Otomantis rendalli ( Kirby, 1899 )

Lombardo, Francesco, Stiewe, Martin B. D., Ippolito, Salvatrice & Marletta, Alessandro, 2014, A taxonomic revision of Otomantis Bolivar, 1890 (Mantodea: Hymenopodidae, Acromantinae) with description of five new species, Zootaxa 3797 (1), pp. 169-193 : 176-180

Otomantis rendalli ( Kirby, 1899)

( Figs 2C, I ; 3C; 4C; 5C; 6C, D, L; 7A; 13)

Acanthomantis rendalli Kirby (1899: 352)

Acanthomantis rendalli Kirby, 1899 . In Burr-Distant 1902: 41. Tav. 2 v.6 (♀)

Otomantis rendalli ; Giglio-Tos (1927: 653); Beier (1934: 158); Kaltenbach (1996: 307); Ehrmann (2002: 250); Otte & Spearman (2005: 82)

Type material. Holotype of Otomantis rendalli 1 ♂ from MALAWI, Fort Johnston. Nyassaland , (P. Rendall), Distant Coll. 1911–383, “ Acanthomantis rendalli ”, (NHM) .

Other material. MALAWI: Fort Johnston, Nyassaland, (P. Rendall), Distant Coll. 1911-383, “ Harpargomantis tricolor ”; ♀ ( NHM); Zomba Township, C. Dudley, Roy genitalia prep. 4434, I.14.74 and II.8.74, 2 ♂ ( MNHN); Zomba, Dec. 1962, R.C.H.Sweeney, Brit. Mus. 1969-690, 1♀ ( NHM); MOZAMBIQUE: Delagoa, 12. 1896, collection A. Finot, 1 ♀, ( MNHN); Vallée du Pungoué, Guengère, G. Vasse, 1906, Stiewe genitalia prep. Ot.M.02, 1 ♂, 2 ♀ ( MNHN); Prov. du Gorongoza, Tendo du Sungoué, G. Vasse, 1907, 1 ♂ ( MNHN); Zambèze, Nova Choupanga, près Chemba, P, Lesne, avril 1928, Stiewe genitalia prep. Ot. Zam.1, 1 ♂ – mai 1928, 2 ♂ ( MNHN); Prov. Soffala, Inhamitanga, 200m, G. Robiche, 28–30.XII.2006, Roy genitalia prep. 4431, 1 ♂ ( MNHN); Vallée du Revoué, env. D`Andrada, G.Vasse, décembre 1905, 1 ♀ ( MNHN); Ost-Afrika, Muanza, Suffert T. 1♀ ( ZMHB); D.-Ostafrika, Janensch S.G., Stiewe genitalia prep. Ot.re.01, 1 ♂ ( ZMHB); ZIMBABWE: Umtali, Maskouald, 1900, Marshall Coll.1909-323, 1♀ ( NHM); ZAMBIA: N. Rhodesia, Luano Valley, Chisorwe, 10–19.III.1928, Dr. M. Burr, B.M. 1928-212, Stiewe genitalia prep. OT.NR.1, 1♂ ( NHM); SOUTH AFRICA: Transvaal, 1♂ Skukuza [K.N.P.], 2.IV.1952, L. Vári, ( TMSA).

Diagnosis. Similar to O. scutigera , but with brown body, with scattered dark spots on the inner surface of the forecoxae and on the mesothoracic wings.

Remarks. In 1899 Kirby described a female as the type of O. rendalli and deposited it in the Natural History Museum in London (NHM). Burr (1904), in his Insecta Transvaalensia, copied the text of Kirby’s first description and added a drawing of the described species – however, Burr`s drawing of this Otomantis clearly shows a male specimen. Marshall (1975), in her catalogue of the mantid types at the NHM, stated for the first time, that the type of rendalli is a male, rather than a female as originally suggested by Kirby.

The NHM collection originally had only one specimen of rendalli , a male with spread wings and clearly labelled as the holotype with a new red round label (likely the specimen Burr pictured). However, the original hand-written label from Kirby does not state any type status for this specimen, as it only says “ Acanthomantis rendalli ”. However, after careful re-examination and re-measurement of this specimen, we came to the conclusion that Kirby wrongly identified the specimen as female in his first description, which was clearly based on a male. In his description, he mentions that the specimen has expanded wings measuring 34 mm (‘ exp. Tegm. 34 mili.’) – which fully matches the male specimen in the collection. We can therefore confirm that Marshall’s (1975) statement of the holotype of rendalli being male rather than female is correct.

