Taxonomic revision of Montina (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Reduviidae) from Colombia with description of three new species Author Mejía-Soto, Andrés Grupo de Entomología Universidad de Antioquia (GEUA), Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia; e-mails: andres. mejias 300 @ gmail. com, martha. wolff @ udea. edu. co Author Forero, Dimitri Laboratorio de Entomología, UNESIS, Departamento de Biología, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia; and Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia (present address); e-mail: iforerof @ unal. edu. co Author Wolff, Marta Grupo de Entomología Universidad de Antioquia (GEUA), Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia; e-mails: andres. mejias 300 @ gmail. com, martha. wolff @ udea. edu. co text Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 2022 2022-12-16 62 2 325 381 http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/aemnp.2022.019 journal article 10.37520/aemnp.2022.019 1804-6487 7617332 Montina scutellaris Stål, 1859 ( Figs 19 ; 20 ; 25D ; 27D ; 29D ; 37 ; 42 ) Montina scutellaris Stål, 1859: 197 (new species). Montina scutellaris: WALKER (1873) : 91 (checklist); LETHIERRY & SEVERIN (1896): 195 (catalog); MALDONADO (1990) : 235 (catalog). Montina (Montina) scutellaris: STÂL (1872) : 74 (checklist, subgeneric placement). Type locality . Costa Rica [no exact locality]. Type material. HOLOTYPE : [ COSTA RICA ]: 1 ♀ , (green label) “Costa Rica Wagner” / “ scutellaris Stål ” / (red label) Typus / 2562 ( ZMHB ). Other specimens examined. COLOMBIA : ANTIOQUIA : 2 ♂♂, Caucasia, sector las Malvinas, Hacienda La Cacaotera; 7°58′06.05″N , 75°11′54.52″W ; 50 m ; 20 Abr 2010 ; L. Pérez leg.; [colecta] manual; CEUA 99057, CEUA 99124 ( CEUA ); 1 ♀ , same data; GEUA exped.; ( CEUA ); 1 ♂, Puerto Berrío, alto de Las Águilas, Hacienda Manaos; 6°27′10.09″N , 74°36′13.74″W ; 440 m ; 5–6 Jul 2013 ; M. Wolff leg.; jama [insect net], en bosque; CEUA 99096 ( CEUA ); 2 ♀♀ , Occidente Antioqueño; Sep 1947 ; F. Gallego leg.; MEFLG No. 6848 ( MEFLG ); 1 ♀ , Turbo; 4 m ; Sep 1947 ; F. Gallego leg.; en maleza; MEFLG No. 6848 ( MEFLG ); 1♀ , Cocorná; 1286 m ; Ago 1958 ; F.Gallego leg.; MEFLG No. 6848 ( MEFLG ); 1♂, same data; Ago 1956 ; F. Gallego leg.; MEFLG No. 6848 ( MEFLG ); 1 ♂, same data; Abr 1956 ; F. Gallego leg.; en barbecho; MEFLG No. 6848 ( MEFLG ); 3 ♀♀ , Mutatá, Villa Arteaga; 66 m ; Sep 194?; F. Gallego leg.; MEFLG No. 6848 ( MEFLG ); 1 ♀ , same data; Oct 1953 ; N. Delgado leg.; MEFLG No. 6848 ( MEFLG ); 1 ♀ , same data; 1981; Patricia V. leg.; en maleza ( CEUA ); 1 ♂, Mutatá; 50 m ; 1981; Patricia V. leg.; [colecta] manual, maleza ( CEUA ); 1 ♀ , San Luis, Reserva Cañón de Rio Claro [Reserva Natural Cañon del Río Claro, km 152 via entre Medellín y Bogotá ]; [ 05.9354°N , 74.8500°W ]; 490 m ; 4 Sep 1994 ; Zambrano,Cifuentes leg.; MPUJ _ENT0058624 ( MPUJ ); 1♀ , same data; 440 m ; 7 Sep 1994 ; Cantor, Pinedo leg. MPUJ _ENT0058633 ( MPUJ ); 1 ♂, same data; 6 Sep 1994 ; MPUJ _ENT0058622 ( MPUJ ). CHOCṒ: 1 ♀ , Acandí; E.Contreras leg.; [colecta] manual; CEUA 74950 ( CEUA ); 1♀ , Quibdó, Tutunendo; 90 m ; Nov 1983 ; F. Serna leg.; en maleza; MEFLG No. 7279 ( MEFLG ); 1 ♂, same data; R. Vélez; en maleza; MEFLG No. 7280 ( MEFLG ); 1 ♂, Quibdó,Yutó; Nov 1983 ; F. Serna leg.; en bosque; MEFLG No. 7280 ( MEFLG ); 1 ♂, Itsmina; Nov 1983 ; R. Vélez leg.; en bosque; MEFLG No. 7280 ( MEFLG ); 1 ♂ 1 ♀ , Bahía Solano, Huina, camino Playa de los Deseos; 06.2725°N , 77.4625°W ; 50 m ; 28–31 Mar 2018 ; A. Mejía leg.; jama [insect net], bosque húmedo tropical, cerca de cuerpo de agua ( CEUA ); 1 ♀ , R.