A review of the species of Belostoma Latreille, 1807 (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Belostomatidae) from the four southeastern Brazilian states
Author
Ribeiro, Josė Ricardo Inacio
text
Zootaxa
2007
2007-05-17
1477
1
1
70
journal article
10.11646/zootaxa.1477.1.1
11755334
5086432
40401BCD-C731-44C4-9E01-A96FB3F8DF51
Belostoma elongatum
Montandon, 1908
(
Figs 7M–P
;
19A
;
23B
)
Belostoma elongatum
Montandon
apud
Lauck, 1962: 299
.
Belostoma boscii
:
De Carlo, 1930: 112
, plate V (
Fig. 11
), plate VII (Figs 27–28).
Types.—According to
Lauck (1962)
and
Schnack (1976)
,
B. elongatum
was described based on
syntypes
(
Asunción
and Apa River,
Paraguay
) deposited, respectively, in HNHM and MIZT. These specimens have not been examined.
Material examined.—
ARGENTINA
.
1 m
/ 1 f (
HMHN
):
Chaco
,
Resistencia
–“nr. P-B 313”, “Hungariin Soil-zool. Exp.”,
23.XII.1965
, ([?]
Mahunka
), J.
R
.
I. Ribeiro
det.
1999. *1 f (
MZSP
):
Salta
,
Tartagal
,
XII.1961
, (
A. Martinez
), J.
R
.
I. Ribeiro
det.
1999.
BRAZIL
.
Mato Grosso
—
3 m
(
MNRJ 96
):
Cáceres
,
02.XII.1955
, (
M. Alvarenga
),
J. A. de Carlo
det.
*
1 m
(
MNRJ 95
): same,
I.1941
, (“
Pass’i
” [?]),
J. A. de Carlo
det.
1 m
(
DPIC 3221
):
Cuiabá
,
Coxipó
,
12.X.1988
, (
U. M. Bezerra
),
A. L. Melo
det.
*
2 m
/ 3 f (
MNRJ 93
):
Urucum
,
I.1955
, (“
Comissão I. O. Cruz
”),
J. A. de Carlo
det.
Mato Grosso do Sul
—
*
1 m
(
DPIC 567
):
Corumbá
,
17.XI.1992
, (
Fabiana
[?] and
T
.
P. S. Sereno
), J.
R
.
I. Ribeiro
det.
1999. 5 m
/ 5 f (
MNRJ 90
):
Salobra
,
I.1955
, (“
Comissão I. O. Cruz
”),
J. A. de Carlo
det.
*
2 f (
SEMC
): same,
I.1955
, (C. A.
Camargo
[this specimen has been exchanged with
P. F. S. Pereira
]), J.
R
.
I. Ribeiro
det.
1999.
Minas Gerais
—
*1 f (
DPIC 419
):
Belo Horizonte
,
Pampulha Lake
,
16.XII.1991
, (
A. L. Melo
),
N. Nieser
det.
1 f (
DPIC 201
):
Lagoa Santa
,
10.III.1990
, (
A. Pelli
),
A. L. Melo
det.
Piauí
—
1 f (
MNRJ 94
):
Teresina
,
I.1960
, (
O. Fontoura
and
C. S. Ferreira
), J.
R
.
I. Ribeiro
det.
1999.
Rondônia
—
*1 f (
MZSP
):
Príncipe da Beira
,
19.XI–03.XII.1967
, (G.
R
.
Kloss
), J.
R
.
I. Ribeiro
det.
1999.
PARAGUAY
. *
1 m
(
MZSP
):
Puerto Casado
,
XII.1958
, ([?]
Martinez
), J.
R
.
I. Ribeiro
det.
1999.
Distribution.—
ARGENTINA
:
Buenos Aires
(
De Carlo 1930
),
Catamarca
(
De Carlo 1930
),
Chaco
(
De Carlo 1930
),
Corrientes
(
De Carlo 1930
),
Entre Ríos
(
De Carlo 1930
),
Mendoza
(
Lauck 1962
), Misiones (
Lauck 1962
),
Salta
(new record),
Santa Fe
(
Lauck 1962
),
Santiago del Estero
(
Lauck 1962
).
BOLIVIA
: Roboré (
Lauck 1962
),
Santa Cruz
(
Lauck 1962
),
Pando
(
Lauck 1962
) [as “Chiquitos”].
