Anobrium luridum (Breuning, 1940)

Santos-Silva, Antonio, Bezark, Larry G. & ., Usa., 2022, On some species of Anobrium Belon (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Pteropliini), Faunitaxys 10 (39), pp. 1-8 : 2-4

Anobrium luridum (Breuning, 1940)

( Fig. 31-37)

Euteles lurida Breuning, 1940: 212 ;

Blackwelder, 1946: 606 (checklist);

Breuning, 1961a: 29; 1961b: 224 (cat.);

Zajciw, 1974: 70 (distr.);

Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 209 (checklist);

Monné, 1994: 65 (cat.).

Anobrium luridum

Galileo & Martins, 2002: 20;

Monné, 2005: 632 (cat.);

Monné, 2022: 1030 (cat.).

1- 6. Holotype ♂ ( MZSP49849 ). 1. Dorsal habitus. 2. Lateral habitus. 3. Oblique view of the head and pronotum. 4. Oblique view of the head and pronotum. 5. Labels. 6. Back of one of the labels.

7 -11. Paratype ♂ belongingtothe BMNH. 7. Labels. 8. Back of one of the labels. 9. Dorsalhabitus. 10. Lateral habitus. 11. Oblique view of the head and pronotum.

Remarks. – This species was described from Brazil, with no further details, based on a single specimen ( Figs 34–37).According to Breuning (1940) on his genus Euteles (currently, a junior synonym of Anobrium Belon, 1903 ) (translated): “Mesoventral process narrow, with a small median tubercle.” Galileo & Martins (2002) also mentioned the existence of a tubercle on the mesoventral process of this species, and correctly identified it. There is a second specimen identified as “type” of E. lurida at BMNH ( Figs 38–41), but this specimen is not a paratype, because the species was described based on a single specimen (Breuning 1940, 1961a). According to Breuning (1940) in the description of the antennae in Euteles (translated): “…the only specimen I have available …).” and Breuning (1961a) (translated): ( E. lurida ) Described by me based on one specimen from Brazil (British Museum).” Additionally, it does not agree with the holotype, because the white pubescent band on the pronotum is not Y-shaped on the posterior half (it is straight ( Fig. 38) from the base to apex), there is no smallsmooth area on the center of the pronotum (presentin the holotype ( Fig. 34) of E. lurida ), the distance between the upper eye lobes is narrower ( Fig. 39) than the maximumdiameter of the scape (wider than the maximum diameter of the scape ( Fig. 36) in the holotype of E. lurida ) and, more important, the elytra ( Fig. 40) have no abundant decumbent pubescence (decumbent pubescence distinctly shorter and abundant ( Fig. 37) in the holotype of E. lurida ). These differences cannot be considered as sexual dimorphism because they do not occur in other species of the genus.. There is no doubt that Stephan Breuning saw the specimen named as Euteles lurida by Dejean (1835; 1836), and this specimen isthe true holotype of the species, because that would be the only way for Breuning to recognize the genus and the species. Furthermore, according to Breuning (1940) (translated): “Scutellum as well as a narrow median longitudinal band on the pronotum, which is divided anteriorly [posteriorly], with whitish-yellow pubescence.” Therefore,as the longitudinalpubescent band on center of the pronotum is not divided in the other specimen with type label in the BMNH collection( Fig.38),it cannot be the holotype.As anadditionalproof that the specimen from the Dejean collection is the holotype of E. lurida , there is the description of the antennae in Euteles by Breuning (1961a), almost identical to that in Breuning (1940) (translated): “Antennae moderately strong, with 12 articles (doubtful indication, the type, the only known specimen having glued antennae) …” It is true that the second specimen has a label of identification identical to that of the holotype (respectively, Fig.41 and35) (handwriting byBreuning),but it is not possible to know when he added this label,therefore this specimen cannot be considered as a paratype (ICZN 1999). Regarding this information about the number of antennomeres,we believe that there is no doubt that the antennomeres IV–XI of the right antenna were glued to the apex of the antennomere IV of the leftantenna.For now, it is not possible to know the identity of the second specimen with type label in the BMNH.

It is also not possible to study the specimen(s) used by Zajciw (1974) to record A. luridum from the Brazilian state of Espírito Santo.

Material examined. – BRAZIL, Espírito Santo: Parque Sooretama, Linhares ( MZSP 49217 ), 1 ♀, XI.1967, F. M. Oliveira leg.( MZSP) .