Pintalia minima Santos, 2025
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5678.1.1 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A9F16C3C-8B88-4713-A3A3-EEBC37EBC72A |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16985608 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0B2E630B-8879-C05C-8AE0-03F7FB95FC20 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Pintalia minima Santos |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Pintalia minima Santos sp. nov.
https://zoobank.org/ urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:353DB61B-3B06-4AA5-A5C4-CA8259CB29FA
( Figs. 20 A–F View FIGURE 20 ; 21 A–G View FIGURE 21 ; 22 A–H View FIGURE 22 ; 23 A–D View FIGURE 23 ; 24 View FIGURE 24 )
Type material. Holotype: Male Brazil, MG. Igarapé municipality, SAZ-0001- Cave, ( UTM 575027 W, 7776185S, 23K), 24.vii.2018, (Alves, J.P) ( ISLA 100947 ) . Holotype condition: not dissected, stored individually in a vial with ethanol 70%. Paratypes. Same data as male holotype, except for 1♀ ( ISLA 100948 ), 1♂ (dissected), 1♀ and 5 nymphs ( ISLA 100949 ) .
Additional material examined. Brazil, MG: São Joaquim de Bicas , municipality, 2♂ 11-cave, and 1 nymph ( UTM 575687 W, 7776492S, 23K), 16.i.2018, (Alves, J.P) ( ISLA 100950 ); 1♀ 13-Cave, ( UTM 575602 W, 7776349S, 23K), 16.i.2018, (Alves, J.P) ( ISLA 100951 ); 1♀ 16-Cave, ( UTM 575654 W, 7776271S, 23K), 15.i.2018, (Alves, J.P) ( ISLA 100952 ); 2♀ 1♂ and 2 nymphs, 22-Cave ( UTM, 575821W, 7776137S, 23K), 17.i.2018, (Alves, J.P) ( ISLA 100953 ); Doresopólis municipality, 1♂ 34-Cave, ( UTM 410938 W, 7750122S, 23K) 24.i.2019, ( ISLA 100954 ). Conceição do Mato dentro municipality, 1♂, css-009 cave, ( UTM 667151 W, 7905478S, 23K), 20-29.xi.2018, (Carste et. al) ( ISLA 100955 ); 1♂ , SERP _0126 cave ( UTM 762010 W, 7888377S, 23K), 23.xi.2013 (Spelayon et al.) ( ISLA 100956 ) .
Description. Coloration (specimen preserved in 70% ethanol). As in P. minuta sp. nov. except for pterostigma region and apical margin of the tegmina is clearer in pale orange yellow (73).
Body length. Male. 2.9 (n = 2); Female. 4.0–4.5 (n = 2).
Head. Vertex ( Fig. 20A, C View FIGURE 20 ): approximately 3.0 times wider (0.3) than long (0.1); apical compartment small and laterally narrow, approx. 2.2 times wider (0.2) than medially long (0.09); apical transverse carina (0.286) weakly larger than the subapical carina (0.251); angle formed by the caudal margin well concave and irregular. Frons ( Fig. 20B View FIGURE 20 ): 1.4 times longer (0.7) than wide (0.5), approx. 2.5 times wider medially than apically (0.2); anterior region of the frons moderately large laterally and weakly concave apically. Frontoclypeal suture semicircular convex, weakly straight laterally. Postclypeus ( Fig. 20B View FIGURE 20 ): median carina moderately developed, slightly wider than the base of the anteclypeus; Anteclypeus ( Fig. 20B View FIGURE 20 ): median carina moderately developed. Rostrum reaching or surpassing the middle of the abdomen.
Thorax. Pronotum ( Figs. 20A–B View FIGURE 20 ): submedian carinae weakly developed; hind margin asymmetrical, obtusely angled, or little rectangular. Mesonotum ( Fig. 20A View FIGURE 20 ): median carina weakly developed and evanescent distally; lateral carinae well developed. Tegmina (forewings) ( Fig. 20D View FIGURE 20 ): length 4.3 mm; hyaline with light gray spots, as in P. minuta sp. nov.; fork of ScP+RA and RP, moderately ahead of forks CuA1 and CuA2; r-m1 and mcu-1 very close, proximally of the first MP fork; simple tubercles in all veins; usually with punctual anastomosis in RP2.2+RP2.3; 12 apical cells rarely 9; 7 subapical cells rarely 8.
