identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
E0625576FFD31346F58DFB8AFC3681FC.text	E0625576FFD31346F58DFB8AFC3681FC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pentacomia (Mesochila) conformis (Dejean 1831) Dejean 1831	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Pentacomia (Mesochila) conformis (Dejean, 1831)</p>
            <p> Cicindela Conformis Dejean, 1831: 216 . </p>
            <p>Type locality. Brazil, Rio de Janeiro.</p>
            <p> Odontochila conformis: Fleutiaux, 1892: 124 . </p>
            <p> Pentacomia (Mesochila) conformis: Rivalier 1969: 223 , fig. 17co (221, fig. 14co, 222, fig. 16co). </p>
            <p> Type material. Holotype (by monotypy) ♀ in MNHN, labelled: “♀” [small green square label, handwritten] // “Muséum Paris / Coll. Chaudoir, 1874” [greenish, printed] // “Revision Jiří Moravec:2014: / Holotype (by monotypy) /  Cicindela /  conformis Dejean, 1825 ” [red, printed] // “  Pentacomia (Mesochila) /  conformis Dejean, 1831 / det. Jiří Moravec 2014” [printed]. </p>
            <p> Other material examined. 1 ♂ in MNHN: “  conformis / Dej. / Brésil / 59 C. Dejean” // “1524 / Rivalier” // “Muséum Paris / Coll. Chaudoir, 1874”. 1 ♂ in MNHN: “Sommer” // “Muséum Paris / Coll. Chaudoir 1874”. 1 ♂ in MNHN, 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in SDEI: “Rio Janeiro” // “Coll. Ruge / Baden”. 1 ♀ in SDEI: “Rio Janeiro”. 1 ♀ in SDEI: “Pará” // “Coll. Baden / Ruge”. 1 ♀ in SDEI: “  Odontocheila / geniculata [sic!] / Germ. / Brasil / ex cab. / Baden”. 1 ♀ in SDEI: “ Brasil ”. 1 ♂ in MNHN: “ Brésil ”. 1 ♂ in MNHN: “Rio Jan.” // “Ex Musaeo / H. W. Bates / 1892” // “Muséum Paris, 1952 / Coll. R. Oberthür”. 1 ♂ in MFNB: “270“ // “  brasiliensis [sic!] / Dej. / Bras.[ilia]”. 1 ♀ in MFNB: “  conformis / Bras.[ilia]” // “Hist. Coll. (  Coleoptera ) / Nr. 45558 /  Odontocheila conformis / Dej. / Brasilia, Coll. Schaum / Zool. Mus. Berlin”. 1 ♀ in BMNH: “Fry / Rio Jan.[eiro]” // “Fry Coll. / 1905–100”. </p>
            <p> Differential diagnosis.  P. (M.) conformis is immediately distinguished from externally similar  P. (M.) procera and P. (M.).  proceroides sp. nov. by the shape of its labrum (Figs 8–13) which is in both sexes with rounded but flattened, never anteriad-prolonged anterolateral teeth, and the male labrum has truncate to subtruncate anterior margin of the median lobe (Figs 9–12); moreover, the pronotum (Figs 14–19) of  P. (M.) conformis is notably wider with convex lateral margins. Males of  P. (M.) conformis are immediately recognizable owing to the shape of their aedeagi which never have so distinctly hooked apex as in  P. (M.) procera . The structure of the internal sac in  P. (M.) conformis (Figs 31–36) differs significantly from both  P. (M.) procera and P. (M.).  proceroides sp. nov. in having a conspicuous spike-like ventral sclerite which penetrates the dorsolateral orifice, usually protruding from it, often also in untreated aedeagi (Figs 25, 27); other distinguishing sclerite characteristic of  P. (M.) conformis and unique within the subgenus is a basal sclerite with forked apex. </p>
            <p> P. (M.) brasiliensis (Dejean, 1825) , which is in collections sometimes confused with  P. (M.) conformis for somewhat similar shape and coloration of its body, labrum and mandibles, is immediately distinguished by the shape of its elytral whitish humeral macula in form of an elongate lunule, and distinct, transverse protrusion of whitish lateromedian macula. </p>
            <p> Note. The schematic illustration of the labrum for  P. (M.) conformis by Rivalier (1969, fig. 16co) is misleading as showing inappropriate shape of raised anterolateral teeth—as the figure does not refer to any exact specimen on which Rivalier based his line drawing, it is possible that it was taken from a male of P. (M.).  proceroides sp. nov. (see under the new species below), which was previously commonly confused with either  P. (M.) conformis or  P. (M.) procera . </p>
            <p>Redescription. Body (Fig. 1–5) medium-sized, length 9.80–11.80 (HT 11.7) mm, width 2.85–3.35 (HT 3.30) mm, females usually larger than males; dorsally metallic cupreous, matt shiny often with green lustre on head and lateral areas of pronotum and elytra, but often the green coloration prevailing, rarely whole body deep green-blue.</p>
            <p>Head (Figs 6–7) conspicuously large with wide, pronounced eyes, almost as wide as the body, width 2.80–3.30 mm, green or cupreous or reddish-cupreous with green lustre laterally; all head portions glabrous.</p>
            <p>Frons rather convex in middle, more distinctly so in female, triangular in shape when sloping towards clypeus which is thus clearly separated by triangular suture in middle; confluent with vertex over widely rounded fronsvertex fold, dark copper to bright reddish-cupreous with strong greenish lustre, usually on lateral areas, or almost entirely metallic green; surface indistinctly finely longitudinally parallel-striate, median convex area almost smooth, but with transverse-wavy to irregularly vermicular rugae passing over the rounded median fold onto vertex; supraantennal plates irregularly triangular, smooth and shiny green with blue, rarely cupreous lustre, their apices forming indistinct frons-vertex lateral edges.</p>
            <p>Vertex black-copper, usually with faint reddish-cupreous lustre on lateral areas and more intense green lustre in middle and on occipital areas; two shallow anterior-sublateral impressions converging in middle, forming there a shallow median impression on otherwise flat median area; surface sculpture rather distinct, anteromedian area irregularly transverse-wavy striate to vermicular-rugulose, usually forming an ornament in middle, coarser longitudinally parallel rugae on sublateral areas diverging posteriad, running towards temples; large juxtaorbital areas rather coarsely longitudinally parallel-striate; occipital area moderately convex, finely irregularly rugulose, rugae mostly transverse-wavy or vermicular.</p>