[rio] San Juan; Ago 1954 ; L. Richter leg.; ICN 037558 ( ICN ); 1 ♂, same data; 2 Ago 1954 ; L. Richter leg.; ICN 037555 ( ICN ); 1 ♀ , Riosucio, cascada el Tilupo; 5 Abr 1978 ; H. Echeverri leg.; ICN 029909 ( ICN ). CṒRDOBA: 1 ♀ , Tierralta, vereda El Loro; 11 Ago 2006 ; H. G. Pertuz leg.; [colecta] manual, cultivo de yuca; MPUJ _ENT0058628 ( MPUJ ); 1 ♂, Tierralta, vereda El Silencio; 8º0′0″N , 76º09′0″W ; 700 m ; Feb 2005 ; H.G.Pertuz leg.; jama [insect net], sobre vegetación baja; MPUJ _ENT 0558629 ( MPUJ ). CUNDINAMARCA : 1 ♀ , Silvania; 4°24′21″N , 74°23′24″W ; 1470 m ; 29 Abr 1989 ; UNAB No. 4860 ( UNAB ). PUTUMAYO : 1 ♂, Puerto Leguízamo, Caucayá; 200 m ; 4 Dic 1948 ; ICN 029908 ( ICN ). SANTANDER : 1 ♀ , Landázuri; 1000 m ; 18 Nov 1938 ; L. Richter leg.; MEFLG No. 6847 ( MEFLG ); 2 ♀♀ , same data; L Richter leg.; CTNI : No. 2540 ( CTNI ); 1 ♂, Landázuri; 6°13′55″N , 73°40′39″W ; 1600 m ; 20 Jun 1996 ; A. Amado leg.; UNAB No. 4869 ( UNAB ). TOLIMA : 1 ♀ , Mariquita; 334 m ; 4 Abr 1992 ; V. Fonseca leg.; MPUJ _ENT0058623 ( MPUJ ). VALLE DEL CAUCA : 2 ♀♀ , Bolo San Isidro de Palmira, Bolo bajo; Ene 1965 ; R. Vélez leg.; MEFLG No. 6848 ( MEFLG ); 1 ♀ , Buenaventura, Bajo Calima; 70 m ; 22 Abr 1995 ; MPUJ _ENT0058621 ( MPUJ ); 1 ♀ , same data; 20 Abr 1995 ; M.E.L.Y. leg.; MPUJ _ENT 0558626 ( MPUJ ); 1 ♀ , same data; Mar1998 ; MPUJ _ENT0058630 ( MPUJ ); 1 ♀ , same data; 19 Abr 1995 ; JUF, Bottia leg.; MPUJ _ENT0058631 ( MPUJ ); 1 ♂, same data; 21 Abr 1995 ; MPUJ _ENT0058619 ( MPUJ ); 1 ♀ , same data; 23 Mar 1995 ; C. Riaño leg.; MPUJ _ENT0058620 ( MPUJ ); 1 ♀ , Buenaventura, Bajo Calima, Centro Forestal Bajo Calima; 70 m ; Abr 1995 ; C. Leg leg.; bosque secundario; MPUJ _ENT0058627 ( MPUJ ); 1♀ , same data; 18 Abr 1995 ; MPUJ _ENT0058632 ( MPUJ ); 1♂, same data; 21 Mar 1995 ; GEMA leg.; MPUJ _ENT0058618 ( MPUJ ). Fig. 19. Montina scutellaris Stål, 1859 . A – male, lateral view. B – female, dorsal view. C – female, lateral view. D – male, dorsal view. E – pronotum, female, lateral left view. F – pronotum, male, lateral left view. Scale bar: 1 mm. Fig. 20. Montina scutellaris Stål, 1859 , male genitalia.A – pygophore, dorsal view. B – pygophore, lateral right view. C – pygophore, caudal view. D – phallus, ventral view. E – phallus, lateral right view. F – phallus, dorsal view. Scale bar: 1 mm. Diagnosis. Total length, female 23.0– 24.5 mm (n = 4), male = 17.6–21.0 mm (n = 3). General coloration orange red with dark areas ( Figs 19B, D ); head, legs, and scutellum dark brown to black; pronotum orange-reddish, medial area of posterior margin of pronotum black; corium paler, basal area of corium black, membrane translucent yellow; apex of scutellum with golden setae; lateral margin of each connexival segment with a red broad marking, wider on posterior half, extending onto the posterior margin of each segment, pattern more conspicuous on dorsal laterotergites ( Figs 19A–D ); tubercle anterior pronotal lobe subconical with a rounded and curved apex; posterior pronotal lobe elevation of carina acute in males ( Fig. 19F ), truncated in females ( Fig. 19E ); connexival margin of segments 4–6 markedly lobed with a subangular structure on posterior half of each one, from which margin is oblique posteriad ( Figs 19A, C ). Variability. Montina scutellaris exhibit some intraspecific variation regarding the coloration pattern on the connexivum. Some specimens present dark red ventral laterotergites, unlike most of the examined specimens in which the coloration is paler. In Colombia , specimens from the Chocó region (on the Pacific coast) are most similar in the connexival color pattern to those from Panama (e.g., https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/59407637), having the dorsal laterotergites on the lateral margin with a broad red area extending almost