Phoebemima Tippmann 1960

Phoebemima Tippmann, 1960

Phoebemima Tippmann, 1960: 205; Monné, 1995: 36 (cat.); Martins & Galileo, 1998: 53 (syn.); Monné, 2005: 496 (cat.); Monné, 2012: 105 (cat.); Martins & Galileo, 2014a: 207 (key); Monné, 2017: 436 (cat.). Tacocha Lane, 1970: 399; Monné, 1995: 37 (cat.); Martins & Galileo, 1993: 111; Galileo & Martins, 1996: 233 (rev.).

According to Martins & Galileo (1996), Aerenicini differs from Hemilophini by the eyes coarsely faceted (finely in Hemilophini), and lower eye lobes much longer than gena (at most, slightly longer than gena in Hemilophini). Also according to them, Lacordaire separated these tribes based on head: retractile in Hemilophini, not retractile in Aerenicini. We agree that these separation proposed by Lacordaire is not good and, not rare, entirely false. Galileo & Martins (1996) reported that Tacocha Lane, 1970 (described in Hemilophini) (= Phoebemima Tippmann, 1960, described in Hemilophini) differs from the other genera of Hemilophini without humeral carina by the lower eye lobes larger than gena and distance between upper eye lobes equal to width a upper lobe [this is not true, since the distance between upper eye lobes in Phoebemima can be notably wider than a lobe as, for example, in P. ensifera Tippmann, 1960 – type species of the genus]. Also according to them, by this set of features, Tacocha resembles Melzaerenica Lane, 1976 (Aerenicini). However, the authors did not report why Tacocha was Hemilophini and not Aerenicini. Comparing the shape of lower eye lobes and also the shape of the ommatidia, it is not possible to understand the placement of Phoebemima in Hemilophini, since the eyes are not finely faceted and the lower eye lobes are much longer than gena. According to Martins & Galileo (2014a), when defining Hemilophini (translated): “The eyes are finely faceted in nearly all species. In some species (for example, Phoebe) the ommatidia are coarser.” All these problems make the differentiation between Aerenicini and Hemilophini practically impossible, which suggests that they are a single tribe. However, for the time being, it is much more coherent to transfer Phoebemima to Aerenicini than maintain it in Hemilophini, following the concept of Martins & Galileo (1996).