Taxonomy of widespread Neotropical species of Podisus Herrich-Schäffer (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae: Asopinae): redescription of P. distinctus (Stål, 1860) and revalidation of P. fuscescens (Dallas, 1851) Author Brugnera, Ricardo Author Roell, Talita Author Campos, Luiz Alexandre Author Grazia, Jocelia text Zootaxa 2020 2020-03-18 4751 3 546 562 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.4751.3.7 85506694-60e1-40dc-88df-229cd4c9421d 1175-5326 3714780 CA85E4EE-87F2-434B-A581-3E37E735D5CC Podisus distinctus ( Stål, 1860 ) Telepta distincta Stål, 1860: 11 ; Thomas 1992: 90 ( Syntype male in NHRS, Figs 1–3 ). Arma distincta : Walker 1867: 137 . Arna [ sic ] submarginata Walker, 1867: 139 ; Thomas 1992: 99 NEW SYNONYMY. (removed from the synonymy with Podisus ventralis (Dallas, 1851) proposed by Thomas 1992: 99 ) ( Holotype female in NHMUK, Figs 4–6 ). Podisus ( Telepta ) distinctu s: Stål 1867: 497 ; Thomas 1992: 90 . Podisus ( Podisus ) distinctus : Stål 1870: 51 ; Thomas 1992: 90 . Podisus submarginatus : Lethierry & Severin 1893: 219 ; Thomas 1992: 99 . Apateticus ( Eupodisus ) distinctus : Schouteden 1907: 71 ; Thomas 1992: 90 . Apateticus ( Eupodisus ) submarginatus : Schouteden 1907: 72 ; Thomas 1992: 99 . Apateticus ( Podisus ) distinctus : Kirkaldy 1909: 19 . Apateticus ( Podisus ) submarginatus : Kirkaldy 1909: 21 ; Thomas 1992: 100 . Podisus distinctus : Thomas, 1992: 90 ; Aldrich 1995: 1033 , 1036–1040 ; Zanuncio et al . 1997: 483–487 ; Aldrich et al . 1997: 1–3 , 6–11; Oliveira et al . 1999: 77–80 ; Magalhães et al. 2002: 445–447 ; Dellapé et al . 2003: 8 ; Henry & Wilson 2004: 75 , 76, 79, 80; Lacerda et al . 2004: 237–241 ; Matos Neto et al . 2004: 101–107 ; Santos et al . 2004: 213 , 215–219; Torres et al . 2006: 3 ; Causton et al . 2006: 136 ; Soares et al . 2009: 30–32 ; Guedes et al . 2009: 170–175 ; Campos et al . 2009: 168 ; Araújo et al . 2011: 560–564 ; Zanuncio et al . 2011: 608–612 ; Grazia & Schwertner 2011: 713; Weiler et al . 2012: 188 ; Zanuncio et al . 2013: 39–43 ; Barbosa et al . 2012: 1–5 ; Sá et al . 2013: 282–286 ; Matesco et al . 2014: 351 , 353, 360–362, 364, 374; Abreu et al . 2015: 22–24 ; Martínez et al . 2015: 1514–1520 ; Ricalde et al . 2015: 2126 , 2127, 2129; Tavares et al . 2017: 35–39 ; Melo et al . 2017: 496 ; Brugnera et al . 2019b: 16 ; Lupoli 2019: 76 , 77, 81, 85, 87. Types examined: Telepta distincta Stål, 1860 : Syntype ♂ , labels: “ Brasil ”, “ F. Sahtt ”, “Type.”, “Typus”, “ NHRS- GULI 000067359 ” ( NHRS ) ( Figs 1–3 ). Arma submarginata Walker , 1867 : Holotype ♀ , labels: “Tejuca, Jan/1857 . H. Clark. ”, “37. Arna submarginata .”, “Type”, “Holotype”, “ NHMUK 010592336 ” ( NHMUK ) ( Figs 4–6 ) . Non-types examined: BRAZIL : Minas Gerais 2 ♂ , Carmos do Rio Claro , Carvalho leg. ( MNRJ ) ; Espírito Santo 1 ♂ , Domingos Martins , 17.X.2018 , D. S. Martins leg. ( UFES ) ; Rio de Janeiro 1 ♀ , Distrito Federal [Rio de Janeiro], Carvalho leg. ( MNRJ ) ; Tejuca [ Rio de Janeiro ], I.1857 , H. Clark leg. [ 010938846 ] ( NHMUK ) São Paulo 1 ♀ , Paranapiacaba , 25.II.1962 , L. Stowbunenko leg. ( MZUSP ) ; 1 ♂ , Salesópolis , Est. Biol. Boracéia , 21–22.X.1989 , Exc. DZUSP leg. ( MZUSP ) ; Santa Catarina 5 ♂ 3 ♀ , Araranguá , 30.IX.2009 , Bianchi, F. M. leg. ( UFRG ) ; 2 ♂ 2 ♀ , Araranguá , 24.IV.09 , Bianchi, F. M. & Perin C. leg. ( UFRG ) ; Rio Grande do Sul 8 ♀ , Maquiné , 4.VI.2011 , -29.6103 , -50.1946 , Bianchi, F. M. leg. ( UFRG ) ; 2 ♂ , Torres , P. E. Itapeva Mata Sul , 12.I.2005 , L. Moura & I. Hey- drich leg. [ 177390 , 177379 ] ( MCNZ ) . Diagnosis. Anterolateral margin of pronotum tumescent on anterior two-thirds, pale or reddish, crenulated; humeral angles directed upward and slightly backward, acute and darker at apex, with a posterior minute tooth ( Figs 1, 4 , 25, 27 ). Paramere with two branches equally long and acute at apex, inner branch without ventral sculptures, posterior margin of paramere concave ( Figs 32, 37 ); superior process of dorsal rim subrectangular, with striated dorsal sculpturing ( Fig 38 ); thecal shield and basal theca subequal in length, thecal shield wider than basal theca ( Figs 41–43 ). Capsula seminalis finger-like, longer than distal part of ductus receptaculi ; 1 + 1 secondary thickening of gonapophyses IX boomerang-like ( Figs 49–50 ). Redescription. Body dorsally brown and usually paler ventrally, with dark brown punctures ( Figs 1–2, 4–5 , 25–27 ). Head: longer than wide and densely dark brown punctured; mandibular plates and clypeus subequal in length; width of head across eyes longer than anterior width of pronotum; ocelli situated posterior to the eyes ( Fig. 27 ). First three labial segments pale brown, last segment dark brown; apex of labium reaching metacoxae; proportion of antennal segments: I<II>III>IV ( Figs 5 , 26 ). Antennae brown, IV segment usually pale yellow; proportion of antennal segments: I<II>III<IV>V ( Fig. 27 ). Thorax: anterolateral margins of pronotum tumescent on anterior two-thirds, pale or reddish and crenulated; humeral angles directed upward and slightly backward, acute and darker at apex, with a posterior tooth. Scutellum triangular, frenal portion longer than postfrenal portion, apical margin usually with a pale line. Corium longer than scutellum, reaching anterior margin of abdominal segment VI; hemelytral membrane dark brown mesially, surpassing apex of abdomen ( Figs 1, 4 , 25, 27 ). Legs usually pale yellow, sometimes with dark spots on femur. Peritreme discal-type, curved anteriorly; metapleural evaporatorium surrounding the peritreme, not reaching the lateral margin of pleuron; mesopleural evaporatorium reaching the lateral margin of pleuron. Abdomen: connexival segments dark with pale spots medially; apex of connexival segments projected posteriorly. Abdominal tubercle reaching the posterior margin of metacoxae; females usually with a row of dark brown spots in the middle of urosternites IV-VII ( Figs 2, 5 , 26 ). Male genitalia: pygophore cup-like; anterior opening subtriangular; dorsal rim concave and projected medially in dorsal view; superior layer of ventral rim sinuous in ventral view; inferior layer of ventral rim concave; paramere with two branches equally long and acute at apex, inner branch without ventral sculpturing, posterior margin of paramere concave; superior processes of dorsal rim subrectangular, with striated dorsal sculptures ( Figs 31–33, 37–38 ). Phallus with thecal shield and basal theca subequal in length, thecal shield wider than basal theca; apex of 1+1 lobes of conjunctiva slightly sclerotized; vesica with 1+1 lateral flaps; ductus seminis distalis located between the flaps of vesica, posteriorly directed, ending on a secondary gonopore ( Figs 41–43 ). Female genitalia: gonocoxites VIII as long as wide, sutural margins parallel and juxtaposed, posterior margins sinuous; laterotergites VIII