            <p>Genae black-blue with faint green, rarely cuprous lustre, almost smooth or with only few, very shallow and indistinct striae.</p>
            <p>Clypeus predominantly metallic-green, sometimes with cupreous lustre in middle.</p>
            <p>Labrum primarily 4-setose, usually one or two lateral setae absent (either broken or rarely not developed), sexually dimorphic in shape; male labrum (Figs 9–12) ochraceous to ochre-testaceous with black-brown darkened basal, rarely also basolateral areas, usually with brown patches, rarely almost entirely brown to dark reddishbrown, rather long, length 0.90–1.10 mm width 1.20–1.35 mm, lateral margins rounded to moderately arcuate with indistinctly indicated or entirely effaced basolateral teeth; anterolateral teeth right-angled, blunt and flattened, not anteriad-prolonged; anterior lobe only moderately prolonged anteriad with right-angled, rounded lateral margins (indicating blunt teeth), its anterior margin truncate or rarely shallowly emarginate, more often very slightly anteriad-prolonged (indistinctly indicating rounded median tooth); female labrum (Figs 8, 13) almost as long as wide, length 1.30–1.50 mm, width 1.40–1.50 mm, similarly shaped as in male, but median lobe with projecting, nipple-like or cylindric median tooth with blunt apex; coloration variable, usually brownish-testaceous.</p>
            <p>Mandibles (Figs 6–8) normally shaped with arcuate lateral margins, subsymmetrical, each mandible in both sexes with four teeth and basal molar (the fourth tooth in right mandible in Fig. 7 broken), third tooth smaller than second one, the fourth tooth usually very small (variably in left or right mandible); coloration ivory to ochre with brown-darkened teeth, female mandibles darker, teeth brownish-testaceous to reddish-brown.</p>
            <p>Palpi (Figs 6–8). Maxillary palpi normally shaped with elongate, only gradually dilated terminal palpomeres, in both sexes ivory-ochraceous with gradually brown to black-brown darkened terminal palpomeres, sometimes also the apex of penultimate palpomere somewhat darkened; labial palpi ochraceous with black-brown darkened terminal palpomeres; penultimate (longest) palpomere of labial palpi in both sexes elongate-cylindric, only moderately enlarged towards apex.</p>
            <p>Antennae rather short, in male slightly surpassing elytral quarter, in female even much shorter; scape elongatecylindric, with only one apical seta, black-brown with green, blue or reddish-mahogany lustre, pedicel in male mostly somewhat paler, glabrous; antennomeres 3–4 variably black-brown with ochre-testaceous subapical areas, or almost ochre-testaceous, in female sometimes almost black with paler tinge on their apices, with very sparse and indistinct setae, antennomeres 5–11 brownish testaceous or greyish-brown, gradually smoky-blackened and with usual micropubescence; in female antennae usually darker, sometimes almost entirely black.</p>
            <p>Thorax. Pronotum (Figs. 14–19) glabrous, dark or vividly metallic-green, usually with reddish-cupreous median area, rarely entirely dark green, slightly longer than wide, length 1.80–2.20 mm, width 1.75–2.05 mm, sulci well pronounced; anterior lobe only slightly wider than posterior lobe, but mostly notably narrower than disc, its anterior margin usually prolonged anteriad; surface of anterior lobe coarsely and very irregularly rugulose; disc with mostly distinctly convex lateral margins (including clearly visible proepisterna), notopleural sutures rather distinct, not convex but running subparallel, clearly visible from above; medial line distinct; discal surface finely but distinctly striate-rugulose, transverse-striate in middle, oblique-transverse striae converging towards the median line, sublateral areas covered with finer and much more irregular, wavy to vermicular rugae; lateral juxtanotopleural area covered with shorter and coarser, mostly transverse rugae (not surpassing the notopleural sutures); posterior lobe with distinct posterior rim, median area covered with irregularly transverse, or short, very irregular and coarse rugae, dorsolateral bulges moderately raised, usually iridescent-green and almost smooth; all ventral and lateral sterna glabrous and nearly smooth, proepisterna, mesepisterna and metepisterna metallic blackblue with green, gold-bronze or cupreous lustre, female mesepisternal coupling sulci indistinct, in form of a longitudinal furrow somewhat deeper than in male, only occasionally with shallow, central impression or pit with indistinctly defined margins, usually present in right mesepisternum only, or absent in both mesepisterna; mesepisternum; prosternum, mesosternum and metasternum metallic black-blue or black-green with gold-bronze to cupreous lustre on lateral areas, smooth and shiny.</p>
            <p>Elytra elongate, length 6.00– 7.10 mm, with rounded humeri in male (Figs 20–22), in female (Figs 23–24) moderately to distinctly anteriad-protruding (“hunch-shouldered”); outer elytral margins moderately dilated in subhumeral area, then almost subparallel and slightly dilated posteriad; anteapical angles widely arcuate and running obliquely towards apices which are in male narrowly rounded and emarginated towards very small sutural spine, in female widely rounded; microserrulation fine but distinct, sometimes very irregular; elytral dorsal surface only moderately convex and almost even, with only rather distinct humeral impressions, while discal impression and basodiscal convexity are indistinct and anteapical-apical impressions shallow; elytral coloration metallic black-copper or brighter cupreous on elytral disc; wide lateral areas with distinct dark or brighter green lustre, rarely elytra almost entirely green (the chatoyant coloration changeable depending on angle of illumination), or deep blue-green; juxtaepipleural area dark chatoyant violaceous; whole