Table Of ContentZOOSYSTEMATICA ROSSICA, 22(1): 59–62 25 JUNE 2013
A new subtribe of the tribe Phisidini from America and remarks on
the genus Arachnoscelis (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Meconematinae)
Hовая подтриба трибы Phisidini из Америки и замечания
по роду Arachnoscelis (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Meconematinae)
A.V. GOROCHOV
А.В. ГОРОХОВ
A.V. Gorochov, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 1 Universitetskaya Emb., St Petersburg 199034,
Russia. E-mail: [email protected]
A new subtribe (Arachnoscelidina subtrib. nov.) and two new subgenera of the genus Arach-
noscelis Karny (Centrophisis subgen. nov. and Peruphisis subgen. nov.) are described. All these
taxa are distributed in America and probably belong to the tribe Phisidini of the katydid sub-
family Meconematinae. Some problems of taxonomy and morphology of the Arachnoscelidina
are briefly discussed.
Описываются новая подтриба (Arachnoscelidina subtrib. nov.) и два новых подрода рода
Arachnoscelis Karny (Centrophisis subgen. nov. и Peruphisis subgen. nov.). Все эти таксоны
распространены в Америке и, вероятно, относятся к трибе Phisidini подсемейства
мелкотелых кузнечиков (Meconematinae). Кратко рассматриваются некоторые вопросы
таксономии и морфологии Arachnoscelidina.
Key words: katydids, taxonomy, America, Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae, Meconematinae, Phi-
sidini, Arachnoscelis, new taxa
Ключевые слова: кузнечики, таксономия, Америка, Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae, Mecone-
matinae, Phisidini, Arachnoscelis, новые таксоны
INTRODUCTION and some comments on the paper by Mon-
tealegre-Z et al. are given.
Gorochov (2012) indicated that sys-
tematic position of the genus Arachnoscelis
TAXONOMIC PART
Karny is not very clear. It was originally de-
scribed in “tribus Listroscelinae” for only A. Order ORTHOPTERA
arachnoides (Redtenbacher, 1891) from Co-
Family TETTIGONIIDAE
lombia (Karny, 1911). Later, six species have
Subfamily MECONEMATINAE
been added in Arachnoscelis (Hebard, 1927;
Randell, 1964; Bowen-Jones, 1994; Nickle, Tribe PHISIDINI
2002; Gorochov, 2012), and this genus was Subtribe ARACHNOSCELIDINA
transferred to the tribe Phisidini of the sub- subtrib. nov.
family Meconematinae (Gorochov, 1995).
However, some authors (Montealegre-Z et Type genus: Arachnoscelis Karny, 1911.
al., 2013) do not agree with the latter action Diagnosis. Head large and very high,
and present their objections. The arguments in region near subgenae somewhat or dis-
of all the opponents show that this disagree- tinctly wider than pronotum; height of head
ment is caused by some isolation of this distinctly or much greater than length of
genus from all other similar genera. Below, pronotum; mandibles of some males special-
a new subtribe for this genus is described, ized: longer than in female, strongly arched
© 2013 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes
60 A.V. GOROCHOV. A NEW SUBTRIBE OF PHISIDINI FROM AMERICA
before molar part, with molar part strongly for these specimens. However, I am against
shortened and shifted to apex (but with api- usage of this word (“inaccurate”) in such
cal tooth not very different in size from that cases. Also I don’t understand a reason for
of female). Legs similar to those of other usage of this word in relation to Gorochov
representatives of Phisidini, but hind fem- (2012), because he had only a female. Prob-
ora with rather strongly widened proximal ably, Montealegre-Z et al. consider that
third (maximal width of hind femur more Gorochov must describe new genera basing
or less similar to pronotal length). Wings of on study of female morphology, i.e. without
known representatives strongly shortened: study of male. It is difficult to agree with
male tegmina modified into small stridu- such opinion, as females of katydids usually
latory organ; female ones scale-like; hind have not some structures important in the
wings absent or invisible (possibly absent generic taxonomy: tegminal stridulatory
in all species). apparatus, complicated copulatory device
Composition. Type genus only, but pos- consisting of highly modified cerci and/or
sibly three genera tentatively considered specialized structures on some other exter-
below as three subgenera of Arachnoscelis. nal abdominal parts, hook-like sclerites in
Comparison. The second subtribe of Phi- genitalia, and so on. I think that Gorochov
sidini, Phisidina stat. nov. (from Phisidini was maximally accurate when he refrained
Jin, 1987), includes all the other genera of from such description and included his fe-
this tribe and differs from Arachnoscelidina male in a taxon containing most similar,
in the following characters: head smaller close-related representatives. Moreover,
(not wider or almost not wider than pro- Gorochov compared his female with the
notum) and distinctly lower (its height photographs of types of A. arachnoides
not greater or slightly greater than pro- and other congeners presented in Internet
notal length); male mandibles not special- (since 2012 as minimum; Eades et al., 2013).
