Saica fuscipes Stal 1862

Saica fuscipes Stål, 1862 (Figs 3A, B; 7) Saica fuscipes Stål, 1862: 441. — Champion 1898: 177 [key and remarks]. — Maldonado Capriles 1990: 479 [cat.]. — Swanson & Chordas III 2018: 399, 413 [dist.]. MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Holotype. Mexico • ♀; NHMW, REDV.721/1 (high-resolution images, Fig. 3 A, B). DIAGNOSIS. — Coloration dark red, except for the dark brown antennae, most part of femora (except base), tibiae, and forewings; pterostigma brightly reddish (Fig. 3A, B). DISTRIBUTION. — Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala (Champion 1898; Maldonado Capriles 1990; Swanson & Chordas III 2018) (Fig. 7). REDESCRIPTION Female Macropterous. Measurements in Table 2. Coloration (Fig. 3A, B). Head: Red. Scapus and pedicel dark brown, basi- and distiflagellomere yellowish. First and second labial segments reddish, third labial segment yellowish. Thorax: Red, base of mesonotal spine whitish. Procoxal cavity, procoxa and protrochanter reddish; profemur dark brown except for basal region reddish; protibia and protarsus dark brown; meso- and metalegs similar to proleg. Forewing brown, veins basally reddish, pterostigma brightly reddish. Structure. Thorax (Fig. 3B): Humeral angle spines three times longer than their base. Mesonotal spine straight, three times longer than its base. Protuberance of the scutellum with apex entire, slightly concave posteriorly, lateral margins not expanded in caudal view. Metanotal spine straight, 0.2 times the length of mesonotal spine. Forewing with two closed cells, apex of outer discal cell extending as far as apex of pterostigma. Abdomen: Missing in the holotype specimen examined. REMARKS Saica fuscipes shows similarities with S. recurvata and S. lativentris, because the posterior process of scutellum is more or less arcuate laterally and notched but not conspicuously expanded, but the coloration pattern of this species is different from the others. The species was described from a female, and the male is currently unknown; unfortunately, the abdomen of the holotype is missing (Fig. 3B), making impossible to document and compare the female genitalic structures.