Neoeme Gounelle, 1909

(Figures 24–42)

Neoeme Gounelle, 1909: 595; Martins et al. 1966: 217; Chemsak and Linsley 1967: 31; Gilmour 1968: 91; Martins 1978a: 46 (rev.); 1997: 37 (rev.); Monné 2005: 416 (cat.); 2012: 40 (cat.); 2023: 629 (cat.).

According to Martins (1997: 18) in the key to genera of American Oemini ( Oemina) (translated): ′3(2). Prosternal process never laminiform, wider, subparallel-sided or narrowed toward apex̍, leading to Neoeme / ′Prosternal process laminiform or absent̍. In the redescription of Neoeme he reported (translated): ′Prosternal process present, surpassing posteriorly the procoxae, somewhat widened toward the apex or sublaminiform, very narrow between the procoxae ( N. annulicornis, N. quinquelineata)̍. However, in the key to species of Neoeme, the prosternal process in N. pallida (Buquet, 1859) was reported as narrow, not laminiform, that in N. annulicornis (Buquet, 1859) as laminiform, and that in N. opaca Zajciw, 1958 as not laminiform. In fact, the prosternal process in Neoeme is variable (Figures 26–28, 31–32, 34–35, 38, 40, 42), and may or may not be laminiform with a small area of the apex expanded (sometimes slightly expanded), and may or may not surpass the posterior margins of the procoxae. Furthermore, both the prosternal process and mesoventral process are variable intraspecifically, at least in Neoeme annulicornis (Figures 26–28). It is possible that the species currently included in Neoeme, in fact, belong to more than one genus. However, it is not within the scope of this work to deal with this problem. It is important to report that we are considering the prosternal process truly laminiform when it is not widened apically.