Tomoglossa Kraatz 1856

Tomoglossa Kraatz, 1856 (Figs. 1­46)

Tomoglossa Kraatz, 1856: 342.

Tomoglossa; Bernhauer, 1907 b: 401.

Noverota Casey, 1910: 90, syn. nov.

Tomoglossa; Fenyes, 1920: 255.

Atheta (Noverota); Fenyes, 1920: 199.

Tomoglossa; Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 598.

Atheta (Noverota); Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 606.

Tomoglossa; Scheerpeltz, 1963: 123.

Tomoglossa; Benick & Lohse, 1974: 107.

Tomoglossa; Sawada, 1977: 192.

Noverota; Seevers, 1978: 122.

Tomoglossa; Lohse, 1989: 208.

Noverota; Newton, Thayer, Ashe & Chandler, 2000: 369.

(Other references for Palaearctic Tomoglossa are omitted)

Type Species. Homalota luteicornis Erichson, 1837, by monotypy.

Diagnosis. Tomoglossa can be distinguished from other athetine genera by the combination of the following characters: parallel­sided body; slender sickle­shaped mandibles (Figs. 1­3); ligula with two completely separate lobes (Fig. 10); mentum fused with submentum (Fig. 12); pronotum with microsetae directed posteriorly throughout the disc (Type VI, Benick and Lohse 1974) (Fig. 13); pronotal macrosetae inconspicuous; pronotal hypomera fully visible in lateral aspect; metasternal process extremely short and wide, virtually non­existent, perhaps better described as convexity of the anterior margin of metasternum (Fig. 15); mesotibia with short median macroseta (shorter than tibial width); metatarsal segment 1 longer than segment 2 (Fig. 14); without empodial setae; with numerous erect macrosetae and long semi­erect microsetae on abdominal terga VII­VIII.

Tomoglossa shares with Hydrosmecta Thomson, 1858 slender mandibles, inconspicuous process of the metasternum, and the lack of empodial setae. Tomoglossa can be easily distinguished from Hydrosmecta by its less slender body, more widely separated lobes of the ligula, less transverse mentum fused with submentum, pubescence directed posteriorly everywhere on the pronotal disc (Type VI), shorter metasternum, and long erect setation of the apical abdominal segments.

Tomoglossa is similar to Geostiba Thomson, 1858 in having pronotal pubescence of Type VI; however, Tomoglossa differs in having slender mandibles, more widely separated lobes of ligula, less transverse mentum fused with submentum, inconspicuous metasternal process, long and erect setation of the apical abdominal segments and in lacking empodial setae.

Description. Length 1.6­2.1 mm. Head reddish brown to dark brown; pronotum yellow to reddish yellow, lighter than head; elytra from brownish yellow to brown, with yellow apical (1 / 3 to 1 / 5) portion; abdominal segments III­V and VII­VIII yellow to reddish yellow; abdominal tergum VI darker, reddish brown to dark brown; antennae uniformly yellow or with darker articles 2­11; maxillar palpi uniformly yellow or with darker article 3; legs yellow to reddish yellow. Body form parallel­sided.

Head transverse, eyes as long as temples (seen from above); infraorbital carina complete. Antennal articles 2 and 3 of equal length, 4­5 subquadrate, 6­10 slightly transverse, apical article as long as 9 and 10 combined, without coeloconic sensilla. Labrum (Fig. 8­9) transverse and narrow, with straight anterior margin. Mandibles (Figs. 1­3) symmetrical, slender, sickle­shaped, with a small medial tooth; ventral molar area without patches of denticles, dorsal molar region without visible “velvety patch” (400 x) (Figs. 227.22­231.22 in Newton et al. 2000: 309). Maxilla (Figs. 4­7) with galea as long as lacinia, apical lobe of galea covered with numerous fine and short setae; interior margin of galea with row of setae subapically; apical third of lacinia with row of closely spaced spines, middle third produced medially and covered with numerous setae. Labial palpi with three articles; ligula divided into two completely separate lobes; medial pseudopore field of prementum with 4­5 pseudopores (Sawada 1970, 1972), lateral areas with pair of twin pores, single spinose pore and 4­6 irregular pseudopores (Fig. 10). Mentum (Fig. 12) with anterior margin concave, posteriorly fused with submentum.

Pronotum transverse, broadest slightly in front of middle, sides broadly rounded, anterior margin straight, anterior and posterior angles rounded; posterior margin convex; surface covered with short microsetae directed posteriorly in both midline and lateral areas (Type VI, Benick & Lohse 1974); macrosetae very short, limited to one macroseta at each of anterior and posterior angles and one on each lateral margin; hypomera fully visible in lateral aspect. Posterior margin of elytra straight. Wings present, fully developed. Mesosternal process short and wide, extending 1 / 4 length of mesocoxal cavities, metasternal process almost non­existent, anterior margin of metasternum only slightly convex medially (Fig. 15); mesosternum and mesosternal process not carinate medially; relative lengths of mesosternal process: isthmus: metasternal process in ratio of about 6: 19: 1; mesocoxal cavities margined posteriorly; mesocoxae narrowly separated. Mesotibia with very short median macroseta (shorter than tibia width). Tarsal segmentation 4­5 ­ 5; metatarsal segment 1 longer than segment 2 (Fig. 14). No empodial setae present.

Abdominal terga III­V with moderate transverse basal impressions. Tergum VII 1.6 times longer than VI. Puncturation of terga III­V equally sparse, puncturation of terga VI­ VII sparser. Terga VII­VIII with numerous erect macrosetae and long semi­erect microsetae. Tergum VIII (Figs. 17, 19, 34, 38, 43) in both sexes with basal row of long microsetae. Female sternum VIII (Figs. 16, 18, 35, 44) with row of apical microsetae (as in other Athetini).

Median lobe of aedeagus ventrally with very characteristic structure in the area of basal pore (Figs. 21 ­22, 40­ 41). Internal sac with a deeply concave sclerite (Figs. 23 ­24, 42). Copulatory piece (Sawada 1972) without apical process (Figs. 25, 42).

Spermatheca with wide umbilicus (Muona 1990) (Figs. 26, 36, 45).

Discussion. The type species of Noverota (N. ornatella Casey, 1910, by original designation) and Tomoglossa (T. luteicornis (Erichson, 1837)) differ only in body coloration (T. luteicornis being darker) and in minor details of genitalia (Figs. 21­26 in this paper and Fig. 123 in Lohse 1989). As a result, Noverota is placed in synonymy with Tomoglossa. Apparently Casey was not familiar with Tomoglossa and when describing Noverota he compared it only with Hydrosmecta. Casey (1910) included seven species in the genus Noverota. Three of these species belong to Tomoglossa. They are redescribed below. Noverota clemens Casey, 1910, N. finitima Casey, 1910, and N. scenica Casey, 1910 belong to Philhygra Mulsant & Rey, 1873 and will be redescribed elsewhere. The taxonomic position of N. personata Casey, 1910 is not clear, but it does not belong to Tomoglossa. The species is known from a single female type and a detailed study of its mouthparts is not possible. When additional specimens of this species are found the position of the species can be clarified. Two new species of Tomoglossa are described below. Thus, five valid Nearctic species of Tomoglossa are currently known.

In the key by Ashe (Newton et al. 2000) the specimens belonging to Tomoglossa run to the second half of the couplet 58. In the key by Benick and Lohse (1974) the same specimens easily reach Tomoglossa at couplet 8.