The incredible biodiversity of American Lamiinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) description of four new species, synonymy, and taxonomical notes Author Santos-Silva, Antonio Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Author Monné, Miguel A. 0000-0001-8825-3122 Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Quinta da Boa Vista, São Cristóvão, 20940.040, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. monne @ uol. com. br; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0001 - 8825 - 3122 monne@uol.com.br text Zootaxa 2023 2023-02-20 5244 3 244 260 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5244.3.3 journal article 58772 10.11646/zootaxa.5244.3.3 3a2ab5b9-fb66-4c1f-802e-cf519c36f6b8 1175-5326 7656289 73D7B5AC-32F8-4C7D-85CD-960816BB22EA ACANTHOCININI Blanchard, 1845 On Pseudolepturges Gilmour, 1957 and Urgleptes Dillon, 1956 Remarks. Gilmour (1957) described Pseudolepturges to include Lepturges rufulus Bates, 1885 . According to him: “Allied to the genus Lepturges Bates , but differing conspicuously by the parallel sided prothorax, in the strongly posteriorly convex elytra and the very small eyes.” In the original description, Gilmour (1957) did not inform whether the rows of coarse punctures on posterior region of the pronotum continues or not to the sides of the prothorax. Monné & Monné (2007) reported that the row of coarse punctures on the pronotum is interrupted. However, it is clearly not interrupted in the type species of the genus, not interrupted in P. triplarinus Nascimento & Perger, 2018 and, apparently, not interrupted in P. caesius Monné & Monné, 2007 . This feature alone makes it possible to separate Lepturges from Pseudolepturges , since in Lepturges , the row of coarse punctures does not continue toward the sides of the prothorax. However, it does not allow separating Pseudolepturges from Urgleptes Dillon, 1956 . It is understandable that Gilmour (1957) did not make a comparison with Urgleptes because, although it was published in 1957, the work was prepared in 1955 (or earlier), as that year appears in the publication in which Pseudolepturges was described. The other feature pointed out by Gilmour (1957) , the eye size, is very variable in Urgleptes and, since the description of P. triplarinus , also variable in Pseudolepturges . The length of the lower eye lobes is very variable in the species currently included in Urgleptes , and are much longer than the gena or distinctly shorter, as for example, in U. signatus (LeConte, 1852) . In the same way, the size of the upper eye lobes as well as the distance between them are very variable in Urgleptes : from somewhat wide and about as distant from each other as the width of one upper lobe ( e.g. U. physoderus (Bates, 1885)) to slender and more distant from each other than four times the width of one upper lobe ( e.g. U. duffyi Gilmour, 1961 ). The prothoracic shape in Urgleptes is also very variable and seem very similar to that in Pseudolepturges , as for example in U. multinotatus (Bates, 1881) . The shape of the elytra, “strongly posteriorly convex elytra,” is another variable feature in the species currently included in Urgleptes , and may be very similar to that in Pseudolepturges , especially in P. rufulus and P. caesius ( e.g. U. bruchi (Melzer, 1932)) . As the antennal length may be a distinctive feature (antennae proportionally shorter in Pseudolepturges , especially in males), we are keeping Urgleptes as different from Pseudolepturges , at least until a complete revision of Urgleptes is done.