ized, similar to female mandibles; proximal These photographs give a more adequate
third of hind femora less widened (prono- information about some important char-
tal length distinctly greater than maximal acters of Arachnoscelis than the redescrip-
width of hind femur); all wings usually de- tion by Montealegre-Z et al. (2013): for
veloped and longer. example, the latter authors described only
distal half of sclerites of male genitalia in
Remarks on the genus Arachnoscelis A. arachnoides and didn’t explain morpho-
logical position of these sclerites (the term
In the paper by Montealegre-Z et al. “titillators” of these authors is often used by
(2013), the following critical notes were different specialists for sclerites of the male
made: genitalia as well as for processes of the male
1) “Gorochov (2012) … was inaccu- paraprocts), but the above-mentioned pho-
rate in assigning his species (A. tanasijt- tographs clearly show that these sclerites
shuki) to Arachnoscelis (as other authors belong to genitalia and have complicated,
did), without careful comparison with the plate-like structure of their basal part. Ad-
holotype and/or type species.” – I would ditionally, I must note that description of
agree that A. tanasijtshuki may belong to tympanal organ (contra opinion by Mon-
a new genus or one of the new subgenera tealegre-Z et al.) and transference of Arach-
described below, and that Hebard (1927), noscelis in Phisidini were originally made
Randell (1964), Bowen-Jones (1994), Nick- on the base of material from “Museum für
le (2002) and Montealegre-Z et al. (2006) Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universität”
were “inaccurate” when they included their (Berlin) determined by Redtenbacher as
males in Arachnoscelis but refrained from “Listroscelis arachnoides” (Gorochov, 1995)
any description of new genera or subgenera but not on the base of A. tanasijthuki de-
© 2013 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes, Zoosystematica Rossica 22(1): 59–62
A.V. GOROCHOV. A NEW SUBTRIBE OF PHISIDINI FROM AMERICA 61
scribed much later. When I was preparing nae, Tympanophorinae, Listroscelidinae)
the description of A. tanasijtshuki (Goro- in a distinct inflation of its lateral parts, not
chov, 2012), I also decided that Arachnos- very narrow (almost not slite-like) tympa-
celis consists of three subgenera or related nal openings, and the absence of character-
genera but refrained from describing them. istic small concavities on the inner and out-
If it is my inaccuracy (in accordance to the er sides near distal edges of these openings.
critique of my opponents), I correct this in- Most representatives of Phisidini have this
accuracy below, in a key for the Arachnosce- set of characters. However, some of these
lis subgenera. characters are somewhat varied: tympanal
2) “In Listroscelidinae, the strong inflation may be sometimes rather weak
specialization of male mouthparts leads or very strong; tympanal openings may be
to the development of a long hook at the almost slit-like (long but not very narrow;
apex of one of male mandibles, and this very narrow but short, somewhat reduced)
is observed in Arachnoscelis arachnoi- or more or less oval. But the above-men-
des … .” – The apical mandibular hook tioned concavities are always absent (!).
of male in A. arachnoides is similar in the The similar structure of inner half of tympa-
size (but somewhat different in the shape) nal organ is present in the genus Euanisous
to that of female; it is clearly visible in the Hebard (Meconematinae: Meconematini).
pictures given by Montealegre-Z et al. But in most representatives of “Tettigoni-
(2013: figures 2, B, C). Main mandibular idae” (including Listroscelidinae), tympa-
differences between male and female of this nal organ is almost not inflate, its openings
species are subapical position of the molar are slit-like (very narrow and rather long),
part in male, and a narrower and strongly and small lateral concavities near distal
arched more proximal part of its mandibles. edges of the tympanal openings are always
However in Listroscelidinae, the molar part developed (!). Sometimes in “Tettigoniidae”
of mandibles in male is not modified and (for example in the genus Viriacca Ingr.,
similar to that of female, but often one of Conocephalinae), tympanal organ may be
the male mandibles has a very long apical inflate and with distinctly widened open-
hook (much longer than in female and than ings, but the above-mentioned concavi-
in male of Arachnoscelis) directed more or ties are distinct (!). In described species of
less forwards. These modifications of male Arachnoscelidina having the tympanal or-
mandibles are very dissimilar and may be gan studied, the latter is typical or almost
an additional argument against inclusion typical of Phisidini: in A. arachnoides, its
of Arachnoscelis in Listroscelidinae (contra openings are only somewhat longer than
views of my opponents). in A. tanasijtshuki but clearly wider than
3) “Although the tympanal slits and in Listroscelidinae [see figures 7, A, D from
inflation of A. arachnoides depart well Montealegre-Z et al. (2013); these figures
from A. tanasijtshuki …, the elongated clearly show that in A. arachnoides, tibia
slits suggest that A. arachnoides is more under tympanal inflation is 2–2.5 times as
similar to some Listroscelidinae in this wide as tympanal opening, but in Listros-
regard … . However, we do not con- celis, this ratio is more than 4]. Thus, the
sider the tympanal structure as a strong statement by Montealegre-Z et al. about
enough character to move genera across the similarity of the tympanal openings in
subfamilies.” – Tympanal organ of typi- Arachnoscelis and Listroscelidinae in length
cal representatives of Phisidini differs from don’t take into account their dissimilarity
that of the probably monophyletic group in width as well as some other dissimilar
“Tettigoniidae” (Tettigoniinae, Bradypori- characters of the tympanal organ, and can-
nae, Nedubinae, Glyphonotinae, Hexacen- not be any rationale for inclusion of Arach-
trinae, Conocephalinae, Hetrodinae, Sagi- noscelis in Listroscelidinae.
