Rosacris Bolívar, 1931,

Kasalo, Niko, 2022, Metamazarredia is Rosacris is Mazarredia (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae) - a longawaited sequel to a taxonomic dilemma, Zootaxa 5200 (2), pp. 495-500 : 496-497

Subgenus Rosacris Bolívar, 1931 stat. nov.

Rosacris: Bolívar 1931 ; Yin et al. 1996; Otte 1997; Skejo 2016.

Type species: Rosacris antennata syn. nov. Bolívar, 1931, by original monotypy = Mazarredia (Rosacris) fuscipes comb. nov.

Justification of synonymization. Rosacris antennata syn. nov., the only species of that genus, was found to be synonymous with Metamazarredia fuscipes . The name Rosacris has priority, but the specific epithet “ antennata ” does not as it is younger than “ fuscipes ”. For justification of this synonymy, see under Mazarredia (Rosacris) fuscipes comb. nov. as well as Discussion.

Composition and distribution. Including the herein presented taxonomic acts, the subgenus consists of five species: Mazarredia (Rosacris) atypa ( Bolívar, 1887) comb. rev., Mazarredia (Rosacris) borneensis ( Günther, 1939) comb. nov., Mazarredia (Rosacris) fuscipes comb. nov., Mazarredia (Rosacris) lauta ( Bolívar, 1887) comb. rev., and Mazarredia (Rosacris) sobria ( Walker, 1871) comb. nov. All of the species are distributed in the Philippines except M. (R.) borneensis comb. nov., which is endemic to Borneo.

The distinction between subgenera Mazarredia and Rosacris stat. nov. At the time of Günther’s (1939) revision, the genus Mazarredia was full of species that did not belong to it. Among other acts, to bring order, he described the genus Metamazarredia syn. nov., now considered synonymous with the subgenus Rosacris stat. nov., which is characterized by (i) the vertex visibly wider than a compound eye, (ii) distinct medial and lateral carinae of the vertex, with the latter converging in the anterior part, (iii) the vertex not protruding in front of the eyes, bearing distinct fossulae, (iv) a strongly protruding frontal costa and facial carinae, with the bifurcation of the frontal costa at around the middle level of the height of the compound eyes (v) the top margin of the antennal groove at the bottom level of a compound eye, (vi) the fourth, fifth, and sixth penultimate antennal segments broadened, (vii) the pronotum slightly depressed behind the shoulders, (viii) median carina of the pronotum wavy, i.e. slightly raised, in the anterior part, (ix) the first tarsal segment with blunt pulvilli, a little shorter than the third, (x) hind tibia slightly widened distally. Broadened terminal maxillary palps are also mentioned, but this feature is difficult to see in most photographs.

When only the type specimens of the aforementioned (sub)genera are compared, they differ in the following characters (numbered as above): (i) the vertex of M. (R.) fuscipes comb. nov. is two times wider than an eye, while in M. (M.) gemella it is as wide as an eye, (vi) the aforementioned antennal segments are (per the original description) compressed in M. (R.) fuscipes comb. nov., while the antennae are filiform in M. (M.) gemella , (vii) the pronotum is depressed in both types but less so in M. (R.) fuscipes comb. nov., (viii) the median carina of the pronotum in M. (M.) gemella is straight, and in M. (R.) fuscipes comb. nov. is wavy in the anterior part, (ix) both genera have blunt pulvilli, but the first segment in M. (R.) fuscipes comb. nov. is a little shorter than the third, while in M. (M.) gemella they are equally long, (x) the hind tibiae of M. (M.) gemella are not visible in the available photographs, but see below.

When the rest of the species within those subgenera are examined, some of the mentioned characters are painted in a different light. Brief notes on their diagnostic value are listed here (numbered as above): (i) The width of the vertex is a consistent character, except for Mazarredia sobria comb. nov., herein transferred to the subgenus Rosacris stat. nov. and is referred to as Mazarredia (Rosacris) sobria comb. nov. (vi)According to the original descriptions, M.(R.) fuscipes comb.nov. and M.(R.) lauta comb. rev. have some antennal segments widened. Günther (1939) did not see the the antennae of M. (R.) atypa comb. rev. and M. (R.) borneensis comb. nov. as the holotypes lack them. M. (R.) borneensis comb. nov. does, have widened antennal segments (Skejo pers. comm.), and this feature in M. (R.) atypa comb. rev. and M. (R.) sobria comb. nov. remains unknown. It could be proven to be taxonomically viable at the subgeneric or generic level when whole specimens of the problematic species are found.(vii) In M. (M.) gemella the pronotum is unusually depressed; this feature does not differ significantly between the other species of the two subgenera. (viii) The anterior elevation of the median carina is mostly a consistent difference between the subgenera, especially with M. (R.) sobria comb. nov. transferred to the subgenus Rosacris , but M. (M.) consocia and Mazarredia (Mazarredia) cervina ( Walker, 1871) remain notable exceptions. (ix) The holotype of M. (R.) fuscipes comb. nov. has an unusually short first tarsal segment; the rest of the specimens have the first and the third tarsal segments equally long, and this feature does not correlate with the subgenera. (x) Species within both subgenera have hind tibiae widened distally, so this is not a valuable character for separating them at that level.

Notes. Based on (i) and (viii), M. (R.) sobria comb. nov. is transferred to the subgenus Rosacris . With this, the width of the vertex becomes the only reliable character that separates the subgenera Rosacris and Mazarredia , with others being variably informative due to the lack of information or not being constrained to a specific character set.