elytral surface rather coarsely punctate, punctures isolated, larger on elytral base, some of them anastomosing in chains, rather large punctures also on lateral areas of anterior elytral half, becoming smaller but distinct on posterolateral elytral half including apices (the sculpture optically changeable depending on angle of illumination); elytral surface glabrous except for the usual, a few and often very indistinct hairlike sensory setae, rarely scattered on anterior area, more often at epipleura on subhumeral areas, and several short microsetae scattered along the margin of apices; whitish elytral maculation consisting of three maculae: rounded humeral macula which is in male partly, but clearly visible from above, while it is darker, indistinctly indicated, or entirely absent in female; sublateral-median macula always somewhat mesad-prolonged (never longitudinal), and elongate-triangular anteapical-apical macula distinctly distant from the apex.</p>
            <p>Legs rather variably coloured; coxae metallic-green, often with strong, cupreous lustre, densely whitish setose; metacoxae with one central seta and densely clustered setae on lateral areas; trochanters ochre-testaceous to brownish; femora dorsally brownish-testaceous, brown or black-brown with chatoyant cupreous, green and mahogany lustre and ochre-testaceous basoventral basal third, also with ochre-testaceous subapical spot; femora in female generally darker and more unicoloured, often brown-mahogany; femoral surface covered with rather short, whitish to semierect setae which are sparser on profemora and very sparse and almost brownish on metafemora; tibiae in female concolorous with femora, in male sometimes testaceous with darkened apical area, covered with short, scattered, semierect, whitish to rusty setae which are longer and some of them almost thorn-like on metatibiae; apical-ventral area of protibiae and mesotibiae with dense, whitish to rusty setose pad; tarsi brown, usually with mahogany lustre; first three dilated protarsomeres in male with dense greyish-white pad; claws testaceous to brown.</p>
            <p>Abdomen. Ventrites dark metallic black-blue or black-green-blue with gold-bronze or cupreous lustre laterally, except for ochre-testaceous apex of bilobed apical pleurite in male; surface of ventrites smooth and glabrous (except for usual, easily abraded, long hairlike sensory seta, placed on each side at posterior margin of last three ventrites).</p>
            <p>Aedeagus (Figs 25–30) elongate, length 2.80–2.90 mm, width 0.40–0.45 mm, almost straight, slightly dilated in middle, apical portion narrowed towards rounded and moderately ventrally directed apex, which is in ventral view blunt (Figs 28, 30); internal sac (Figs. 31–36) well developed, with conspicuous spike-like ventral sclerite which penetrates the dorsolateral orifice, usually projecting from it, often also in untreated aedeagi (Figs 25, 27); other characteristic sclerites are: basal sclerite with forked apex, indistinct, thin dorsally placed arciform piece, ventral spike, characteristic thin U-shaped central-ventral sclerite, and voluminous, probably membranous upper tooth with finely sculptured surface.</p>
            <p> Variability. Besides the variability in coloration treated in the redescription, the labrum in one male (SDEI) from Rio de Janeiro (Fig. 10) has the anterolateral teeth slightly raised, but still different and easily recognizable from the prominent anteriad-prolonged anterolateral teeth in  P. (M.) procera . The aedeagi are somewhat variable in shape of their apex which is either simply rounded, or dorsally emarginated, but the differences are obviously caused by the state of the membrane of the dorsoapical orifice, which is usually collapsed and may change the shape. As all other characters including the structures of internal sacs of such males correspond with those of other males, the differences are at present considered here to be within usual variability which also occurs in all other species of the subgenus. Nevertheless, an undescribed, closely related species may be recognized in future, but providing that more adults, particularly syntopic males from exact localities, are found. </p>
            <p> Distribution, ecology and biology. Known only from the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. All of the examined specimens of  P. (M.) conformis are historical ones, without any exact locality, no recent specimen was found within the present revision in relevant collections. Horn (1905, 1910, 1926), as well as Cassola &amp; Pearson (2001), Naviaux (2002) and Erwin &amp; Pearson (2008), also mentioned merely “Rio de Janeiro”—non of these authors mentioned any exact locality, nor a data of recently caught adults.  P. (M.) conformis , as some others species of  Mesochila , obviously inhabits forested areas, and as the Atlantic Rainforest (Mata Atlantica) in the state of Rio de Janeiro are now only partly preserved, the occurrence of this species appears to be very rare. </p>
            <p>The female (SDEI) with “Pará” on its label was obviously mislabelled.</p>
            <p> Nothing is known about the biology of adults and larvae, but they supposedly have the same habitat as those of  P. (M.) procera treated below. </p>
            <p> Remarks. Dejean (1831), in the original description of  Cicindela conformis , mentioned female only. Dejean never labelled type specimens of his taxa by a “ type ”, but he usually attached to a type specimen a very small, square green label, as in the case of the female holotype of this species. </p>