Posterior legs. Hind tibia ( Fig. 20E View FIGURE 20 ): approximately 1.9 mm; with 7 lateral spines, the 2 closest to the femur being small. 1 st tarsomere ( Fig. 20F View FIGURE 20 ): 7 apical teeth of approx. the same size, one larger laterally. 2 nd tarsomere ( Fig. 20F View FIGURE 20 ): 5-8 apical teeth (asymmetric in some specimens), the outer 2 larger and the middle ones smaller; 3 thin setae, one seta, separated by apical teeth without seta.
Male terminalia. Pygofer ( Figs. 21A–C, G View FIGURE 21 ): bilaterally asymmetric; in right lateral view, dorsocaudal margin angulated medially; dorsal margin concave; caudal margin convex; in left lateral view, dorsal and caudal margin completely linear, without angular process medially; in ventral view, ventromedian process triangular, slightly crooked/inclined to right lateral. Anal tube ( Figs. 21A–C View FIGURE 21 ; 22A–B View FIGURE 22 ): bilaterally asymmetric; in dorsal view oblique, tilted to the right laterally and rounded medially; in lateral view, dorsal margin with two convexities, and one concavity apically; ventral margin weakly curved; in dorsal view, wider at the distal margin than at the base; epiproct in lateral view, flat dorsoventrally, in dorsal view slightly triangular with lateral margin weakly rounded; paraproct long and asymmetrical, flattened dorsoventrally, approx. 3.0 times larger than epiproct. Genital styles ( Figs. 21A–C, G View FIGURE 21 ; 22C–E View FIGURE 22 ): bilaterally asymmetric; right genital style in right lateral view wider and rounded, left genital style in left lateral view elongated laterally. Aedeagus ( Figs. 21D–F View FIGURE 21 ; 22F–H View FIGURE 22 ): tubular, asymmetrical. Shaft of the aedeagus with three movable spines; in right lateral view with two spines, 1 st spine bifid and elongated (a), with bifurcation moderately near the base; 2 nd spine moderately elongated and curved (b), occurs apically on the shaft, not reaching the middle of the flagellum; in left lateral view, 3 rd spine elongated and slightly curved (c), occurs near the apex of the shaft and surpassing the middle of the shaft; ventral ridge developed in right lateral on the shaft, with small rigid process dorsally. Flagellum, thin and without spines.
Female terminalia ( Figs. 23A–C View FIGURE 23 ). As in P. minuta sp. nov.
Etymology. The specific epithet minima come from the Latin minimum and means the smallest of all and refers to the reduced size of males of P. minima sp. nov., the smallest among its congeners described here.
Diagnosis. P. minima sp. nov. can be distinguished from other species of the genus Pintalia by the spines of the aedeagus exhibiting the fork of bifid spine moderately distant to the base, and with the spine “b” moderately elongated and curved, and in left lateral with a single spine occurs on the apex of the shaft elongated surpassing the middle of the shaft.
Distribution. BRA, MG; Igarapé municipality, SAZ-0001 cave, (Type locality).
Remarks. Specimens from additional material examined are very similar to the type-series, however with some differences. In 11-cave the male specimens are smaller, approx. 2.7 mm, tegmina’s exhibit complete anastomosis in RA+RP1, and sometimes between RP4+Cua1; the aedeagus are like the type-series but much smaller. In cave 22 the male individual found as in the type-series. In 34-cave the male specimen displays approx. 3.7 mm and the left lateral spine (c) large and robust facing the dorsal region of the aedeagus, and the bifid spine (a) exhibits the bifurcation moderately distant from the base. Individual females were found in caves 13 and 16, not associated with males but very similar to females of the type series. Two other specimens from two caves were removed from the material examined, as they exhibited a moderately distinct aedeagus. The two specimens were found in Conceição do Mato Dentro municipally and the individual collected in css-009 cave exhibits on the right side of the aedeagal stem a spine moderately elongated and straight (b), and on the left side (c) a spine moderately small and curved, not surpassing the middle of the aedeagal shaft; and the individual found in Serp_0126 cave, exhibits the spines (b) (c) small and straight, and the bifid spine (a) with the bifurcation very close to the base. Although these variations can be interpreted as troglomorphisms in more specific cases and with more information, here, the number of samples per cavity is very small, which makes larger taxonomic advances for this species difficult. Here we propose that this species can be interpreted as eutroglophilic ( Sket 2008), as it presents populations in different caves with different stages of redcuction of tegmina and body length. This classification, however, is tentative as we lack information on the biology and ecology of the species, on which Sket´s (2008) criteria are based.
| MG |
Museum of Zoology |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.