Tetebius Roewer, 1949

Tetebius Roewer, 1949 View in CoL

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:DE3F95EB-0A29-45C8-BB16-6D4D5AE4A7F6

Tetebius Roewer 1949: 288 View in CoL ; Staręga 1992: 330; Kury & Pérez-González 2015: 7.

Malgaceros Lawrence 1959: 79 View in CoL ; Staręga 1992: 330; Kury & Pérez-González 2015:6 [type species: Malgaceros boviceps Lawrence, 1959 View in CoL , by original designation]. New synonymy.

Diagnosis. Tetebius can be distinguished from most genera of Biantinae by the absence of the typical biantid pedipalp shape with a thin and generally unarmed femur (e.g., Martens 1978, fig. 2). By contrast, Tetebius exhibits a robust, curved, and armed femur, a feature shared with Hirstienus Roewer, 1949 , Hovanoceros Lawrence, 1959 , and Anaceros Lawrence, 1959 . However, Tetebius can be separated from those genera by a male pedipalp ventrally concave (i.e., strongly arched). The male genital morphology is still unknown to Hirstienus and Anaceros avoiding comparisons, but it is known to one undetermined species of Hovanoceros (see Kury & Pérez-González 2015). In this sense, Tetebius can separate from Hovanoceros by the presence of a longitudinal row of macrosetae at the sides of the pars distalis ( Figs 4B–D View FIGURE 4 ; 9B–H View FIGURE 9 ), which is more inflated. Also, Tetebius can be differentiated from Hovanoceros by the presence of a pair of setae on the base of the lamina apicalis ( Figs 4B–D View FIGURE 4 ; 9B–H View FIGURE 9 ). Lastly, in Tetebius , conductors are distally thin, apically pointed, and not as wide as in Hovanoceros ( Figs 4B–C View FIGURE 4 ; 9B–C, E–F View FIGURE 9 vs. fig. 2 in Kury & Pérez-González 2015).

Remark. The limits among Anaceros , Hovanoceros , Hirstienus , and Tetebius are not well defined, and the male genitalia morphology of Anaceros and Hirstienus remains unknown. Further studies are necessary to clarify the limits and validity of those genera.

Type species. Tetebius latibunus Roewer, 1949 View in CoL (by original designation).

Included species. Monotypic.