Further research among the other Otomantis specimens in the NHM collection uncovered some unidentified specimens. One of these specimens is an adult female with exactly the same collector and locality labels as the male rendalli specimen labelled as holotype. This female also has a label hand-written by Kirby determining the specimen as “ Harpagomantis tricolor ”. However, after examining this female specimen carefully we can clearly identify it as rendalli , from which follows that the Harpagomantis label must have been wrongly pinned under this specimen by Kirby – who, at the time he was working on rendalli , also worked on the identification of various Harpagomantis specimens. This mistake could be a reason why this specimen has been overlooked by researchers in the past and was not sorted under rendalli . This specimen cannot have any type status because Kirby states in his first description that he only had one specimen. Furthermore, this female specimen was not properly prepared, i.e. the wings were fully closed, which is contrary to Kirby’s type description. It also has different measurements.

Male re-description.

General coloration: Body ochre or brown. Antennae ochre, head ochre, vertex with numerous black spots, wings ochre colored, sometimes with some brownish spots, inner surface of forefemora with three distinct diagonal bands, legs with blackish bands, numerous dark spots. Abdomen brown, both dorsally and ventrally.

Measurements (mm): TL 17.0; HW 4.3; PL 4.2; MPW 1.6; SDW 2.5; CL 4.3; FL 5.3; MFW 2.3; WL 17.1.

Head ( Fig. 2C ): Transverse, 1.7 times wider than pronotal supracoxal dilation; vertex nearly straight, vertical process of vertex conical, short and blackish, 1.3 times higher than wide; juxta-ocular tubercles conical, black; eyes oval-shaped with a short distinct apical spine; frontal shield transverse, pentagonal, about 3.1 times wider than high, apex with a very short spike.

Pronotum ( Fig. 3C ): Rhomboidal, 1.7 times longer than wide; prozone shorter than metazone, disc with two flattened median tubercles, lateral margins with three, small dark tubercles on each side; metazone with a longitudinal median carina, lateral margins with some small dark tubercles.

Forelegs: Coxae about 1.0 times longer than pronotum, anterior margin with some very small tubercles and with some fine hairs; internal apical lobes divergent. Femora flattened, 2.3 times longer than wide, dorsal margin curved with widest part 2/3 from base ( Fig. 5C ), some small tubercles on lateral margin in front of the maximal MFW, well developed genicular spine. Spination formula F= 4ES/11IS/4DS and T =11ES/9IS, all spines of femora and tibiae with blackish apex.

Meso and metathoracic legs: Femora robust with a distal triangular lobe with round apex, meta-femoral lobe larger. Tibiae shorter than femora with a basal and a medial swelling.

Wings: Semi-hyaline with some brown spots on veins, exceeding the apex of abdomen. Mesothoracic wings about 4.1 times longer than maximum width, costal field pale green; discoidal area hyaline with some scattered dark spots. Metathoracic wings hyaline, longitudinal veins brown.

Abdomen: Cylindrical; supra-anal plate triangular in shape with truncated apex; subgenital plate as long as wide.

External genitalia: Ventral phallomere much longer than wide with a long distal process (dp) ( Figs. 6L , 7A ) that is well sclerotized. Left phallomere’s dorsal lamina (dl) with anterior part well sclerotized, posterior part enlarged and membranous ( Figs. 6C , 7A ); ventral lamina (vl) sclerotized, phalloid apophysis (af) enlarged with bifid apex, sclerotized and with rugose surface ( Figs. 6D , 7A ). Both laminas form a short lateral process (lp); apical process (ap) short and robust with round apex; right phallomere with well developed apophysis, left movable part elongated, u-shaped, distal margin of right phallomere with setae ( Fig. 7A ).

Female description.

General coloration: Ochre. Antennae pale ochre. Prosternum ochre. Internal surface of coxae ochre, without blackish spots. Inner surface of femora with two yellowish bands on the flattened part, these two yellowish diagonal bands are only barely visible on the external surface of femora, all internal and external spines ochre with dark apex. Meso and metathoracic legs with some broad black stripes. Abdominal segments brown.

