomson (1858) because he wrote “Prothorax dépassant fortement la tête à sa naissance, arrondi sur les bords latéraux postérieurs”, a description that does not agree with C. austrocaledonica. It is possible to see that the label put on that specimen of C. austrocaledonica, designated as lectotype of Parandra gabonica, is identical to that put on the female designated as lectotype of the same species. Therefore, there is no doubt that both labels are by Quentin and Villiers. Article 74.2 of the ICZN (1999) establishes: “If it is demonstrated that a specimen designated as a lectotype was not a syntype, it loses its status of lectotype ”. For these two problems exposed, the designation of lectotype for Parandra gabonica is obviously canceled.
description: Published as part of Santos-Silva, Antonio, Heffern, Daniel & Matsuda, Kiyoshi, 2010, Revision of Hawaiian, Australasian, Oriental, and Japanese Parandrinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae), pp. 1-120 in Insecta Mundi 2010 (130) on pages 51-52, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5164485