            <p> The examined specimen (SDEI) labelled “  Odontocheila / geniculata / Germ.” was wrongly identified (probably by Germar). The unavailable species-name which was listed by Dejean (1825) without any description, thus a nomen nudum, refers to a very different tiger beetle,  Odontocheila marginata (Fischer, 1821) , as previously mentioned by Fleutiaux (1892), Horn (1905,1910) and Wiesner (1992). </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E0625576FFD31346F58DFB8AFC3681FC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Moravec, Jiří	Moravec, Jiří (2016): Taxonomic and nomenclatorial revision within the Neotropical genera of the subtribe Odontocheilina W. Horn in a new sense — 16. Pentacomia (Mesochila) procera (Chaudoir), P. (M.) conformis (Dejean), and P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Zootaxa 4127 (2): 276-300, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4127.2.3
E0625576FFD8135FF58DF9A3FD448144.text	E0625576FFD8135FF58DF9A3FD448144.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pentacomia (Mesochila) procera (Chaudoir 1860) Chaudoir 1860	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Pentacomia (Mesochila) procera (Chaudoir, 1860)</p>
            <p> Odontochila procera Chaudoir, 1860: 324 , 325. </p>
            <p>Type locality. Brazil: Petrópolis (state of Rio de Janeiro).</p>
            <p> Odontochila Chaudoiri Dokhtouroff, 1887: 157 , 158 (synonymy by HORN 1892). </p>
            <p>Type locality. Brazil: Petrópolis (state of Rio de Janeiro).</p>
            <p> Pentacomia (Mesochila) procera: Rivalier 1969: 224 (222, fig. 15pr, fig. 16pr, 224, fig. 18pr.). </p>
            <p> Misapplication. Non  Odontochila procera sensu Horn (1929: 157 fig. 20, 158) , which is  Pentacomia (Mesochila) proceroides sp. nov.</p>
            <p> Type material of  Odontochila procera Chaudoir. Lectotype (designated here) ♂ in MNHN, labelled: “  procera / Chaud. / Brésil / Petropol. / 53. Sahlb. j.” [brownish-tarnished, with black frame, handwritten] // “Muséum Paris / Coll. Chaudoir 1874” [greenish with black border, printed] // “1521 / Rivalier” [handwritten, referring to aedeagus mounted separately by Rivalier] // “ Lectotype /  Odontochila /  procera Chaudoir, 1860 / design. Jiří Moravec 2014” [red label, printed] // “  Pentacomia (Mesochila) /  procera (Chaudoir,1860) / det. Jiří Moravec 2014” [printed]. Paralectotype. 1 ♀ in MNHN: “Muséum Paris / Coll. Chaudoir 1874” [greenish with black border, printed] // “  AEruginosa / Reiche” (sic!) [additionally attached handwritten label]. </p>
            <p> Type material of the synonymous  Odontochila chaudoiri Dokhtouroff. Holotype (by monotypy), labelled: “  Chaudoiri . Sahlb.” [ochre-tarnished, handwritten] / “ Type / Dokhthurow” [printed] // “ Holotypus ” [red, printed] // “Coll. W. Horn / DEI Eberswalde” [printed] // “(  Chaudoiri / Dokht.)” [green with black frame, handwritten] // “  Pentacomia (Mesochila) /  procera chaudoiri Dokthouroff / Type (DEI Eberswalde) / borrowed by D. L. Pearson / 23 Oct. 1996 (Drawer # 56)” [printed] // “  Pentacomia (Mesochila) /  procera (Chaudoir,1860) / det. Jiří Moravec 2014” [printed]. </p>
            <p> Other material examined. 1 ♂ in MNHN: “Rio Jan.” // “Ex Musaeo / H. W. Bates / 1892” // “Muséum Paris, 1952 / Coll. R. Oberthür”. 1 ♂ in MNHN: “Muséum Paris / Coll. Chaudoir, 1874” // “1522 / Rivalier”. 1 ♂ in MNHN: “ Brésil ” // “Muséum Paris, 1952 / Coll. R. Oberthür” // “Ex Musaeo / Mniszech”. 1 ♀ in MNHN: “ Brasil ” // “Odont. /  procera ” // “Muséum Paris”. 1 ♂ in BMNH: “Fry / Rio Jan.” // “9353” // “Fry Coll. / 1905–100”. 2 ♀♀ in BMNH [standing as “  conformis ”]: “Petropolis” // F. Bates Coll. / 1911–248” // “  procera Chd. / v. W. Horn”. 1 ♂ in BMNH: “Fry / Rio Jan.[eiro]” // Fry Coll. / 1905–100”. 2 ♀♀ in BMNH: “ Brasilia ” // “  Odontocheila /  Conformis / Dejean”. 1 ♂ in BMNH: “Petropolis”. 1 ♀ in BMNH: “St. Paul[o]”. 1 ♀ in BMNH: “485” // “Fry / Rio Jan.”. 1 ♀ in MFNB: “ Brasilia ”. 1 ♀ in MFNB: “Rio Janeiro”. 1 ♀ in MFNB: “3626” // “attenuata [sic!] / N. / Bona S....[illegible] / “  Chaudoiri / Doct. / det. Horn”. 1 ♂ in SDEI: “ Brasilien / Sao Paulo”. 1 ♂ in SDEI: “ Brasil ”. 1 ♂ in SDEI: “Speyer / Brasilia ”. 1 ♀ in RLHC: “ Brazil, Sao Paulo / Cubatão River / 4.X.1960 / V.N. Alin / forest”. 1 ♂ in CEIOC: “ Brazil / Petrópolis, Itambraty / J. Zikan, 27.XI.1908 ”. 1 ♂ in DZRJ: “ Brasil, Rio de Janeiro / Teresópolis, Parque Nacional / da Serra dos Órgãos / PVE, Ponto 6A / 22°28'11,5"S, 43°00'06,0"W, 877m / XII.2014 Ricardo Monteiro Col. (Malaise Trap)”. 1 ♂ in MZH: “Petrop.” // "F. Sahlb." // "  Odontochila /  chaudoiri / Sahlb.". // " GAC 20273 / Brazil, Rio de Janeiro / Petrópolis / 22.49 S, 43.18 W / II.1850 / Ferdinand Sahlberg leg." [syntopic with HT of  O. chaudoiri Dokhtouroff ]. </p>
            <p> Differential diagnosis.  P. (M.) procera is distinguished from the externally similar  P. (M.) conformis by its generally larger and slightly more elongated body, particularly so in female, pronotum with almost parallel lateral margins, elytra (Figs 58–62) with more parallel margins and finer punctation, white lateromedian macula mostly longitudinal or rounded and mostly more distant from the epipleuron, and immediately by the shape of its labrum, which is in male of  P. (M.) procera (Figs 44-48) with subtruncate to semicircular anterior margin of the median lobe between rounded but prominent anterolateral teeth (in contrast to mostly truncate anterior lobe between flat, right-angled anterolateral teeth in the male labrum of  P. (M.) conformis (Figs 9-12 )); female labrum of  P. (M.) procera (Figs 49–51) also significantly differs in having the prominent anterolateral teeth (of the same shape as in male), while they are blunt and flattened in female of  P. (M.) conformis (Figs 8, 13). Males can be immediately distinguished by the shape of the aedeagi: in  P. (M.) procera with distinctly hooked apex (Figs 67–70, 72–75), while in  P. (M.) conformis the apex is always rounded, sometimes dorsally emarginated; a significant difference is also in the structure of the internal sac in the aedeagus of  P. (M.) procera (Figs 74–75) from that in  P. (M.) conformis (Figs 31-36). </p>
