Rhombomantis longipennis Wang, Ehrmann & Borer, 2021

Liu, Qin-Peng, Liu, Zi-Jun, Wang, Guo-Li & Yin, Zi-Xu, 2021, Taxonomic revision of the praying mantis subfamily Hierodulinae of China (Mantodea: Mantidae), Zootaxa 4951 (3), pp. 401-433 : 418

Rhombomantis longipennis Wang, Ehrmann & Borer, 2021

( Figs. 7 , 8 , 13G–I , 15E–H )

Rhombomantis longipennis Wang, Ehrmann & Borer, 2021: 1 . Holotype (♂): Thailand, Chiang Mai, SMNK.

Diagnosis. Similar to Rhombomantis tectiformis (Saussure, 1870) but can be easily distinguished from the latter by the following combination of characters: 1) forelegs: the red mark near the tibial spur, groove light coloured or absent in adult of R. longipennis while more heavily pigmented in R. tectiformis ; inner surface of forecoxa with a light blue streak of colour, and two rows of spotted ornamentation on the blue streak in R. longipennis while absent in R. tectiformis . 2) lower frons with a pair of feeble carinae in R. tectiformis while in R. longipennis the surface is almost smooth. 3) longer wings in both sexes, widely surpassing abdomen apex while in R. tectiformis the female wings only slightly surpass abdomen apex. 4) male genitalia: L4A sclerite of R. tectiformis longer than wide, with its membranous right lateral margins protrude out forming a laminated spine ( Lombardo 1993), while in R. longipennis it is round. Sdpl of R. longipennis is much longer.

Material examined. 1♂, 2♀, CHINA, Jinghong, Xishuangbanna , Yunnan, 22°36’N, 101°25’E, 4.xi.2017, leg. Zhaotai Wei.

Measurements [in mm, ♂ (n = 1), ♀ (n = 2)]. Body length, ♂ 83.2, ♀ 78.9–96.1. Pronotum length, ♂ 18.2, ♀ 17.8–22.2. Prozona length, 6.1, 6.2–6.7. Forewing length, ♂ 60.0, ♀ 16.6–21.7.

Remarks. Wang et al. (2021) recently describe this species in genus Rhombomantis . However, the morphology of afa, L4A and the tip of sdpl in male genitalia of R. longipennis are more similar to species related to H. patellifera . To determine the status of this species may need more evidence.

Ootheca ( Fig. 15E–H ). Females generally tend to attach the ootheca on nearly horizontal surfaces, causing their ootheca ventral surface fully exposed. The shape of the ootheca nearly a declined cone. External wall dark coloured, very rigid and glossy, covering with tan coating in profile surface and emergence area. Egg chamber openings are covering with closely arranged opercula, the flaps of which form a residual process with a different length that beyond the edge of the ootheca.

Distribution. China (Yunnan); Thailand; Myanmar and India.

Figures

FIGURE 7. R. longipennis. A–B. Male, A. Dorsal view; B. Ventral view. C–F. Female, A, E. Dorsal view; D, F. Ventral view. G. Ventral view of forelegs. H–I. Head. H. Male; I. Female.

FIGURE 8. R. longipennis, ecological habitus. A. Startle displays of last–instar nymph. B. Startle displays of a male adult. C. Lateral view of a living male.

FIGURE 13. Male genitalia of Chinese Hierodulinae. A–B. Hierodula patellifera. C–D. Hierodula maculata. E–F. Hierodula tenuidentata. G–I. R. longipennis. G. Ventral phallomere; H. left phallomere; I. right phallomere. J–K. Rhombomantis fusca. L–M. Mekongomantis quinquespinosa.

FIGURE 15. Ootheca of Hierodulinae from China (except T–U. Hierodula membranacea from India). A–D. Rhombomantis fusca. E–H. R. longipennis. I–J. Hierodula patellifera (Xishuangbanna, Yunnan). K–L. Hierodula tenuidentata. M–N. Hierodula pistillinota. O. Hierodula maculata. P. Hierodula patellifera (Qingdao, Shandong). Q. Mekongomantis quinquespinosa. R–S. Hierodula confusa.