Alfarogryllus panoplos ( Otte, 2006 ) Cadena-Castañeda & Páez & Buitrago & Quintana-Arias & Tavares, 2021

Cadena-Castañeda, Oscar J., Páez, Geraldine, Buitrago, Oscar, Quintana-Arias, Ronald Fernando & Tavares, Gustavo Costa, 2021, Studies of Neotropical crickets: New Paragryllina taxa (Orthoptera: Phalangopsidae) with comments on several previously described species, Zootaxa 5081 (1), pp. 60-76 : 73

Alfarogryllus panoplos ( Otte, 2006) n. comb.

( Figure 6 )

Comments. Unfortunately, this species is briefly described in its original description, but the description of Alfarogryllus n. gen., which includes this unique species, will allow better identification of this taxon. On the other hand, there are some inconsistencies in the designation of type specimens provided by Otte (2006). He designated the female as the holotype but in the brief description or recognition (according to the author), he focused on the male, and there are no specific characters for the female.Also, in the legend of figure 58, the male is mentioned as the holotype and the female as a paratype. In the measurements, priority is also given to the male. In the ‘specimens’ section, he mentioned a holotype and a paratype, both female. With the previous notation, the author intended to designate the male as a holotype and the female as a paratype, as is usual in most Orthoptera taxa since, in general, this sex is the one that contributes with more characters for species identification. The author was clearly confused when designating the type specimens, and the male with code 122 should be considered the holotype and the female with code 123 as a paratype. Although the female had been erroneously established as the holotype of Alfarogryllus panoplos n. gen. et comb., the main characteristics we used to diagnose this new genus are based on the male specimen.

Robillard & Desutter-Grandcolas (2013), in their list of Eneopterinae from Costa Rica, doubted that Eneoptera panoplos Otte, 2006 belonged to the genus Eneoptera Burmeister, 1838 , suggesting that it could be included in the genus Lerneca Walker, 1869 . The same authors designated Eneoptera spodios Otte, 2006 as a species inquirenda since it did not fit either the diagnostic characters of Eneoptera , but when reviewing the type specimen of E. spodios , it fits the diagnostic characters of Lerneca . So, here we consider the type specimen as a conspecific female of Lerneca digrediens ( Otte, 2006) , originally described in Amphiacusta Saussure, 1874 , but reclassified by Desutter- Grandcolas (2014). Therefore, we designate Eneoptera spodios Otte, 2006 n. syn., as a new synonym under Lerneca digrediens ( Otte, 2006) . With the previously mentioned taxonomic changes, the status of the Central American Eneoptera species is clarified, and the species studied by Robillard & Desutter-Grandcolas (2005) for the Neotropical region are preserved, although the status of Eneoptera fasciata (Scudder, 1869) , had not yet become clear.

Figures

FIGURE 6. Alfarogryllus panoplos (Otte, 2006) n. comb. A. Male habitus in dorsal view. B–D. Genitalia in dorsal, ventral and lateral view respectively. E. Female habitus in dorsal view. F. Hemicophus paranae Saussure, 1878 (after Saussure, 1878).