Trychopeplus laciniatus ( Westwood, 1874 )

Hennemann, Frank H. & Conle, Oskar V., 2024, Studies on Neotropical Phasmatodea XXVI: Taxonomic review of Cladomorformia tax. n., a lineage of Diapheromerinae stick insects, with the descriptions of seven new genera and 41 new species (Phasmatodea: Occidophasmata: Diapheromerinae), Zootaxa 5444 (1), pp. 1-454 : 287-288

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5444.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:5DE4A9DD-99F7-4E23-AD50-58DC491BB75E
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FD87D9-FEBE-D97A-FF55-F28B2DD5E3BE
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Trychopeplus laciniatus ( Westwood, 1874 )
status

Treatment

Trychopeplus laciniatus ( Westwood, 1874) View in CoL

( Figs. 79A–L View FIGURE 79 , 84H–J View FIGURE 84 , 96L View FIGURE 96 , 100D View FIGURE 100 , 122–123 View FIGURE 122 View FIGURE 123 )

Ceroys laciniatus Westwood, 1874: 174 , pl. 32: 4 (♀).

Parobrimus laciniatus, Kirby, 1904: 344 .

Pericentrus laciniatus, Shelford, 1909: 356 .

Trychopeplus laciniatus, Hebard, 1923: 359 View in CoL , pl. 15: 5 (♀) & 6 (egg).

Robinson, 1969: 291. [Defensive behaviour]

Robinson, 1970: 56, fig. 5 (♀).

Zompro, 2001: 230.

Otte & Brock, 2005: 338.

Brock & Büscher, 2022: 249, 515, figs.

Pericentrus multilobatus Redtenbacher, 1908: 352 (in part—only ♂♂).

Trychopeplus multi-lobatus, Shelford, 1909: 356 View in CoL , pl. 6: 5 (♂).

Trychopeplus multilobatus, Hebard, 1923: 359 View in CoL . [Designation of lectotype]

Brock, 1993: 20.

Brock, 1998: 44.

Zompro, 2001: 230. [Unneccesary lectotype designation]

Brock & Büscher, 2022: 515.

[Not: Trychopeplus laciniatus, Conle, Hennemann & Gutiérrez, 2011: 6 , 56—misidentification relation to T. thaumasius Hebard, 1924 ]

Further material examined (6 ♂♂, 7 ♀♀, 3 nymphs, eggs):

NICARAGUA: 1 ♂: NICA, Zelaya , Cerro Saslaya, Camp 2, 700 m — IV–1999, UTM–714750/1518900, Col.J.M.Maes & B.Herrnández [ MEL] .

COSTA RICA: 1 ♂: Costa Rica, Prov. Puntarenas, Coto Brus , Alturas de Cotón , 1335m, 10 May 2012 I.Cruz, Colecta Libre, L _ S_322224_591582_8104148 [ MNCR-A] ; 1 ♂: Estac. Pitilla, 700m, 9km S Santa Cecilia, Guanac. Prov., Costa Rica , May 1988, GNP Biodiversity Survey 330200.380200; Costa Rica, MNCR-A CRI000 020863 [ MNCR-A] ; 1 ♀: 71–42, Chont-alles. [ NHMUK] ; 1 ♀: Cartago, C.R., R.T. Rosas coll. July–1926 [ USNM] ; 4 ♀♀, 3 ♂♂, eggs: Ex Zucht, B. Kneubühler 2017, Costa Rica: Puntarenas, Monteverde N.P. [OC, 0554–1 to 8] .

PANAMA: 1 ♂ n4: V. de Chiriqui, 25–4000 ft, Champion, 64, Godman-Salvin Coll. 1908–168, B.C.A. Orth. II, Pericentrus laciniatus (West.) [ NHMUK]; 1 nymph n3: Bugaba, 800–1500 ft., Champion, Godman-Salvin Coll. 1908–168, B.C.A. Orth. II, Pericentrus laciniatus (West.) [ NHMUK]; 1 ♀ & eggs: Rio Trinidad, Panama, III.29.1912 (Busck) [ USNM]; 1 nymph: Rio Trinidad, Panama, V.1911 (Busck) [ USNM].

Diagnosis. The apically thickened and widened cerci distinguish ♀♀ from the other two known species. From the similar T. thaumasius Hebard, 1924 from Ecuador and Colombia they differ by the much smaller size; more prominently armed dorsal body surface (abdomen in particular); armed pronotum ( Fig. 79C View FIGURE 79 ); multi-dentate excrescences of the mesonotum (foliaceous in thaumasius ); relatively smaller foliaceous lateral appendages of abdominal tergum III and larger lobes of the extremities, which have their marginal projections more irregular in shape.