Measurements (mm): TL 22.5; HW 5.6; PL 5.8; SDW 3.6; ML 2.9; MPW 2.1; CL 5.8; FL 6.7; MFW 3.3; WL 16.4.

Head ( Fig. 2I ): Transverse, vertex nearly straight, process of vertex triangular, juxta-ocular tubercles small, conical; frontal shield transverse, with a tubercle on its upper margin; eyes oval-shaped with a short apical spine.

Pronotum ( Fig. 4C ): Rhomboidal, 1.6 times longer than wide; prozone stout and arched, disc with two flattened bumps, metazone longer than prozone, with a longitudinal median carina, lateral margins with some tubercles, lateral margins of supracoxal dilation forming an obtuse angle.

Forelegs: Coxae robust; anterior margin with 11–12 small tubercles; internal lobes divergent. Femora 2.0 times longer than wide, proximal part of dorsal margin with tubercles; with some small spines between the external spines; well-developed genicular spine. Spination formula F=4ES/11IS/4DS and T =9ES/9IS.

Meso and metathoracic legs: Femora with distal triangular-shaped lobe with rounded apex, which is nearly the same size in meso and metafemora; lateral margin broadened; meta-basitarsi slightly shorter than following segments together.

Wings: Mesothoracic wings opaque ochre, costal area greenish yellow. Metathoracic wings semi-hyaline, ochre in color, distally brown.

Abdomen: Robust, much wider than in males.

Comments. Otomantis rendalli exhibits the greatest variation in male genitalia within the genus, especially in the ventral phallomere. However, it can be clearly distinguished from other species through a comparative analysis of the ventral phallomere ( Figs 6C, D, L ; 7A ). This structure differs from that of most closely related species ( O. scutigera , O. bolivari sp. n. and O. aurita ) in having a well-developed and acuminated distal process. Otomantis scutigera exhibits a very short, weakly developed distal process, whereas in O. bolivari sp. n. the same is very short and rounded, and in O. aurita it also is very short but hook-like. Furthermore, in O. rendalli the shape of the vertical process of the head’s vertex is different to that of other species.

Distribution: This species occurs in Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia and South Africa.

Figures

FIGURE 2. Head of: A (♂), G (♀), O. scutigera; B (♂), H (♀), O. aurita; C (♂), I (♀), O. rendalli; D (♂), L (♀), O. casaica; E (♂), M (♀), O. bolivari sp. n.; F (♂), O. minima sp. n., Scale = 1mm.

FIGURE 3. Male pronotum of: A (dorsal view), G (lateral view), O. scutigera; B (dorsal view), I (lateral view), O. aurita; C (dorsal view), O. rendalli; D (dorsal view), H (lateral view), O. casaica; E (dorsal view), L (lateral view), O. bolivari sp. n.; F (dorsal view) O. minima sp. n., Scale = 1mm.

FIGURE 4. Female pronotum of: A, O. scutigera; B, O. aurita; C, O. rendalli; D (dorsal view), F (lateral view), O. casaica; E (dorsal view), G (lateral view), O. bolivari sp. n., Scale = 1mm.

FIGURE 5. Inner surface of fore femur (males): A, O. scutigera; B, O. aurita; C, O. rendalli; D, O. casaica; E, O. minima sp. n.; F, O. bolivari sp. n., Scale = 1mm.

FIGURE 6. External genitalia of: A, B (left phallomere, dorsal and ventral view), I (ventral phallomere, dorsal view), O. scutigera (holotype); C, D (left phallomere, dorsal and ventral view), L (ventral phallomere, dorsal view), O. rendalli (from skukuza); E, F (left phallomere, dorsal and ventral view), M (ventral phallomere, dorsal view), O. casaica (holotype); G, H (left phallomere, dorsal and ventral view), N (ventral phallomere, dorsal view), O. bolivari sp. n., (paratype). Scales = 500 µm.

FIGURE 7. External genitalia of (all phallomeres in ventral view): A, O. rendalli (holotype,); B, O. aurita (holotype, ventral view); C, O. minima sp. n. (holotype, left phallomere ventral view, remaining phallomeres dorsal view).