            <p> P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. , also has its labrum in both sexes with prominent anterolateral teeth, and a similar structure of the internal sac as in  P. (M.) procera , but the median lobe of the male labrum in the new species is always truncate, and the shape of the aedeagus distinctly differs (see under the new species below). </p>
            <p> Redescription. Body (Figs. 37–42) medium-sized to large, length 11.7–13.6 (LT 11.7) mm (exceptionally only 10.2 mm long), width 3.10–3.70 (LT 3.50) mm, females mostly larger than males; body generally almost uniform, notably elongate, particularly so in female, similarly coloured as in  P. (M.) conformis , but mostly with brighter and prevailing iridescent-green lustre, and darker appendages. </p>
            <p> Head (Figs 43, 85) conspicuously large with wide eyes, but slightly narrower than body, width 2.80–3.50 mm; shape, surface sculpture and coloration of frons, vertex, genae and clypeus as in  P. (M.) conformis . </p>
            <p>Labrum primarily 4-setose, usually one or two lateral setae absent (either broken or rarely not developed), sexually dimorphic in shape; male labrum (Figs 44–48) ochre-yellow to brownish-testaceous with indistinctly black-brown darkened basal, sometimes with brown areas or patches, rather long, length 1.05–1.10 mm, width 1.30–1.45 mm, lateral margins moderately arcuate with indistinctly indicated or mostly entirely effaced basolateral teeth; anterolateral teeth always well pronounced, rounded, but prominent, anteriad-prolonged, but not surpassing the anterior margin of medial lobe; the rather variably shaped median lobe has right-angled or rounded lateral margins (rarely indicating blunt anterolateral teeth), its anterior margin subtruncate, rarely indicating indistinct median tooth (exceptionally the median tooth developed as in the aberrant male (Fig. 66 )), or the anterior margin is moderately to more distinctly prolonged anteriad, of almost semicircular shape (as in LT, Fig. 45); female labrum (Figs 49–51) almost as long as wide, length 1.60–1.80 mm, width 1.60–1.75 mm, similarly shaped as in male, but median lobe with projecting, mostly subacute median tooth; coloration variable as in male, usually brownishtestaceous, rarely almost entirely blackened.</p>
            <p> Mandibles (Figs 43, 65, closed ones Figs. 47, 49), shape and coloration as in  P. (M.) conformis , but each mandible notably wider. </p>
            <p> Palpi (Figs 43, 47, 51, 65), shape and coloration as in  P. (M.) conformis , but the terminal palpomeres mostly almost entirely black, exceptionally pale testaceous (Fig. 65). </p>
            <p> Antennae as in  P. (M.) conformis , but generally much darker. </p>
            <p> Thorax. Pronotum (Figs 52–57), glabrous, iridescent reddish-cupreous on median area, with iridescent-green lateral areas, the cupreous median area rarely prevailing, slightly or more distinctly longer than wide, length 2.10– 2.50 mm, width 1.80–2.10 mm, sulci well pronounced; anterior lobe as wide as posterior lobe, or very slightly wider, and almost as wide as the disc, its anterior margin usually almost transverse, or only moderately prolonged anteriad; surface of anterior lobe coarsely and very irregularly rugulose; disc with mostly notably parallel to subparallel, or only slightly convex lateral margins (including margins of proepisterna), notopleural sutures rather distinct, clearly visible from above, almost subparallel with the proepisternal lateral margins, or even narrowed in middle; medial line distinct; discal surface sculpture as in  P. (M.) conformis , but notably coarser; posterior lobe basically as in  P. (M.) conformis , but the posterior margin less emarginated; all lateral and ventral thoracic sterna generally as in  P. (M.) conformis . </p>
            <p> Elytra (Figs 58–64) elongate, particularly markedly elongate in female, length 6.90–8.40 mm (exceptionally 6.20mm), in both sexes with rounded humeri; elytral margins as in  P. (M.) conformis , but more subparallel in male and markedly parallel in female; shape of anteapical angles and apices as in  P. (M.) conformis ; elytral dorsal surface even, except for rather distinct humeral and apical impressions, while discal impression and basodiscal convexity are only indicated, the even surface is particularly notable in female; elytral coloration as in  P. (M.) conformis , but the cupreous or green lustre generally much brighter (depending on angle of illumination, the chatoyant reddish-cupreous coloration may change to iridescent green); elytral surface glabrous except for the usual, a few and often very indistinct hairlike sensory setae as in  P. (M.) conformis and other species; whole elytral surface rather densely and regularly punctate, pattern of the punctation similar as in  P. (M.) conformis , but generally finer and more isolated (the sculpture optically changeable depending on angle of illumination); particularly much finer and almost uniform punctures on female elytra; whitish elytral maculation consisting of three maculae as in  P. (M.) conformis , but the sublateral-median macula rounded, or irregularly rhombiform, or slightly longitudinal- prolonged (never mesad-prolonged). </p>
            <p> Legs as in  P. (M.) conformis , but mostly much darker. </p>
            <p> Abdomen generally as in  P. (M.) conformis . </p>
            <p>Aedeagus (Figs 67–73), elongate, ventral side almost straight, while dorsal outline dilated in middle, apical half attenuated towards distinctly hooked apex; internal sac (Figs 74–75) containing ventral spur of characteristic, wing-like dilated base and short, thin projection; other sclerites are: small basodorsal spike, dorsal ovaliform piece (its shape better visible in right lateral view (Fig. 75), combined with longitudinal dorsal tooth (never distinctly protruding from dorsoapical orifice), and central, partly membranous piece with sclerotized hook, combined ventrally with barely defined longitudinal pieces.</p>
