Ecitonides spectabilis Borgmeier 1932

Ecitonides spectabilis Borgmeier, 1932 Figs 4, 9 C, J, 10 B, 12 B, E Ecitonides spectabilis Borgmeier 1932: 398. Borgmeier 1949: 124 (notes). Type locality. Brazil • Goiás: Goiânia (Setor Campinas), 16°39'38"S, 49°17'3"W, 26 Apr. 1929, Schwarzmaier leg. Type specimens examined. Lectotype (MZSP, present designation) female, dry pinned. Original labels: “ Lectótipo, Ecitonides spectabilis Borgmeier, 1932, designated by Montanhini, Żyła and Biffi, 2025 ” // “ Typus ” // Goyas, Campinas, Schwarzmaier, 26 - IV- 29 ” // “ Ecitonides spectabilis Borg. det. Borgmeier. ” // “ Eciton schlechtendali ” // “ Coleção BORGMEIER, Fapesp - 1967 ” // “ MZSP 27200 ” • Paralectotypes (MZSP, present designation) 3 females, dry pinned. Original labels: “ Paralectótipo, Ecitonides spectabilis Borgmeier, 1932, designated by Montanhini, Żyła and Biffi, 2025 ” // “ Typus ” // “ Goyas, Campinas, Schwarzmaier, XII- 1929 ” // “ Ecitonides spectabilis Borg. det. Borgmeier. ” // “ Eciton crassicorne ” // “ Coleção BORGMEIER, Fapesp - 1967 ” // “ MZSP 27201 ” • “ Paralectótipo, Ecitonides spectabilis Borgmeier, 1932, designated by Montanhini, Żyła and Biffi, 2025 ” // “ Goyas, Campinas, Schwarzmaier, 15. V. 1924 ” // “ Ecitonides spectabilis Borg. paratype det. Borgmeier ” // “ E. schlechtendali ” // “ Coleção BORGMEIER, Fapesp - 1967 ” // “ MZSP 21494 ” • “ Paralectotype, Ecitonides spectabilis Borgmeier, 1932, designated by Montanhini, Żyła and Biffi, 2025 ” // “ Goyas, Campinas, Schwarzmaier, 14. V. 1924, E. schlechtendali ” // “ Ecitonides spectabilis Borg. paratype det. Borgmeier ” // “ Coleção BORGMEIER, Fapesp - 1967 ” // “ MZSP 21495 ”. Other material examined. Brazil (all MZSP) • 1 ♀; Goiás, Campinas; Jan. 1934; Schwarzmaier leg.; MZSP 21497 • 1 ♀; Minas Gerais, Unaí, Fazenda Bolívia; 22–24 Dec. 1964; MZSP 21498 • 1 ♀; São Paulo, Barretos; May. 1935; O. S. Barcellos leg.; MZSP 21496 • 1 ♀; São Paulo, Itú, Fazenda Pau D’Alho; 13 Jan. 1962 • U. Martins leg.; MZSP 21499. Diagnosis. Body more robust, head rectangular, pronotum slightly longer than wide to hexagonal, and flattened tubercles over body as in E. constanceae, E. colossus, and E. splendidus sp. nov. From E. constanceae, it differs by smaller eyes (bigger and distinctly interrupting the outline of the head in dorsal view in E. constanceae), from E. colossus sp. nov. by bigger eyes, and from E. splendidus sp. nov. by hexagonal pronotum (slightly longer than wide in E. spectabilis). Additional characters. Antennae (Fig. 9 C) ~ 1.5 × longer than head with scape as long as antennomeres 2–5 combined; antennomere 2 shorter than 3, antennomeres 2–10 longer than wide and of subequal size; antennomere 11 shorter than 10; labrum (Fig. 10 B) with three denticles, median denticle smaller and pointed, with two rounded larger denticles on each side; pronotum longer than wide, somewhat hexagonal; elytra with five rows of tubercles. Abdomen with tergites III – V bearing large flattened tubercles, VI bearing only impressions at base; sternites not bearing tubercles. Measurements. TL: 9.0–11.0; HL: 1.81; HW: 0.95; PL: 1.57; PW: 1.49; EL: 1.97; EW: 1.88. Distribution. BRAZIL, Goiás, Minas Gerais, São Paulo (Fig. 15). Host ant. Nomamyrmex esenbeckii and Nomamyrmex hartiigi. Remarks. Borgmeier did not designate a holotype in his original description of the species, leaving four of the six specimens of the type series in his own collection and the others in the collections of Wasmann and Reichensperger. Among the four specimens retained by Borgmeier, two were identified as “ Typus ”, of which the best preserved one is designated here as the lectotype. For two other specimens, the information that they belong to the type series was found only on handwritten identification labels, as “ paratypes ”, and these are consequently regarded here as paralectotypes. Additionally, the type locality described as “ Campinas, Goiás ” by Schwarzmaier, refers to the city of Goiânia, “ Campinas ” being an old name for the city (Zara et al. 2007). The MZSP houses two female specimens identified as E. spectabilis with only paler coloration than the type specimens. In those specimens the enlarged flattened tubercles on tergites III – V are more evident (Fig. 4 C) than in the type specimen (Fig. 4 A), although the tubercles seem to be very similar to what can be observed in the photographs provided by Jenkins Shaw et al. (2023). This character was not used for comparison; instead, the aedeagus would likely be more useful in separating both species, although all studied specimens are females.