From T. spinosolobatus ( Redtenbacher, 1908) ♀♀ are easily separated by the foliaceous and irregularly crenulate excrescences of the mesonotum (obtusely spiniform or peg-like in spinosolobatus ), smaller tubercles of the pronotum, notably larger and broader lateral appendages of abdominal terga II–IX, presence of dorsal lobes on all legs (legs unarmed dorsally in spinosolabtus), having at least two unevenly sized lobes on the medioventral carina of the meso- and metatibiae, and bearing a rounded dorsal lobe on the basitarsi.

Variability. Both sexes show considerable variability in morphology and colouration although the range is comparatively much larger in ♀♀. The very complex mossy and lichenose colouration ranges from various shades of green over ochre to brown, occasionally green and brown tones are mixed. The pale V-shaped marging on the metanotum of ♀♀ ranges from bright white to ochre and may be obsolete in dried specimens. Characters that are seen to underlie considerable morphological variability in both sexes are the large ear-like lobes and general armature of the head, excrescences and appendages of the thoracic segments, lateral lobes of the abdominal terga as well as the ornamentation of the extremities. All these characters vary in size and shape and the smaller appendages on the diorsal body surface of ♀♀ in particular also vary in quantity.

Eggs ( Fig. 100D View FIGURE 100 ). Medium-sized, capsule ovoid and about 1.3x longer than high and wide. Dorsal capsule surface more convex than lateral and ventral surfaces; polar area rounded. Capsule surface smooth and all over covered by a honeycombed structure of strongly raised ridges, which are densely covered with long hair-like fringes (ca. 0.6 mm). Opercular collar distinctly raised with the upper margin crenulate. Micropylar plate pear-shaped and gradually widened towards the posterior, about half the length of capsule and notably displaced towards polar area. Sculptured like capsule and entire outer margin raised and covered with hair-like fringes. Micropylar cup distinct, obtusely knob-like and near posterior end of plate. Operculum almost circular and with a prominently raised outer margin that produces a hollow and membranous crown-like structure; its height corresponding to about half the length of capsule. Capsule basically plain greyish mid brown, the raised ridges and fringes pale straw. Micropylar plate pale cream to straw with the median portion ochre. Opercular excrescence ochre with regular up-and-downward directed, reddish brown, loop-like lines, which are marked by a washed black spot at their lower base.

Measurements excluding the hairy fringes [mm]: overall length 5.0–5.4, length 3.9–4.0, width 2.0–2.3, height 2.2–2.5, length of micropylar plate 1.9–2.0, height of opercular excrescence 1.9–2.2.

Comments. Westwood (1874: 174, pl. 32: 4) described Ceroys laciniatus from a unique ♀ from Nicaragua in the collection of OUMNH and although the author provided a nice illustration of the specimen, Redtenbacher (1908) omitted Westwood’s species in his monograph. Hebard (1923, pl. 15: 6) provided an illustration of the egg and merely mentioned that it was covered with long silky hairs. For completing the generic description of Trychopeplus a detailed description and photographs of the egg are presented herein.

Redtenbacher (1908: 352) described Pericentrus multilobatus based on two adult ♂♂ from Panama (Valle del Chriquí) and Costa Rica (Rio Sucío) in the collection of NHMUK and a 4th instar ♀ nymph from Peru in the collection of NHMW. Shelford (1909: 356) recognised that the ♂ of P. multilobatus represented the opposite sex of Westwood’s Ceroys laciniatus and synonymised multilobatus . Furthermore, Shelford (1909: 359) was correct in stating the ♀ nymph from Peru is a distinct species for which he attempted to retain the name multilobatus . However, as that specimen was referred to multilobatus with a query this cannot be done and consequently Hebard (1923: 359) designated the adult ♂ from Panama (Valle de Chiriquí) in NHMUK as the lectotype of P. multilobatus , thereby confirming the synonymy established by Shelford. Zompro (2001: 230) listed P. multilobatus as a synonym of T. laciniatus but unneccessarily and for an unknown reason designated the ♀ nymph from Peru as the lectotype of multilobatus , although already Shelford (1909) and Hebard (1923) had stated that this is a distinct species and a lectotype had already been selected by the latter author. Thus, the lectotype designation of Zompro is invalid. The immature ♀ from Peru in the NHMW collection measures a body length of 33.6 mm and already Redtenbacher (1908: 352) was in doubt whether it really represented the opposite sex of the ♂♂ from Panama and Costa Rica. Due to most distinguishing features are still undeveloped, consequences are hard to draw with confirmation, why there is currently no name available for this species (→ see Trychopeplus sp. ).

The three immature specimens from Colombia listed by Conle et al. (2011: 57) appear to have been misidentified and represent T. thaumasius Hebard, 1924 . Hence, Colombia is an erroneous record for T. laciniatus .