            <p> Note. The aedeagus (Fig. 67) of the lectotype of  P. (M.) procera (MNHN) shows only its outer membrane, because the internal sac was extracted by Rivalier and mounted together with the empty aedeagus between two glasses, numbered as “1521 / Rivalier”. The internal sac has been destroyed by such wrong mounting treatment using a brown glue, which in time dried out and destroyed the shape of the internal sac (as in many type specimens of other tiger beetles –see Moravec 2010, 2014). </p>
            <p> Variability. The male (Fig. 39) from Rio de Janeiro (BMNH) has anomalously wide pronotum (resembling that of  P. (M.) conformis ), but its aedeagus (Fig. 68) has the distinctly hooked apex as in other males of  P. (M.) procera . The aberrant male (Fig. 40) from Sao Paulo (SDEI) notably differs in its much smaller size and much paler legs, labrum with more pronounced median tooth (Fig. 66), the lateromedian macula closer to the epipleuron (Fig 61), paler palpi (Fig.65) and somewhat less distinctly hooked aedeagus (Fig. 72). The differences are considered here a variability of the probably juvenile male, rather than to consider this aberrant male to be another undescribed species. </p>
            <p> Distribution, ecology and biology. The type locality of  P. (M.) procera is situated in the large area near the municipality of Petrópolis in the Brazilian state of Rio de Janeiro, 70 km from the state capital. The Petrópolis area covers the valley of the Quitandinha and Piabanha rivers with forested hills of the Serra dos Órgãos National Park near Teresópolis with still well preserved biotopes of the Atlantic Rainforest. The “ Mata Atlantica” included also the forested area of Sao Paulo. The specimen (SDEI) labelled “Sao Paulo” comes probably from the area of today’s Reserva Biológica do Alto da Serra de Paranapiacaba, located at Paranapiacaba district (municipality of Santo André, São Paulo Metropolitan Region). The female (RLHC) comes from Rio Cubatão in the same metropolitan region. </p>
            <p> P. (M.) procera is obviously sympatric with  P. (M.) conformis in the state of Rio de Janeiro, as two specimens in MNHN (ex H. W. Bates) bear identical handwritten labels “Rio Jan.”, but there is no proof of also syntopic occurrence of these two species in the large area. In addition, several other species of  Mesochila occur in the same area, as already mentioned by Horn (1910, 1926) and Zikán (1929). Rivalier (1969), obviously in error, mentioned the occurrence of  P. (M.) procera also in the states of Bahia and Matto Grosso, but no specimen with such labels has been found in MNHN or in other collections within the present revision. </p>
            <p>Little is known of the habitat and behaviour of adults and larvae. The behaviour of adults described by Erwin &amp; Pearson (2008) are without a reference to any exact locality and experience, but they refer to Zikán (1929).</p>
            <p> Zikán (1929) described and illustrated larval tunnels and development of adults from their immature stages during rearing of  P. (M.) procera , but in fact mostly of  P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. (see under this new species below). </p>
            <p> Remarks. Chaudoir (1860) based the original description of this species on two specimens of both sexes: one male caught by Sahlberg in Petrópolis (the lectotype designated here to assure stability of this taxon), and one female from “interior Brésil ” received from a collection Laferté. Chaudoir (1860) described the coloration of the labrum of the female syntype as “ piceo ”, which means pitchy-black. Unfortunately, Chaudoir never labelled type specimens of his taxa by type labels. The only female that corresponds by its black labrum with the female syntype, is that from the Chaudoir collection (MNHN), and is therefore considered here to be the paralectotype. It bears the additional label “  aeruginosa / Reiche”, evidently attached to the female subsequently, probably by Reiche, and it has no impact to the individuality of the syntype. It is noteworthy that the unavailable name  Cicindela aeruginosa was listed without any description by Dejean (1831: 208) under  Cicindela smaragdula Dejean, 1825 with only a note that he received the specimen under the name “  AEruginosa ” from Schönherr; the name is therefore a nomen nudum. </p>
            <p> Examination of the holotype (Figs 42, 49, 57, 64) of  Odontochila chaudoiri Dokhtouroff, 1887 has confirmed the synonymy with  P. (M.) procera by Horn (1892). Fleutiaux (1892), evidently without examination of the holotype in SDEI, listed inappropriately  O. chaudoiri as a synonym of  Odontochila virens Audouin &amp; Brullé, 1839 , which is in fact a junior synonym of  Pentacomia (Mesochila) smaragdula (Dejean, 1825) , as stated by Horn (1892) and confirmed within the present revision. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E0625576FFD8135FF58DF9A3FD448144	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Moravec, Jiří	Moravec, Jiří (2016): Taxonomic and nomenclatorial revision within the Neotropical genera of the subtribe Odontocheilina W. Horn in a new sense — 16. Pentacomia (Mesochila) procera (Chaudoir), P. (M.) conformis (Dejean), and P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Zootaxa 4127 (2): 276-300, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4127.2.3
E0625576FFC11359F58DFA7BFCBA8338.text	E0625576FFC11359F58DFA7BFCBA8338.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pentacomia (Mesochila) proceroides	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Pentacomia (Mesochila) proceroides sp. nov.</p>
            <p>Type locality. Brazil: “Fazenda Jerusalem” near Alegre, state of Espirito Santo.</p>
            <p> Misinterpretation.  Odontochila procera sensu Horn (1929: 157 fig. 20, 158) , and sensu Zikán (1929) partim. Non  Odontochila procera Chaudoir, 1860 (=  Pentacomia (Mesochila) procera (Chaudoir, 1860) . </p>
