Moved from Thyanta custator spinosa.

I’m moving this and eliminating the page for “Thyanta custator spinosa” based on the following literature:

Rider, D. A., & Chapin, J. B. (1992). Revision of the genus Thyanta Stål, 1862 (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) II. North America, Central America, and the West Indies. Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 42-98.

Ruckes, H. (1957). The taxonomic status and distribution of Thyanta custator (Fabricius) and Thyanta pallido-virens (Stal)(Heteroptera, Pentatomidae). American Museum novitates; no. 1824.

Ueshima, N. (1963). Chromosome study of Thyanta pallidovirens (Stal) in relation to taxonomy. Pan Pac. Entomol, 39, 149-154.
Available on page 149 here: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/226308#page/188/mode/1up

More specifically, see page 60 of Rider/Chapin. Specifically focusing on the Arizona Thyanta that have been referred to as spinosa:

Ruckes found that California Thyanta and their eastern counterparts were distinct from one another and called the western group Thyanta pallidovirens. Ruckes divided T. pallidovirens into four subspecies, including Thyanta pallidovirens spinosa from the southwestern US and Thyanta pallidovirens pallidovirens from California. The karyotype study by Ueshima found that spinosa was probably a subspecies of pallidovirens but the spinosa specimens used in that study were from California (Inyo County).

When Rider/Chapin carried out their study, they karyotyped specimens of spinosa from several parts of southern Arizona and found that AZ spinosa had a chromosome complement of 16 + XY (Inyo County, CA spinosa and pallidovirens pallidovirens had 14 + XY). Additionally, they found that AZ spinosa could easily breed with specimens from Lousiana and concluded that AZ Thyanta pallidovirens spinosa were more probably Thyanta custator accerra and they made spinosa a junior synonym of T. custator accerra. I don’t think Thyanta custator spinosa has ever been a valid name.

Range maps given in Rider/Chapin indicate that while pallidovirens can stray out of California further north (and Inyo County is within the range of pallidovirens), it should not be expected in Arizona. Additionally, Rider/Chapin concluded that Ruckes' character that separated pallidovirens/spinosa (humeral spines) was not sufficient to separate, so my guess is that the "spinosa" that Ueshima used were truly pallidovirens. Of course, those maps are almost 30 years old now, so things could be different now. I would say that for now, any Arizona Thyanta (that are not part of the Argosoma subgenus or a rare visiting perditor) should be Thyanta custator accerra.

I think that it falls under accerra now?

Moved from ID Request.

...Thyanta custator accerra?