I think Kim identified this species but its a while back now! We have many more images of a wide range of species in this difficult genus on CNM and some of my IDs have proved incorrect. Unfortunately I don't think I will ever make a revised edition.
T. thoracica and T. sanguiniventris can have very similar patterns however the pattern on the specimen shown is a lot closer to thoracica than to sanguiniventris which generally has a smaller apical mark than that shown. The other differences between the two species are the pronotal shape (as Allen pointed out), overall size (thoracica is a larger species), shape (sanguiniventris is a generally a bit broader than thoracica), and the length of the first tarsal segment on the rear tarsa (in thoracica this is significantly longer). It would be easy to identify this specimen if there was a photo from directly above however based on the photos at hand it could easily be argued it could be either thoracica or sanguiniventris. While the original observer stated that the specimen was approximately 4cm long (which would make this thoracica size - sanguiniventris is 25-30mm) I agree with Allen that the first photo suggests a body shape more like sanguiniventris (but apical mark like thoracica). This may be due to the angle of the photo. The two photos showing the rear tarsa are equally not conclusive however if anything the first segment does look somewhat elongated. So I am still leaning to thoracica rather than sanguiniventris however without the specimen or other photos I don’t believe a firm decision can be made.
