Styloleptus Dillon, 1956

Styloleptus Dillon, 1956 View in CoL

Styloleptus Dillon, 1956: 158 View in CoL .

Remarks. According to Dillon (1956), the prosternal process in Styloleptus is “one-fourth to one-third as broad as a prosternal cavity.” In the original description of the genus, Dillon (1956) included the type species, Styloleptus biustus (LeConte, 1852) , and Styloleptus minuens (Hamilton, 1896) (currently, = S. scurra (Chevrolat, 1862)) . However, the narrowest area of the prosternal process in S. scurra is distinctly wider than one-third of the width of a procoxal cavity (see photograph in Devesa et al. 2019). Gilmour (1963a) included in Styloleptus : S. caymanensis (Fisher, 1948) ; S. lewisi (Fisher, 1948) ; S. parvulus (Gahan, 1895) ; S. thompsoni (Fisher, 1948) ; S. atrovittatus (Fisher, 1925) ; S. dozieri (Fisher, 1932) ; S. infuscatus (Fisher, 1932) ; S. laticollis (Fisher, 1925) ; S. maraicola (Fisher, 1942) ; S. pilosellus (Fisher, 1942) ; S. cubanus (Fisher, 1926) (described as L. biustus var. cubanus ); S. scurra (Chevrolat, 1862) ; S. variabilis (Fisher, 1925) ; S. puertoricensis (Fisher, 1935) ; S. darlingtoni (Fisher, 1942) ; S. vanduzeei (Fisher, 1935) ; and S. planicollis (Fisher, 1935) . Additionally, Gilmour (1963a) described S. nigrofasciatus and S. divisus , and described Antilleptostylus for A. nigricans (Fisher, 1935) . Gilmour (1963b) described Caribbeana for C. hebes Gilmour, 1963 . Many species included by Gilmour (1963a) are currently junior synonyms of other species of Styloleptus . Ivie (1985) synonymized Caribbeana with Styloleptus , and Micheli (2010) synonymized Antilleptostylus with Styloleptus . We agree with Micheli (2010), who reported that the width of the prosternal process cannot be used to define Styloleptus . In fact, it is distinctly wider than half the width of the procoxal cavity, at least in some species. Still, according to Dillon (1956): “Elytra densely punctate but punctures largely concealed by vestiture, with several prominent costae and usually with a number of fine elevated points or fine tubercles; basal gibbosity nearly wanting; apices obliquely truncate at suture.” However, the pubescence does not obscure the punctures in some species, at least on considerable areas of the elytra ( e.g. S. posticalis (Gahan, 1895) and S. scurra ); the elytral costae [carinae] are absent or nearly so in some species ( e.g. S. lilliputanus (Thomson, 1865) and S. inermis (Fabricius, 1801)) , and may or may not be distinct in the same species, as reported by Micheli (2010); and the small elytral tubercles (not the centrobasal crest) may be absent or nearly so ( e.g. S. darlingtoni (Fisher, 1942)) —reported in the original description as “usually” present.

Dillon (1956) and Linsley & Chemsak (1995) described the sides of the prothorax respectively: “lateral tubercles broad, unarmed, imperceptibly [ sic] merging with side margins anteriorly, strongly angularly rounded to the constricted base;” “sides with obtuse tumid tubercles just before basal impression.” Nonetheless, the posterior region of the lateral tubercles of the prothorax is distinctly angled in some species ( e.g. S. atrovittatus and S. infuscatus ), or even somewhat sinuous with a short, pointed apex ( e.g. S. cubanus ). Therefore, as in several genera of Acanthocinini , the current definitions are very fragile, and a comprehensive revision is needed to try to provide a reliable definition for Styloleptus . The new species described herein is tentatively included in Styloleptus due to its general similarity to other species currently included in it.