Coeleburia Thomson, 1861 revalidated

Coeleburia Thomson, 1861: 237.

Solangella Martins, 1997: 73. Syn. nov.

Remarks.

Martins (1997) described Solangella as follows (translated):

Dorsal region of the head without a tubercle. Gula without transverse sulci. Antennal tubercles acuminate, slightly projected. Antennae of males with variable length; in females, slightly longer than the body. Scape subcylindrical; dorsal base with a shallow sulcus or without a sulcus; length subequal to or greater than half that of antennomere III. Prothorax wider than long; sides with a spine behind or nearly at mid-length; anterolateral tubercle very reduced. Pronotum with two anterolateral tubercles; basal and central gibbosities only slightly indicated. Anterior coxal cavities angular laterally. Elytral apices truncate, without external spine. Apices of meso- and metafemora without spines; the inner apical lobe acuminate. Mesoventrite [mesoventral process] without a tubercle. Discussion. Genus established to group the South American species of Eburia with unarmed elytral and femoral apices.

Martins (1999) redefined the shape of the procoxal cavities in Solangella as not angular or narrowly angular laterally and commented (translated): “ However, S. meridana was originally described by Bates (1872) in Pantomallus, which suggests that the cavities are angular on both sides. The lack of spines on the apex of the elytra and femora places meridana more appropriately in Solangella. ” These statements make no sense when the species currently included in Solangella are examined.

The features listed by Martins (1999) to define Eburia sensu auctorum cannot be taken into consideration (see below). This is because he considered only South American species and included in Solangella the species from that region that did not fit his concept of Eburia. Moreover, the features he pointed out to define Eburia do not allow for a clear separation between this genus and Solangella, since the anterior procoxal cavities are the same in both genera, and one of the species included in Solangella, S. meridana (Bates, 1872), has at least one feature of Pantomallus: the procoxal cavities open laterally (strongly angulated). According to Lacordaire (1868) on Pantomallus (translated): “ In all the collections where they are found, the species of this genus are placed among the Eburia, as they completely share the same appearance. However, it is impossible to leave these insects within the Éburiides without making the definition of the group meaningless, since they have strongly angular anterior coxae ... ”

Therefore, in the absence of reliable features to distinguish Solangella from Coeleburia, the former is regarded as a junior synonym of the latter. The type species of Solangella, S. lachrymosa (Martins & Monné, 1975) (Figs 16–18), and Solangella micromacula Martins, 1997 (Figs 19–21) belong to Coeleburia (Eburia sensu auctorum). Solangella meridana (Bates, 1872) sensu Martins (1999) (Figs 22–24) belongs to Pantomallus:

1. Coeleburia lachrymosa (Martins & Monné, 1975), comb. nov.;

2. Coeleburia micromacula (Martins, 1997), comb. nov.;

3. Pantomallus meridanus Bates, 1872, resurrection of the original combination.

Note 1.

According to Martins (1997) on Solangella micromacula (Figs 19–21): “ Material-tipo: Holótipo [male symbol], Equador, Guayas: Guayaquil, A. Montilla col. (MZSP). Parátipos: [female symbol], mesmos dados do holótipo (MZSP); [male symbol], Loja, Abbé Gaujon col. (MNHN). ” In the MZSP, the holotype and female paratype labels were switched: the holotype had a paratype label, and the female paratype had a holotype label. Both specimens have additional identification labels stating that they are female paratypes, but one of them is a male. However, since those two specimens are from Guayaquil, there is no doubt that the male is the holotype because the other male paratype was from Loja. Most likely, that last paratype was mistakenly given the holotype identification label (not the red label that says holotype, but the label with the identification of the species). We have corrected the labels, switching the holotype and paratype accordingly.

Note 2.

The holotype of Pantomallus meridanus was not located in the MNHN (Antoine Mantilleri, personal communication) or in the BMNH (Michael Geiser, personal communication). According to Martins (1997), regarding the holotype of P. meridanus (translated): “ Examined [the specimen] from a slide of the holotype [male symbol] made by J. S. Moure at the BMNH. ” However, the slide was not found in the collection of slides made by Jesus Santiago Moure at the DZUP (personal communication from the curator of the collection).