Lutosa goeldiana ( Saussure & Pictet, 1897 )

Cadena-Castañeda, Oscar J., García, Alexander García, Nos, Maria Del Pilar Castella-, Sarmiento, Juan Pablo Prias & Tavares, Gustavo Costa, 2022, Studies on chevron crickets: Contribution to the knowledge of Lutosinae / ini taxa (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae), Zootaxa 5178 (4), pp. 347-379 : 362-365

Lutosa goeldiana ( Saussure & Pictet, 1897)

( Figs. 8–9 )

http://lsid.speciesfile.org/urn:lsid: Orthoptera .speciesfile.org:TaxonName:502220

Redescription. Male. Medium-size (18–21 mm) ( Fig. 8A ). Body dorsally dark brown ( Fig. 8B ), legs ventrally ochre; distal half of the mid- and hind femora and basal half of the mid- and hind tibiae reddish-brown; face brown without stripes, only with some diffuse brown spots; lateral lobes of pronotum without yellowish or ochre spots ( Fig. 8A ). Head. Fastigium of vertex rounded, clypeus almost as wide as high and subtriangular. Eyes completely pigmented and ocelli circular ( Fig. 8C ). Thorax. Pronotum not very high and with short hairs on anterior edge ( Fig. 8A ). Anterior edge of pronotal disc rounded, and posterior one straight ( Fig. 8B ). Legs. Fore tibia with ovoid and mid-sized tympana on both sides, the outer tympana is smaller than the inner one. Dorsal margin of fore tibia with a middle spur on each side of the tibia, the longest being the inner spur; apex with two dorsal spurs similar in size, one on each side; ventrally with five similar-sized spurs on each margin. Mid-tibia dorsally armed with four spurs on the inner margin and three on the outer one; ventrally with four spurs on outer margin and three on inner one. Hind femur with eleven chevron stripes on outer face, the last one incomplete; ventral margin without undulations. Hind tibia straight and with ten spines on both dorsal margin, apical dorsal spur two times longer than preapical spur. Abdomen. Tenth tergite narrower than in the other known males, posterior edge clearly divided in the center and, on each side, sub-rectangular lobes are formed, ventrally connected to each other and to the epiproct by a membranous region; tenth tergite hooks small and little developed (in contrast to the others known males). Epiproct triangular-shaped, apex rounded; paraprocts with a distal lanceolate, flattened and sclerotized process, placed under the epiproct ( Fig. 8D ). Cerci divergent and mid-sized. Subgenital plate quadrangular, with a little deep rounded notch ( Fig. 8F ), posterior edge in dorsal view with a sclerotized and conical plate at the base of style ( Fig. 8E ). Style cylindrical and robust ( Fig. 8F ).

Female. Similar to male, but with lighter shades ( Fig. 9A ), dorsal surface dark reddish brown ( Fig. 9B ), lower half of the face ( Fig. 9C ), legs and ventral surface of the body mostly ochre ( Fig. 9A ). The number, order, and arrangement of the leg spines did not vary from what was observed in the male. Ninth tergite slightly covering the tenth tergite. Tenth tergite narrow and divided into two ovoid lateral segments, lateral region protruding in lateral view, with the posterior border rounded. Epiproct triangular-shaped; cerci slender and medium-sized; paraprocts flexible, dorsoventrally compressed and surrounding ventrally the epiproct. Ovipositor as long as two-thirds of the length of the hind femur, curving abruptly from the basal region towards the apex. Subgenital plate rectangular, longer than wide ( Fig. 9D ), posterior edge rounded and wider than the anterior edge ( Fig. 9E ).

Measurements (mm) male/female: LB: 18–21/24. Pr: 8–7 / 8.5. HF: 18–21.5/24. HT: 17–19/22. SP: 2–2.5 / 3. Ov: 16.

Variation. A male only have a inner dorsal spur on foretibia.

Type material. Lectotype hereby designated. Male. BRAZIL, Rio de Janeiro. Original label. “ R. JANEIRO, ERNI ” [printed on green paper]. Additional labels. “ Pherterus göeldianus P. & Sss” [handwritten on green paper], “ Lectotypus, should be designated, T. H. Hubbell ” [handwritten on red card with “ Lectotypus ” printed]. Deposit: MHNG, Geneva Museum ( Fig. 8 ).

Conspecific Paralectotypes. 1 male. Same data as the lectotype. Additional labels. “ Pherterus göldianus P. & Sss” [handwritten on green paper], “# 1B Paratypus, Pherterus goeldianus , S & P THH” [handwritten on red card with “ Paratypus ” printed]. 1 male. R. JANEIRO, Mr. Hy de Sauss. ” [printed on green paper]. Additional labels. “ Pherterus göldianus P. & Sss ” [handwritten on green paper], “# 1A Paratypus, Pherterus goeldianus , S & PTHH ” [handwritten on red card with “ Paratypus ” printed] . 1 female. Same data as the lectotype. Additional labels. “ Pherterus göldianus P. & Sss” [handwritten on green paper], “ Allotypus, Pherterus goeldianus , P. & S. THH” [handwritten on red card with “ Allotypus ” printed] ( Fig. 9 ) .

Non-conspecific Paralectotypes. 1 female. Same data as the lectotype.Additional labels. “ Pherterus göldianus P. & Sss” [handwritten on green paper], “ Paratypus, # 2A (Not) Pherterus goeldianus , P. & S., ad. f# THH” [handwritten on red card with “ Paratypus ” printed] . 1 female. Same data as the lectotype. Additional labels. Pherterus göldianus P. & Sss” [handwritten on green paper], “ Paratypus, # 2B (Not) Pherterus goeldianus , P. & S., THH” [handwritten on red card with “ Paratypus ” printed] .

Comments. The lectotype is formally designated here, but it is the same specimen selected by T.H. Hubbell as the lectotype. However, the data was never published. Two females of the original syntypic series was labeled by Hubbell as “(Not) Pherterus goeldianus ” ( Hollier 2011), suggesting that these speciemens do not belong to L. goeldianus and we agree. Reviewing the photographs of all types, for us, these females belong to an unknown species. Despite the labels fixed by Hubbell indicating paratypes and a allotype ( Hollier 2011), these categories of non-bearing-names types cannot be designated posteriorly, derived from a syntypic series. According to the Zoological Code ( Ride et al. 1999), after 2000, only lectotypes and paralectotypes can be designated from a syntypic series and must be designated by the first reviewer. Posteriorly, Karny (1935), recorded a male from Hansa, Santa Catarina and a female from Espírito Santo ( Brazil).

We also disagree with the hypotesis that this species is a synonym of L. marginalis , as suggested by Kirby (1906). When comparing both female type specimens, differences in the structure of the subgenital plate are evident as indicated in the redescriptions previously provided.

Figures

FIGURE 8. Lutosa goeldiana male. A. Habitus in lateral and B. dorsal view. C. Face. D. Terminalia in dorsal view. E. Detail of apex of subgenital plate. F. Subgenital plate. (Photos: J. Hollier).

FIGURE 9. Lutosa goeldiana female. A. Habitus in lateral and B. dorsal view. C. Face. D–E. Subgenital plate in ventral and axial views. (Photos: J. Hollier).