© 2013 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes, Zoosystematica Rossica 22(1): 59–62
62 A.V. GOROCHOV. A NEW SUBTRIBE OF PHISIDINI FROM AMERICA
Key to subgenera of Arachnoscelis gram “Biosphere Origin and Evolution of Geo-
biological Systems”. The author also thanks
1. Last abdominal tergite of male with a pair of Sergej Storozhenko (Institute of Biology and
rather small lateral lobes (each lobe shorter Soil Science, Far East Branch of RAS, Vladi-
than median length of this tergite and lack- vostok) and Mustafa Ünal (Abant İzzet Baysal
ing distinct notch near apex) or with large Üniversitesi, Bolu, Turkey) for their useful com-
articulated processes; male genital (subgeni- ments to this paper.
tal) plate with a pair of posterolateral lobes
and wide median notch between them . . . . . .2
REFERENCES
– Last abdominal tergite of male with a
pair of large unarticulated lateral lobes
Bowen-Jones E. 1994. A description of Arach-
(each lobe longer than median length of
noscelis feroxnotha sp. nov. (Tettigoniidae:
this tergite and with distinct notch near
Listroscelidinae) from Southwest Costa
apex); male genital (subgenital) plate with
Rica. Journal Orthoptera Research, 2: 46–47.
only unpaired median projection slightly
Eades D.C., Otte D., Cigliano M.M. & Braun H.
notched at apex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2013. Orthoptera Species File Online. Vis-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Centrophisis subgen. nov.
ited 8 June 2013. Available from: <http://
[Composition, in original binomen: Arach-
osf2.orthoptera.org/HomePage.aspx>
noscelis magnifica Hebard, 1927 (type spe-
Gorochov A.V. 1995. On the systematic posi-
cies), Panama; A. rehni Randell, 1964, Costa
tion of the genera Arachnoscelis, Poecilo-
Rica; A. feroxnotha Bowen-Jons, 1994, Costa
merus, and Parateuthras (Orthoptera: Tet-
Rica]
tigoniidae). Zoosystematica Rossica, 1994,
2. Male last abdominal tergite with articulated
3(2): 202.
processes; styles of male genital (subgenital)
Gorochov A.V. 2012. Systematics of the Ameri-
plate unarticulated, probably fused with lat-
can katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae).
eral lobes of this plate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Communication 2. Proceedings of the Zoo-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peruphisis subgen. nov.
logical Institute RAS, 316(4): 285–306.
[Composition, in original binomen: Arach-
Hebard M. 1927. Studies in the Tettigoniidae
noscelis meriti Nickle, 2002 (type species),
of Panama (Orthoptera). Transactions of the
Peru; possibly A. tanasijtshuki Gorochov,
Entomological Society of America, 53: 79–156.
2012, Peru]
Karny H. 1911. Descriptiones Conocephali-
– Male last abdominal tergite without artucu-
darum novarum. Verhandlungen der Zoolo-
lated processes; styles of male genital (sub-
gisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 61:
genital) plate articulated with lateral lobes
334–347.
of this plate . . . . . . Arachnoscelis s. str.
Montealegro-Z F., Morris G.K. & Mason A.C.
[Composition, in original binomen: Listros-
2006. Generation of extreme ultrasonics in
celis arachnoides Redtenbacher, 1891 (type
rainforest katydids. Journal of Experimental
species), Colombia]
Biology, 209: 4923–4937.
This key is prepared with usage of the Montealegro-Z F., Cadena-Castaneda O.J. &
Chivers B. 2013. The spider-like katydid
data by Hebard (1927), Randell (1964),
Arachnoscelis (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae:
Bowen-Jones (1994), Nickle (2002), Goro-
Listroscelidinae): anatomical study of the
chov (2012), and Eades et al. (2013). Ety-
genus. Zootaxa, 3666(4): 591–600.
mology of the names Centrophisis and Peru-
Nickle D.A. 2002. New species of katydids (Or-
phisis is following: the first name originates thoptera: Tettigoniidae) of the Neotropical
from Central America and the genus Phisis; genera Arachnoscelis (Listroscelidinae) and
and the second one, from Peru and the ge- Phlugiola (Meconematinae), with taxonom-
nus Phisis. ic notes. Journal Orthoptera Research, 11:
125–133.
Randell R.L. 1964. Notes on the genus Arachnos-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
celis Karny (Conocephalinae) and a new spe-
cies. Canadian Entomologist, 96: 1608–1610.
The work is supported by the Presidium of
the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS): Pro- Received June 6, 2013 / Accepted June 14, 2013
© 2013 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes, Zoosystematica Rossica 22(1): 59–62
