Comparative morphological study of the Neotropical Cleomenini genera and their transference to the tribes Rhopalophorini Blanchard and Rhinotragini Thomson (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Cerambycinae)

Abstract

ABSTRACT. In order to investigate the affinities of the hitherto considered Neotropical Cleomenini genera, a detailed morphological comparative study was carried out based on representatives of their type species and other congeneric species. The results, when compared with representatives of Cleomenes Thomson and other non Neotropical Cleomenini genera together with representatives of Rhopalophorini Blanchard and Rhinotragini Thomson, show that: 1) Listroptera Audinet-Serville, 1834, Dihammaphora Chevrolat, 1859, Haenkea Tippmann, 1953, Aguassay Napp & Mermudes, 2001 and Timabiara Napp & Mermudes, 2001 form a very homogeneous group, not related to other Cleomenini, but sharing several synapomorphies with the Rhopalophorini; therefore they are herein transferred to this tribe; 2) the affinities of Dihammaphoroides Zajciw, 1967, were not clearly defined, needing further investigations; nevertheless, the genus is tentatively included in Rhopalophorini due to its morphological similarity with Dihammaphora and allied genera; 3) Pandrosos Bates, 1867 is brought back to Rhinotragini, in which it was originally placed. Therefore, the tribe Cleomenini Lacordaire is no longer represented in the New World.

Differences in genitalia structure and function between subfamilies of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)

“…We know only few tribes of Cerambycinae (Hyboderini, Molorchini, Obriini, Rhopalophorini and Stenopterini) containing at least one species with undivided parameres (own observations and Fragoso 1985a;Mermudes and Napp 2004). Promising characters other than the length of the divided part, are paramere width, shape (divergent, convergent or parallel), and number and position of setae.…”

Catalogue of family-group names in Cerambycidae (Coleoptera)

“…Dryobiini Gistel, 1856 has not been used as valid after 1899 to our knowledge. Usage of Gistel's name would threaten Dryobiini Arnett, which has been used as the valid name for this cerambycid group in the following 25 publications, published by more than ten authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of more than ten years: Linsley (1964), Perry et al (1974), Chemsak and Linsley (1982), Arnett (1985Arnett ( , 2000, Chemsak et al (1992), MacRae (1993), Monné (1993c), Chemsak and Noguera (1993), Monné and Giesbert (1995), Yanega (1996), Noguera and Chemsak (1996), Terrόn (1997), Schiefer (1998), Monné (2001), Noguera et al (2002), Turnbow and Thomas (2002), Toledo et al (2002), Marques and Napp (2003), Mermudes and Napp (2004), Monné (2005b), López-Pérez (2005), Monné and Hovore (2006), Lingafelter (2007), Özdikmen et al (2009). (Aurivillius 1912: 114).…”

Casey’s conundrum, a review of the genus <i>Semanotus</i> Mulsant (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae: Callidiini) in North America

“…In females tergite and sternite V are subequal in length forming a cylinder, so that the internal genitalia exits the segment posteriorly. Terminology for genitalia is taken from Villiers (1978), Mermudes and Napp (2004) and Hammond and Williams (2011).…”