Apeba togata Klug 1825

Apeba togata (Klug, 1825)

(Figs 11–12, 24–30)

Saperda togata Klug, 1825: 464, pl. 42, fig. 10.

Spathoptera? togata; Audinet-Serville, 1835: 52.

Saperda tagita; Chenu, 1851: pl. 23, fig. 1 (error).

Lycidola togata; Thomson, 1868: 191; Lacordaire, 1872: 884; Bates, 1881b: 306; Aurivillius, 1923: 585 (cat.); Blackwelder, 1946: 622 (checklist); Gilmour, 1965: 632 (cat.).

Hemilophus togatus; Gemminger & Harold, 1873: 3211 (cat.).

Apeba togata; Martins & Galileo, 1991a: 563, figs. 3, 12; Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 282 (checklist); Monné, 1995: 4 (cat.); 2005: 453 (cat.); Monné, et al., 2010: 248 (distr.); Martins & Galileo, 2014a: 65, fig. 1.36; Monné, 2016: 706 (cat.).

Lycaneptia antiqua Waterhouse, 1880: 300; Bates, 1881b: 306; Aurivillius, 1923: 585 (cat.); Blackwelder, 1946: 622 (checklist). Syn. nov.

Lycaneptia antica; Buck, 1959: 608 (Misspelling).

Lycaneptia antigua; Gilmour, 1965: 633 (cat.) (Misspelling).

Hemilophus antiquus; Lameere, 1883: 73 (cat.).

Apeba antiqua; Martins & Galileo, 1991a: 563; Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 282 (checklist); Monné, 1995: 4 (cat.); 2005: 452 (cat.); Martins & Galileo, 2014a: 62, fig. 1.38; Monné, 2016: 706 (cat.).

According to Waterhouse (1880), Lycidola antiqua (= A. antiqua) differs from L. togata (= A. togata) by the different color and by the last seven antennomeres not equaling a quarter of the total length of the antennae. Our examination reveals the last seven antennomeres in A. togata are the same as those in L. antiqua, as is the pubescence on head and pronotum, and the color of the femora. Hence, we believe that A. antiqua is simply a variation of A. togata and thus place it in synonymy with L. togata.

The specimens deposited at MZSP (Figs 24–29) clearly show color variation in the elytral pubescence of A. togata. In addition, the sides of the prothorax may (Figs 25, 29) or may not have (Fig. 27) yellow pubescent band. The outermost carina is also somewhat variable: from slightly curved at about midlength to almost straight. No other consistent morphological differences were noted.

According to Martins & Galileo (2014a) (translated): “In a specimen from Bahia (MZSP) all anterior 3/4 of the elytra are yellow [Figs 28–29]. In this specimen was based the citation of A. antiqua for Bahia (MARTINS & GALILEO, 1991a).” The specimen from Linhares (Espírito Santo) listed by Martins & Galileo (2014a) as male actually is a female. Martins & Galileo (2014a) also correctly pointed out (translated): “ HAASE (1892), est. 13, fig. 102) and HEINE & TASCHEMBERG [sic] (1907: 244, est. 37, fig. 13) presented wrong figures of Apeba togata; the figure in Haase has the elytra narrower and that of Heyne & Taschemberg [sic] has elytra that could be of A. togata, but the color pattern is completely different.” Hemilophus togatus sensu Haase (1892), clearly is not Apeba togata. The species illustrated may belong to the Rhinotragini (Cerambycinae), not Hemilophini (Lamiinae), however, this is not possible to determine without examining the specimen. For the same reason, Hemilophus togatus sensu Heyne & Taschenberg (1908) should be excluded from the list of references of Apeba togata. Assuming that the drawing is accurate, the specimen figured by these authors has the antennae longer than body, while in A. togata it is distinctly shorter. Again, it is not possible to know the species of the specimen figured without examining it.

Material examined. BRAZIL, Bahia: Água Preta, 1 female, 1938, Bondar col. (MZSP) (Figs 28–29). Espírito Santo: Linhares, 1 female, X.1972, P. C. Elias col. (MZSP) (Figs 24–25). Santa Catarina: Rio Vermelho (currently São Bento do Sul), 1 female, III.1962, Dirings (MZSP) (Figs 26–27).