            <p> Type material. Holotype ♂ in SDEI, labelled: “ Brazil / Espirito Santo / Faz. Jerusalem / 8.-11.-1912 ” / J. F. Zikan” [printed, the date handwritten] // “♂” [handwritten] // “Coll. W. Horn / DEI Eberswalde” [printed]. Allotype. 1 ♀ in SDEI with same labels as holotype except for: “ 3.-11.-1911 ” // “♀” //. Paratypes. 2 ♂♂ in SDEI, with same labels except for: “ 4.-11.-1912 ”. 1 ♂ in SDEI: “Zikan[leg.], Castello / bei Palmital / Espir. Sant.” [handwritten] // “ 11/5 / 1905 ” [handwritten] // “Coll. W. Horn / DEI Eberswalde” [printed]. 2 ♂♂ in SDEI: “ Brazil / Villa de Alegre, Espi / rito Santo / J. F. Zikán” [with black border, handwritten/printed] // “ 30./11. / 1911 ”. 1 ♀ in MNHN: “ Brazil / Espirito Santo / Faz Jerusalem / J. F. Zikan” [printed] // “Muséum Paris, Coll. Chaudoir, 1874” [green, printed]. All type specimens labelled: “ Holotype (or Allotype or Paratype respectively) /  Pentacomia (Mesochila) /  proceroides sp. nov. / det. Jiří Moravec 2016 ” [red, printed]. </p>
            <p>Following paratypes examined only from photos of the habitus, labrum and aedeagi, taken and sent by André Silva Roza (Federal University, Rio de Janeiro): 4 ♂♂ in CEIOC with the same locality labels and collector as in the holotype, except for: “ 30.II.1911, 3.XI.1911, 3.XII.1911, 11.XI.1914 ”. 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in CEIOC: “ Brazil / Palmital / Espirito Santo / Faz. Castello / J. Zikan 11.I.1905.”</p>
            <p> Other material examined. 1 ♂ in CMNH: “Minas (Brazil)” // “J. F. Zikán” // “Field Mus. / (F. Psota Coll.)” / / “Robert D. Ward / Collection” // “  Pentacomia / (  Mesochila ) /  conformis Dejean / Det. R. Ward 1977” // “  Mesochila /  proceroides Moravec, 2016 / det. Jiří Moravec 2016 ”. </p>
            <p> Differential diagnosis.  P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. superficially resembles  P. (M.) procera because of its similar, but generally much smaller body, similar shape of the pronotum and elongate, almost parallel-side elytra with fine elytral punctation; its labrum (Figs 84–90) in both sexes also has the same rounded and prominent anterolateral teeth, but the median lobe of the male labrum (Figs 84–88) is truncate to subtruncate, never distinctly arcuate or semicircular as in most males of  P. (M.) procera ; males of this new species are reliably distinguished from those of  P. (M.) procera by the very different shape of their aedeagi (Figs 98–103) which have their apical portion directed ventrally, and with rounded, sometimes dorsally emarginated apex (never distinctly hooked as in the almost straight aedeagi of  P. (M.) procera ). </p>
            <p> P. (M.) conformis clearly differs in having its labrum in both sexes with flattened anterolateral teeth (never prolonged anteriad), and different shape of its aedeagus with characteristic, unique structure of the internal sac (see under that species above). </p>
            <p> Description. Body (Fig. 76–79) medium-sized to large, length 10.2–12.90 (HT 10.3, AT 12.8) mm, width 2.90–3.50 (HT 3.00, AT 3.50) mm, females mostly larger than males; body shape similar to that in  P. (M.) procera , notably elongate, particularly so in female, but iridescent-green coloration mostly prevailing. </p>
            <p> Head (Figs 80–82) conspicuously large with wide eyes, as wide as the body, width 2.90–3.45 mm; shape, surface sculpture and coloration of frons, vertex, genae and clypeus as in  P. (M.) procera , but with prevailing iridescent-green lustre. </p>
            <p> Labrum primarily 4-setose, usually one or two lateral setae absent (either broken or rarely not developed), shape sexually dimorphic; male labrum (Figs 84–88) ochre-yellow to brownish-testaceous with indistinctly blackbrown darkened basal or also basolateral areas, sometimes with brown patches, length 0.85–1.00 mm, width 1.30– 1.45 mm, shape basically similar to that in  P. (M.) procera , in having prominent anteriad-prolonged anterolateral teeth, but the teeth are usually in the same level as the median lobe, or slightly surpassing its anterior margin which is mostly truncate or subtruncate, very rarely indistinctly anteriad-prolonged; female labrum (Figs 90–91) almost as long as wide, in AT 1.55 mm long, 1.50 mm wide, similar to that in  P. (M.) procera , but in examined specimens never blackened. </p>
            <p> Mandibles (( Figs 82–83), closed ones (Figs 80–81, 89), shape and coloration as in  P. (M.) procera , but the inner teeth gradually smaller towards the basal molar (the fourth tooth in examined specimens well developed). </p>
            <p> Palpi (Figs 80–83, 90), shape as in  P. (M.) procera , but coloration darker, often also penultimate palpomeres of maxillary palpi black (apart from the black terminal palpomeres). </p>
            <p> Antennae as in  P. (M.) procera . </p>
            <p> Thorax. Pronotum (Figs 91–92), glabrous, iridescent-green with mostly indistinct reddish-cupreous median area, notably longer than wide, length 2.05–2.45 mm (HT, AT), width 1.65–2.00 mm (HT, AT), sulci well pronounced; anterior lobe slightly wide that the posterior, almost as wide as the disc, with anterior margin only moderately prolonged anteriad; surface very irregularly rugulose; disc with parallel to subparallel, or only slightly convex lateral margins (including those of clearly visible proepisterna), notopleural sutures rather distinct, clearly visible from above and distant from the lateral margins of the dorsally visible proepisterna and slightly narrowed in middle; medial line distinct; discal surface finely but striate-rugulose, transverse-striate in middle, striae converging towards the median line, sublateral areas covered with finer and irregularly wavy rugae; lateral juxtanotopleural areas covered with shorter and shallower rugae which do not surpass notopleural sutures; posterior lobe notably high, surface very finely and irregularly rugulose, large dorsolateral bulges smooth and shiny; all lateral and ventral thoracic sterna generally as in  P. (M.) conformis and  P. (M.) procera , but with stronger green lustre; female mesepisternal coupling sulci indistinct, in form of the longitudinal furrow which is only slightly deeper than in male, somewhat sinuous and with indistinct median impression (lacking any deep pit). </p>