obliquely posteriorly onto the posterior margin of each segment, and by having the discal area of each segment black with the anterior half densely covered with white sericeous setae. Other specimens from Colombia have the lateral margin of each dorsal laterotergite with a broad oblique red band not reaching the anterior margin and with a much larger whitish area of sericeous setae. Despite these differences, the structure of the pronotum and connexival margin is constant. In addition, in some males the total length was about 20 mm , similar in size to females, whereas in other males the total length was less than 18 mm . This total length variation was found indistinctly in specimens from the same localities. Regarding sexual dimorphism, the connexival margin of females on segments 4–6 are slightly lobed, whereas males have the segments much more lobed ( Figs 19A, C ). Differential diagnosis. Montina scutellaris is similar in coloration to M. calarca sp. nov. and M. nigripes . Montina scutellaris can be distinguished because its lighter reddish coloration with the medial area of the posterior margin of the pronotum and the basal area of the hemelytron dark, forming a dark transverse band ( Fig. 19D ), the connexival margin of segments 4–6 have subangular structures towards the apex, not completely rounded ( Figs 19A, C ), and by having the tubercles of the anterior lobe produced and subconical ( Figs 19E, F ). Montina calarca sp. nov. , on the other hand, has a darker reddish coloration with the medial posterior margin of the pronotum yellow and the basal half of the clavus darkened, not forming a transverse dark band ( Figs 5B, D ), has the margin of the connexivum rounded without strong posterior processes ( Figs 5A, C ), and has the tubercles of the anterior lobe of the pronotum much smaller ( Figs 5E, F ). Montina nigripes ( Fig. 35 ) exhibit a more reddish coloration, in contrast to the more orange one in M. scutellaris , does not have the area of the hemelytron and posterior margin of the pronotum black, and the connexival margins have a narrow pale-yellow band. In addition, M. scutellaris can also be confused with M. gladiator sp. nov. because of overall reddish coloration and the structure of the margin of the connexivum with subangular processes on the posterior half of each segment, however, M. gladiator sp. nov. has a dark red coloration including the head, and the margin of the connexival segment 6 is straight and not rounded in males ( Fig. 13 ). Distribution. Costa Rica ( STÂL 1859 ), Panama (CHAMPION 1899), and Colombia ( Antioquia , Cordoba , Chocó, Cundinamarca , Santander , Tolima , Valle del Cauca , Putumayo ), with records between 50–1500 m ( Fig. 42 ). CHAMPION (1899) recorded M. nigripes from Panamá based on 12 specimens , although this species is so far only known from Brazil ( S TÂL 1859) . The illustration provided by CHAMPION (1899) match the connexival coloration pattern of M. scutellaris , not that of M. nigripes . Therefore, we argue that those records from Panama are based on a misidentification and correspond to M. scutellaris , which is also congruent with the present known distribution. This misidentification also happened in some specimens from Colombia (MEFLG) in which they were previously identified as “ M. nigripes ” although they correspond to M. scutellaris . Remark on type. STÂL (1859) described M. scutellaris based apparently on a single female from Costa Rica deposited in “Mus. Berol” (ZMHB). We examined a female from ZMHB that matches Stål’s description and label data ( Fig. 37 ). Because we have been unable to find additional specimens, even at NHRS, that might be considered syntypes , we are considering this specimen as the holotype .