trapezoidal; gonocoxites IX rectangular, posterior margin slightly convex, lateral margins over the laterotergites IX; laterotergites IX longer than wide, obtuse apically, surpassing the segment X, reaching the posterior margin of laterotergites VIII; segment X subrectangular ( Figs 47–48 ). Internal genitalia with Capsula seminalis finger-like, longer than distal part of ductus receptaculi ; posterior annular flange located above the base of capsula seminalis ; posterior region of distal part of ductus receptaculi dilated; proximal part of ductus receptaculi twice longer than vesicular area; ring sclerites circular; 1+1 secondary thickening of gonapophyses IX boomerang-like; thickening of vaginal intima with anterior region somewhat conical and posterior region cylindrical. ( Figs 48–50 ). Measurements. Males: (n = 8). Head length: 1.73 ± 0.07 (1.65–1.85), width: 1.96 ± 0.08 (1.82–2.04); pronotum length: 2.20 ± 0.10 (2.04–2.30), width: 6.13 ± 0.29 (5.54–6.40); scutellum length: 3.12 ± 0.15 (2.89–3.40), width: 2.83 ± 0.10 (2.72–3.00); length of antennal segments: I 0.27 ± 0.04 (0.18–0.30), II 1.40 ± 0.07 (1.28–1.50), III 0.92 ± 0.09 (0.80–1.10), IV 1.23 ± 0.09 (1.10–1.30); V 1.18 ± 0.05 (1.12–1.24); length of labial segments: I 0.95 ± 0.04 (0.86–0.98), II 1.21 ± 0.05 (1.14–1.30), III 0.93 ± 0.02 (0.90–0.96), IV 0.82 ± 0.06 (0.72–0.92); length of abdomen: 4.15 ± 0.18 (3.90–4.41), width: 4.33 ± 0.19 (4.09–4.59); total length: 9.45 ± 0.31 (9.00–9.90). Females: (n = 9). Head length: 1.97 ± 0.12 (1.75–2.14), width: 2.15 ± 0.13 (1.87–2.36); pronotum length: 2.50 ± 0.20 (2.12–2.75), width: 7.03 ± 0.46 (6.11–7.76); scutellum length: 3.68 ± 0.40 (3.15–4.40), width: 3.29 ± 0.24 (2.90–3.75); length of antennal segments: I 0.30 ± 0.04 (0.22–0.34), II 1.64 ± 0.18 (1.44–2.00), III 0.99 ± 0.12 (0.80–1.16), IV 1.41 ± 0.13 (1.24–1.62); V 1.17 ± 0.07 (1.08–1.25); length of labial segments: I 1.01 ± 0.05 (0.94–1.10), II 1.37 ± 0.10 (1.20–1.50), III 1.04 ± 0.06 (0.90–1.12), IV 0.90 ± 0.05 (0.82–0.95); length of abdomen: 5.14 ± 0.27 (4.60–5.52), width: 5.25 ± 0.40 (4.60–5.85); total length: 10.55 ± 0.72 (9.20–11.68). Distribution. Brazil ( Minas Gerais , Espírito Santo , Rio de Janeiro , São Paulo , Santa Catarina , Rio Grande do Sul ) ( Fig. 56 ). Comments. Thomas (1992) considered Arma submarginata Walker, 1867 (= Podisus distinctus Stål , this work) ( Figs 4–6 ) a synonym of Arma ventralis Dallas, 1851 (currently Podisus ventralis (Dallas)) . We examined the type of Arma ventralis ( Figs 19–21 , female, deposited in NHMUK) and concluded they are not synonyms; Arma submarginata is actually a synonym of P. distinctus , here redescribed. Podisus distinctus and P. ventralis can be differentiated by: the anterolateral margins of pronotum more tumescent in P. distinctus ; the anterior half of the posterior margin of gonocoxites VIII strongly concave in P. ventralis and sinuous in P. distinctus ; the branches of the parameres shorter and with rounded apex in P. ventralis (see Thomas, 1992 : Fig. 96), and longer with acute apex in P. distinctus ( Fig. 37 ). The tumescent anterolateral pronotal margins of P. distinctus are similar to the species of the congrex group proposed by Thomas (1992) , who characterized it by the “pronotal margin inflated, rugulose”. Due to the lack of a phylogenetic hypothesis for the Podisus species, the possible relatedness of P. distinctus with species of the congrex group is yet unclear.