            <p> Elytra (Figs 93-97) in both sexes notably elongate, length 6.30–8.00 mm, in both sexes with rounded humeri; elytral margins as in  P. (M.) procera , but even more subparallel in both sexes; shape of anteapical angles and apices as in  P. (M.) conformis and  P. (M.) procera ; elytral dorsal surface as in  P. (M.) procera almost even; elytral coloration as in  P. (M.) procera but prevailingly iridescent green, rarely reddish-cupreous, but usually changing to green depending on angle of illumination; whole elytral surface densely and almost regularly punctate, the pattern of the punctation even finer than in  P. (M.) procera , notably finer and almost uniform punctures particularly on female elytra; elytral surface glabrous except for the usual, a few and often very indistinct hairlike sensory setae (as in other species); whitish elytral maculation consisting in male of three maculae as in  P. (M.) conformis and  P. (M.) procera , but the humeral macula is absent in female, and sublateral-median macula is generally smaller, particularly so in female, mostly rounded, or only very indistinctly longitudinal, or mesad prolonged. </p>
            <p> Legs as in  P. (M.) procera , but trochanters in female much darker, particularly metatrochanters black, and femora with more intense mahogany lustre. </p>
            <p> Abdomen generally as in  P. (M.) conformis and  P. (M.) procera , but ventrites with prevailing deep blue coloration. </p>
            <p> Aedeagus (Figs 98–103, anomalous one Fig. 104) widest in middle, with notably ventrally bent apical half which is conically (or rarely more abruptly) attenuated towards rounded apex which is only indistinctly dorsally emarginated; internal sac (Figs 105–110) structured as in  P. (M.) procera , with similar ventral spur with wing-like dilated base and rather short filiform projection and other sclerites, of which the dorsal tooth partly penetrates the dorsal orifice, but the upper-central, partly membranous large piece is wide, compacter and with more sclerotized hooks. </p>
            <p>Variability. Despite the almost constant external characters and consistent structure of the internal sac, the aedeagi somewhat vary in the shape of the ventrally bent apical half. Nevertheless, the rounded apex is almost consistent in shape with only more or less distinct dorsal emargination. The differences are obviously caused by the state of the membrane of the dorsoapical orifice, which is usually collapsed and may change the shape. Moreover, the aedeagi, cleared and mounted in order to show their internal sacs, become usually widened and straightened by the clearing procedure. The aedeagus (Fig. 90) was inappropriately treated (probably using acetic acid) when mounted by Horn in his collection (SDEI).</p>
            <p>Teratology. The anomalously developed aedeagus (Fig. 104) is with forked apical half, thus showing an additional apical portion of the penis, while the primary portion of the penis, including its apex, is normally developed.</p>
            <p>Distribution, ecology and biology. The type locality of this new species, Fazenda Jerusalem, one of the farms of the collector J. F. Zikán, is situated near the municipal area of Alegre in the southeastern Brazilian state Espirito Santo. The paratypes (SDEI and CEIOC), labelled “Villa Alegre” and “Castello del Palmital”, also come from the same area. The only male (CMNH), labelled “Minas”, comes from the state of Minas Gerais, probably from an area adjoining the states Espirito Santo and Rio de Janeiro. The biotopes of the Atlantic Rainforest in the areas of the type locality are now only partially preserved (André Silva Roza, pers. com.)</p>
            <p> The behaviour of adults (under “  Odontochila procera ”) was partially described by Zikán (1929) during rearing in captivity, mostly female ovipositing and developing of larva and pupa to metamorphosis; he also illustrated larval tunnels. As Zikán (1929) mentioned an occurrence of “  Odontochila ”  procera together with “  Odontochila ”  cyaneomarginata (=  Pentacomia (Mesochila) cyaneomarginata (W. Horn, 1900)) , also in mountains near Palmital and Fazenda Jerusalem near Alegre (the type locality of  P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. ), he evidently treated under the name “  Odontochila procera ”, at least partially,  P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. from its type locality. He briefly mentioned the occurrence of these species as “in jungle”, and that adults seldom flew onto ground. </p>
            <p> Remarks. As mentioned under  P. (M.) procera above, Horn (1929: 157 fig. 20, 158) confused  P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. with  P. (M.) procera . Zikán (1929) also treated this new species partly under the name  P. (M.) procera (see “Biology and distribution” above). The initials of the baptismal names of Joseph Francisco Zikán, the collector of this new species and entomologist who specialized in immature stages of tiger beetles, are often variably and wrongly cited for his publication (Zikán 1929). </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E0625576FFC11359F58DFA7BFCBA8338	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Moravec, Jiří	Moravec, Jiří (2016): Taxonomic and nomenclatorial revision within the Neotropical genera of the subtribe Odontocheilina W. Horn in a new sense — 16. Pentacomia (Mesochila) procera (Chaudoir), P. (M.) conformis (Dejean), and P. (M.) proceroides sp. nov. (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Zootaxa 4127 (2): 276-300, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4127.2.3
