A new synonymy in Neoptychodes (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae) and notes on Neoptychodes cosmeticus with a revised key to species of the genus

ABSTRACT Neoptychodes hondurae trivittatus (Taschenberg, 1870) is synonymized with N. hondurae (White, 1858). The holotype of the former is illustrated for the first time. The identity of the holotype of N. cosmeticus Martins & Galileo, 1996 is commented. All species of Neoptychodes Dillon & Dillon, 1941 are illustrated and a key to species of the genus is provided.

In this work, a key to the species of Neoptychodes and a synonymy are proposed and the identity of the holotype of N. cosmeticus is discussed.Additionally, all the species currently know in the genus are illustrated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS
Except when indicated, photographs were taken at MZSP (see below) with a Canon EOS Rebel T3i DSLR camera, Canon MP-E 65 mm f/2.8 1-5X macro lens, controlled by Zerene Stacker AutoMontage software.Measurements were taken in ''mm'' using an ocular Hensoldt/Wetzlar -Mess 10 in the Leica MZ6 stereomicroscope, which was also used in the study of the specimens.
The references on the known species are restricted to the original description and the catalog by Monné (2023).

Neoptychodes hondurae (White, 1858)
(Figs Remarks.White (1858) described Ptychodes hondurae (Figs 11,12) based on a single specimen from Honduras.Later, Taschenberg (1870) described Taeniotes trivittatus (Figs 1-4) based on a single male from Ecuador. Bates (1880) synonymized T. trivittatus with P. hondurae, and reported the species from Mexico (Oaxaca), Honduras, Panama, Colombia, and Ecuador; Bates (1885) added Guatemala as a country where the species occurs.According to him on T. hondurae trivittatus (translated): "The light longitudinal median band on the vertex and pronotum wider; the sutural band of the elytra wider, but dissolved in a quantity of isolated spots; the lateral pubescent band less regular, widened in places; the anterior border of the forehead and the genae as well as a macula on the sides of the prosternum also covered with light pubescence".Examining photographs of the holotype of T. trivittatus (Figs 1-4), it is possible to see that some information by Breuning (1943) is not true: the longitudinal pubescent band on the vertex and on the pronotum are distinctly narrower than in the holotype of P. hondurae (Figs 11,12).However, this is a variable feature in Neoptychodes hondurae; therefore, cannot be used as a differential feature.In the same way, the lateral pubescent band on the elytra is very similar in the holotypes of both species.However, this is another variable characteristic in N. hondurae, and also cannot be used to separate the two forms of the species.It is true that the sutural pubescent band on the elytra is somewhat wider and is not complete in the holotype of T. trivittatus.However, it is just a variation and not due to loss of part of the pubescence, as suggested by Taschenberg (1870) (translated): "… and those at the suture are completely interrupted in places, but decided only by rubbing, as the irregularity proves".The width and length of the elytral pubescent band along elytral suture is very variable in N. trilineatus (Linnaeus, 1771) (Figs 18-23).Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that it is not also variable in N. hondurae.In fact, specimens with the sutural pubescent band of the elytra as in the holotype of T. trivittatus are much more common than those with this pubescence as in the holotype of P. hondurae.Breuning (1961) listed Taschenberg's species as Neoptychodes hondurae ssp.trivittatus, status maintained until today in catalogs and checklists (Tavakilian & Chevillotte, 2022;Bezark, 2023;Monné, 2023).
Comparing photographs of the holotypes of P. hondurae and P. trivittatus, we were not able to find a reliable difference.Furthermore, we examined a specimen from Honduras (Fig. 8), agreeing with the holotype of P.
trivittatus, what reinforce that it is just a variation of the species.We have seen photographs of some specimens of N. candidus (Bates, 1885) identified as N. hondurae.This makes the identification of these species very problematic and suggests that the geographical distribution of the two, indicated in the catalogs and checklists, is doubtful.
Therefore, we believe that the key needs to be adjusted to separate these two species, and also include N. cosmeticus Martins & Galileo, 1996:

Key to the species of Neoptychodes
Remarks.According to Martins & Galileo (1996) The specimen photographed by Steven W. Lingafelter (Fig. 6) at MNRJ and labeled as holotype, which was destroyed by fire, is a male, and not a female and does not agree with the photograph of the holotype in the original description (Fig. 7).The paratype "male" photographed by Steven W. Lingafelter (Figs 13-17) at MZSP is a female, and has the correct label of the holotype locality as indicated in the original description (Fig. 17) ("COLÔMBIA, Valle del Cauca: Cali").Without a doubt, the paratype male (destroyed in fire) that belonged to the MZSP was wrongly sent to the MNRJ and, probably, had a holotype label; the holotype female that belonged to the MNRJ remained at MZSP and has a paratype label.To complicate matters, the photograph in the original description (Fig. 7), indicated as being of the holotype, is actually of the female paratype deposited in the CMNC.There is no doubt about this because the female holotype, as per the original description, was the only specimen of that sex in the type series from Colombia, and this specimen is in the MZSP and does not agree with the photograph in the original description.