Lamellitettigodes tricristatus ( Bolivar , 1898) Bolivar, 1898

Tumbrinck, Josef, 2019, Taxonomic and biogeographic revision of the genus Lamellitettigodes (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae) with description of two new species and additional notes on Lamellitettix, Probolotettix, and Scelimena, Journal of Orthoptera Research 28 (2), pp. 167-180 : 169

Lamellitettigodes tricristatus ( Bolivar, 1898) syn. nov.

Xistra tricristata Bolívar, 1898: 75-76; Hancock 1907a: 46; Kirby 1910: 27; Willemse 1930: 30; Willemse 1931: 44; Günther 1939: 125.

Paratettix tricristatus : Günther 1935: 263.

Lamellitettigodes contractus tricristatus: Günther 1939: 125; Steinmann 1970a: 228; Paris 1994: 251.

Lamellitettigodes tricristatus : Otte 1997: 46.

Tetrix cuspidata Hancock, 1907 (Synonym)

Tetrix cuspidatus Hancock 1907b: 239-240; Hancock 1909: 413; Günther 1935: 263; Günther 1939: 125; Blackith 1992: 100.

Acrydium cuspidata : Kirby 1910: 579.

Type material. -

LT Lamellitettigodes tricristatus (here designated): ♂, [Indonesia], Java, 1893, leg. H. Fruhstorfer, MNCN (Cat. Tipos No 39)

PLTs Lamellitettigodes tricristatus (here designated): 2♂♂+3♀♀, [Indonesia], Java, 1893, leg. H. Fruhstorfer, MNCN (Cat. Tipos No 40-44); ♂, [Indonesia], Java, Sakabumi, 1893, leg. H. Fruhstorfer, IRSNB.

Notes. -

Bolívar (1898) described the species under the section Metrodorae as belonging to Xistra , while earlier he described L. contractus within the section Tettigiae, assigned to the genus Paratettix . The two sections were distinguished by morphology of the lateral lobes—projected sidewards in Metrodorae, directed downwards in Tettigiae. When comparing types, I did not see differences in this feature.

Günther (1939) regarded L. contractus tricristatus as a subspecies of L. contractus , distinguished from the nominal by smaller size, sharper keeled prozonal carinae and, in lateral view, clearly visible fastigial horns (above the eyes). L. c. tricristatus should be slightly smaller and should have wavy margins of the fore legs ( Günther 1935). All these features are, however, in the range of variation of the species and are not of diagnostic value. Moreover, I did not find reported differences when comparing the types. Otte (1997) gave the specific status to the subspecies only with the reason of occurrence on different islands.

All these data prove that L. tricristatus ( Bolívar, 1898) is conspecific with L. contractus .