Paramaka convexa ( Spieth, 1943 )

Paramaka convexa ( Spieth, 1943) View in CoL

( Figures 2B–E View FIGURE 2 )

Thraulus convexus Spieth 1943:10 .

Homothraulus convexus ; Traver 1960: 73; Hubbard 1982: 265.

Hermanella sp. 2 . Demoulin 1966:12.

Paramaka convexa View in CoL ; Savage and Domínguez 1992:244; Blanco-Belmonte et al., 2003: 119; Sartori, 2005: 237; Domínguez et al., 2006: 463; Shimano et al., 2011: 250; Domínguez et al., 2014: 308 View Cited Treatment ; Costa et al., 2018: 4; Nascimento et al., 2020: 584 View Cited Treatment ; Orlando et al., 2021: 45; Salles et al. 2021:157; Lima et al. 2023: 2; Faria et al. 2023: 5.

Diagnoses. Nymphs: 1) medial projection on distal margin of clypeus absent ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2 ); 2) tarsal claw with subapical denticle present; 3) middle and hind femora with dorsal surface with scarce spine-like setae, more restricted to fore and hind margins ( Fig. 2C View FIGURE 2 ); 4) hind tibia with a brownish subapical band covering ¼ of the length of hind tibia; 5) pointed projection of gills variable, but generally present on dorsal lamella of gills III–VI; 6) posterolateral projections present on segments VIII and IX.

Male imago: 1) abdominal color pattern contrasting (segments I and VII to X darker, II to VI translucent white) ( Fig. 2D View FIGURE 2 ); 2) base of penis lobe wider than apex ( Fig. 2E View FIGURE 2 ); 3) medial projection of styliger plate curved dorsally (apex inserted between the bases of the penis lobes); 4) telopenis base located at apical 1/2 of penis lobe; 5) telopenis well developed and sclerotized, apex acute and crossing each other medially.

Material examined. BRAZIL, AMAPÁ, M.Amapá, Rio Amapá Grande, Cachoeira , 02°09'43"N 50°55'17"W, 3 m alt., 07.viii.2011,A. Pes, P. Cruz, A. Fernandes, N. Hamada cols., 5 male imagos ( UFVB) GoogleMaps . BRAZIL, AMAZONAS, Apuí, Rio Juma , 07°11'17"S 59°54'31"W, Pennsylvania light trap, 20.i.2023, Abadia, Silva e Bezerra cols., 5 male imagos ( UFVB) GoogleMaps ; BRAZIL, MINAS GERAIS, Conselheiro Pena , 19°10'31"S, 41°26'46"W, 07–08.ix.2022, Viana, A.D.L., Bonfá, P., Ataide, A. cols., 28 adults ( UFVB) GoogleMaps ; BRAZIL, MINAS GERAIS, Barra do Cuieté , 19°03'50"S, 41°31'50"W, 06–07.ix.2022, Viana, A.D.L., Bonfá, P., Ataide, A. cols., 2 adults ( UFVB) GoogleMaps ; BRAZIL, MINAS GERAIS, Mathias Lobato , 18°34'24"S, 41°56'52"W, 05–06.ix.2022, Viana, A.D.L., Bonfá, P., Ataide, A. cols., 2 adults ( UFVB) GoogleMaps ; BRAZIL, MINAS GERAIS, Tumiritinga , 18°58'08"S, 41°39'49"W, 07.i.2022, Viana, A.D.L., Bonfá, P., Rodrigues, P. & Rothe-Neves, M. cols., 3 adults ( UFVB) GoogleMaps ; BRAZIL, MINAS GERAIS, Rio Doce, UHE Risoleta Neves , 20°12'29"S, 42°52'35"W, 13.i.2022, Viana, A.D.L., Bonfá, P., Rodrigues, P. & Rothe-Neves, M. cols., 1 adult ( UFVB) GoogleMaps ; BRAZIL, MINAS GERAIS, Tumiritinga ( MG) , 18°58'08"S, 41°39'49"W, 07.i.2022, Viana, A,D,L. Bonfá, P,N. Rodrigues, P,J. Rothe-Neves, M. cols., 1 adult ( UFVB) GoogleMaps ; BRAZIL, ESPIRITO SANTO, Baixo Guandu , 19°37'30"S, 41°01'08"W, 09–10.ix.2022, Viana, A.D.L., Bonfá, P., Ataide, A. cols., 9 adults ( UFVB) GoogleMaps . BRAZIL, PIAUÍ, Castelo do Piauí, Rio Poti , 05°11'17"S 41°42'34"W, 177 m alt., light trap, 12.iii.2016, L.R.C. Lima col., 1 male imago ( CEHJ) GoogleMaps ; BRAZIL, PIAUÍ, Coivaras, Cachoeira da Campeira , 05°26'12"S 41°37'49"W, 150 m alt., light trap, 04.iii.2017, L.R.C. Lima and J.A.O. Rodrigues cols., 5 male imagos ( CEHJ) GoogleMaps ; BRAZIL, PIAUÍ, Castelo do Piauí, Riacho Cais , 05°11'45"S 42°15'34"W, 389m alt., light trap, 09.vi.2023, L.R.C. Lima, A.S. Carvalho, A.P.J. Faria cols., 13 male imagos ( CEHJ) GoogleMaps . FRENCH GUIANA, Sinnamary River, Saut Takari Tanté (V. Horeau), 28.x.1992, 3 nymphs ( MZL) .

Distribution. BRAZIL (Amapá, Amazonas, Bahia, Maranhão, Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais, Piauí, Roraima, and Tocantins), FRENCH GUIANA, SURINAME, and VENEZUELA.

Comments. Paramaka convexa is the most widespread species of the genus, with records ranging from northern Venezuela to Southeastern Brazil ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 ). The species has also been recorded from several locations in Mato Grosso by Shimano et al. (2011). These records were all based on nymphs, at a time when only two species were known— one with medial projection on the distal margin of the clypeus ( P. antonii ) and another without ( P. convexa ). Soon after that, Mariano (2011) described P. pearljam from Mato Grosso, another species lacking a medial projection, from a locality within the distribution reported by Shimano et al. (2011). Given the incomplete knowledge of the nymphal stage of some species of Paramaka , we are refraining from assigning Shimano’s et al. (2011) records in the distributional map shown in Figure 1 View FIGURE 1 .

The male imago can be distinguished from the other species of the genus based on abdominal color pattern and details of genitalia ( Figs.4 View FIGURE 4 and 5 View FIGURE 5 ).As in P.incognita and P.takari sp. nov.,this species exhibits a contrasting abdominal color pattern, with segment I dark, segments II to VI translucent white, and segments VII to X orangish brown. In P. convexa , however,there is a dark purple stripe at the posterior margin of segments II to IX.Due to the presence of a short posteromedial projection on the styliger plate and the development of the telopenes, P.convexa is similar to P.lucimarae sp. nov. and P.incognita . In P.convexa the base of the telopenis is located at apical 1/2of penis lobe (located at apical ⅔ in P.lucimarae sp. nov. and P.incognita ) and the acute medial projection of the styliger plate is longer dorsally oriented, reaching the base of the penis lobes (medial projection shorter and not curved in P. lucimarae sp. nov. and P.incognita ).