BRAZIL
:
Mato Grosso
(new record),
Mato Grosso do Sul
(new record),
Minas Gerais
(new record in southeastern Brazil),
Piauí
(new record),
Rio Grande do Sul
(
Lanzer 1976
),
Rondônia
(new record).
COLOMBIA
(
De Carlo 1930
).
COSTA RICA
(
De Carlo 1930
).
CUBA
(
De Carlo 1930
).
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
:
Santo Domingo
(
De Carlo 1930
).
GUATEMALA
(
De Carlo 1930
). GUYANAS [?] (
De Carlo 1930
).
MÉXICO
(
De Carlo 1930
).
PANAMA
(
De Carlo 1930
).
PARAGUAY
:
Asunción
(
De Carlo 1930
), Central (
Lauck 1962
),
Guairá
(
Lauck
1962), Paraguari (
Lauck 1962
), Puerto Casado (new record).
PERU
:
Junín
(
Lauck 1962
).
URUGUAY
(
De Carlo 1930
):
Artigas
(
Ruffinelli & Pirán 1959
),
Canelones
(
Ruffinelli & Pirán 1959
),
Montevideo
(
Ruffinelli & Pirán 1959
),
Rivera
(
Ruffinelli & Pirán 1959
), Sierra de Mahoma (
Lauck 1962
) [as “
San José
”],
Treinta y Tres
(
Ruffinelli & Pirán 1959
).
Description.—Measurements (m / f). Total length (from apex of head to apex of hemelytra at rest) 33.3– 38.4 / 36.7–40.9; largest width of body 13.8–15.3 / 14.4–15.5; median length of pronotum 5.86–6.86 / 6.14– 6.79; greatest pronotal width 10.29–11.57 / 10.71–11.86.
General coloration yellowish brown. Anterior portion of pronotum usually with two dark longitudinal stripes, each parallel to lateral borders.
Body elongate and strongly straight. Length of anteoculus 1.03–1.37 times length of interoculus; length of rostral segment I 1.11–1.41 times length of segment II; anterior frontogenal suture usually longer than posterior frontogenal suture; clypeus not reaching ocular line (
0.14–0.43 mm
); vertex without ongitudinal median carina; posterior interocular width 1.00–1.17 times length of anteoculus, and 1.11–1.57 times width of eye; eyes rounded. Posterior part of pronotum occasionally with longitudinal median carina; greatest pronotal width 1.69–1.81 times its length; scutellum reaching nodal line, occasionally with weakly longitudinal median carina; prosternal keel prominent, somewhat rounded at apex (
Fig. 7M
). Pilosity not extending along genital operculum, usually covering about half of connexivum.
Male genitalia (
Fig. 7N–P
).—Dorsal arms anteriorly broad, narrowing gradually toward apex in dorsal view; ventral diverticulum with dorsal caudal protuberance in dorsal and lateral views, and with developed ventroapical protuberance in lateral and ventral views; caudal lateral margins of ventral diverticulum sinuous in ventral view; width of ventral diverticulum about 1.3 times its length in ventral view.
Comparative notes.—As defined by
De Carlo (1930
,
1938
) and
Schnack (1976)
, in
B. elongatum
the anteoculus and interoculus are subequal. As argued by
Lauck (1962)
, and based on results herein reported, these structures may be subequal in some specimens, but this may be the result of imprecise measurements (A. L. Melo, pers. comm.). Thus, this character cannot be considered diagnostic for this species. As mentioned by
Lauck (1962)
, it would appear that this is a species complex.
The specimens studied by
Lauck (1962)
and
Schnack (1973
,
1976
) agree with the specimens studied here, which possess the greatest pronotal width less than twice its length in the midline. According to
De Carlo (1938)
,
B. elongatum
has, by contrast, the greatest pronotal width twice its median length (as herein mentioned in the key to
B. plebejum
,
B. micantulum
, and
B. orbiculatum
), but these measures are suspect, because they appear to be erroneous.
The history of this species is closely linked with that of
B. foveolatum
. According to
Schnack (1976)
,
B. foveolatum
differs from
B. elongatum
by lacking the two dark longitudinal pronotal stripes. Yet
B. elongatum
specimens studied by
De Carlo (1930
,
1938
) bear two dark longitudinal stripes on the pronotum. However, this structural difference cited by these authors between
B. elongatum
and
B. foveolatum
is slight and well within the range of variability found intraspecifically in other species of
Belostoma
.