Steirodon (Frontinus) irregulariterdentatum ( Brunner-Wattenwyl, 1891 )

Steirodon (Frontinus) irregulariterdentatum ( Brunner-Wattenwyl, 1891) View in CoL

( Figs 68–70 View Figs 58–73 , 74–78 View Figs 74–82 , 94–98 View Figs 83–105 )

Material. Neotype (here designated) – male,

PERU: Junin Department, Satipo Prov., Rio Tampo

Distr., 6 km N of Pichiguia Vill. , “Reserva Comunal Ashaninka”, 11.35824 º S, 74.03205 º W, ~ 500 m, 14– 23 November 2017, A. Gorochov, G. Irisov ( ZIN). Other specimens: 1 male, same data as for neotype ( ZIN); 1 male, same country, “Ucayali, 11 km on 230 º from Puerto Bermudes ”, 10 º 29.9' S, 75 º 03.1' W, 713 m, 10–12 March 2011, V GoogleMaps . Sinyaev, A. Poleschuk ( ZIN) .

Description. Male (neotype). General appeareance more or less intermediate between type species of Frontinus and that of Posidippus but with following features: body size more similar to that of Frontinus but smaller than in majority of Posidippus species; coloration light green with lighter (yellowish) dorsum of head, light brown most part of antennae and spots on tegminal base, light greyish brown dorsolateral keels of pronotum and marks on all tarsi, whitish large area on proximal half of dorsal surface of fore femur, transparent mirror and nearest lateral cell in stridulatory apparatus of right tegmen ( Figs 68, 70 View Figs 58–73 , 74–77 View Figs 74–82 , 94–98 View Figs 83–105 ) as well as most part of hind wing membranes (except for greenish to yellowish apical part of this wing); head with rostral tubercles short and rather wide (lower tubercle almost 1.5 times as wide as scape and with slightly bilobed apical part that barely covering lower part of upper tubercle apex; latter tubercle directed partly downwards, with slight but distinct median longitudinal groove anterodorsally, and with slightly bilobed apex which barely narrower than lower rostral tubercle; Fig. 68 View Figs 58–73 ); pronotum with disc and dorsolateral keels almost as in Posidippus , but these keels less arcuate in profile, their denticles somewhat lower and less numerous, three pairs of these denticles significantly larger than in other representatives of Frontinus ( Fig. 70 View Figs 58–73 ), and lateral lobes also similar to those of Frontinus but less high than in majority of Posidippus species (as in Fig. 69 View Figs 58–73 ); legs with fore femur approximately as in S. (F.) planifemur sp. nov. (but this femur less flattened dorsally and with less distinct dorsolateral keels; Fig. 94 View Figs 83–105 ), with spinule on outer dorsal edge of fore tibia near tympana ( Figs 95, 96 View Figs 83–105 ), and with proximal halves of middle and hind tibiae slightly widened (i.e., middle tibia slightly wider than in this species, and width of hind tibia approximately as in Fig. 100 View Figs 83–105 ); tegmina also similar to those of S. (F.) planifemur sp. nov. but with wider distal part and barely concave anal edge ( Fig. 74 View Figs 74–82 ), and their stridulatory apparatus as in Figs 75–77 View Figs 74–82 (stridulatory vein of left tegmen about 3.5 mm in length, ventrally with characteristic small rounded inflation at medial end and almost 62 teeth); hind wings and abdominal apex approximately as in S. (F.) planifemur sp. nov., but genital plate with three short apical lobules almost equal in length, with middle of these lobules wider than lateral ones, and with well developed styli which slightly longer than in this species and rather thin ( Figs 97, 98 View Figs 83–105 ).

Variations. Other males distinguished from neotype by absence of darkenings on pronotal keels ( Fig. 69 View Figs 58–73 ), fore femora almost completely greenish or with yellowish dorsal area, less numerous stridulatory teeth (up to 57; Fig. 78 View Figs 74–82 ), and sometimes somewhat different shape of genital plate apex: middle apical lobule shorter than lateral ones and with very small but distinct median notch; styli less distinct, almost as in holotype of S. (F.) planifemur sp. nov.

Female of this species possibly in accordance to description of Emsley (1970), but his determination of this species in need of checking (see remarks below).

Length in mm. Body, male 27–32; body with wings: male 63–66, female 69 (?); tegmina: male 50– 52, female 55 (?); hind femora: male 23–24, female 27.5 (?); ovipositor 5 (?).

Comparison. Differences of this species from all other Frontinus species are given above: they consist of narrower upper and lower rostral tubercles in combination with the presence of larger denticles on the pronotal keels, characteristic tegminal coloration and details of the stridulatory tegminal apparatus in male. From Posidippus representatives, this species differs in the subgeneric characters listed above, in the Frontinus diagnosis.

Remarks. This species was described as Posidippus irregulariter-dentatus by Brunner-Wattenwyl (1891) after a male from “ Peru ”. Emsley (1970) had only females from different localities of Peru and Brazil determined by him as belonging to this species, and he also wrote that the holotype of this species from “the unlocated Dohrn collection” was not found. In OSF, this holotype is mentioned as possibly lost. Moreover, this holotype was not found by me when I studied the collection of H. Dohrn, now transferred from Stettin to Warsaw. Thus, I suppose that this holotype is missing, and we are in need of the neotype designation, because this species is described insufficiently and may be confused with small specimens of some Posidippus species.

Also, this species was possibly determined as “ Steirodon (Posidippus) rarospinulosus ” by Cadena-Castañeda(2016:figs31),because it has a distinct darkened spot at the basal area of the male tegmen, and such spot is distinct in the cited photograph of this author. However, S. (F.?) rarospinulosum and S. (F.) irregulariterdentatum in accordance to their original diagnoses and descriptions ( Brunner-Wattenwyl 1891: p. 183, 184, 186) are well distinguished from each other in the following characters: the first species ( S. rarospinulosum ) has its pronotal keels with numerous very small denticles (“angustissime crenulatis”, “dense crenulatis”) (these characters indicate the possible belonging of this species to Frontinus ; this is additionally supported by his mention of a flattened dorsum of the fore femur with a whitish mark, which is characteristic of some species of Frontinus but not of Posidippus ), and its fore tibia lacks a dorsal outer spinule near the tympana; but in the second species (S. irregulariterdentatum ), the pronotal keels are with three rather large anteri- or denticles and 4–5 small posterior ones, and the fore tibia evidently is of the same structure as in majority of Frontinus and Posidippus species (i.e., with a dorsal outer spinule near the tympana).The above-mentioned neotype and specimens of S. (F.) irregulariterdentatum are in accordance to the original description and diagnosis of this species, but they are very not in accordance to those of S. (F.?) rarospinulosum .