Urothrips Bagnall, 1909

Mound, Laurence A., Lima, Élison Fabrício B. & O’Donnell, Cheryle A., 2023, What is a genus-interpreting structural diversity among species of urothripine Phlaeothripinae (Thysanoptera), Zootaxa 5319 (1), pp. 91-102 : 100

Urothrips Bagnall

Urothrips Bagnall, 1909: 126 . Type species Urothrips paradoxus Bagnall.

Coxothrips Bournier, 1963: 75 . Type species Coxothrips reticulatus Bournier. Synonymised by Ulitzka & Mound, 2014.

Ananthakrishnaniella Stannard, 1970: 118 . Type species Ananthakrishnaniella tarai Stannard. Synonymised by Bhatti, 1998: 178.

Biconothrips Stannard, 1970: 121 . Type species Biconothrips reedi Stannard. Synonymised by Ulitzka & Mound, 2014.

Within the key to genera of urothripines presented by Mound (1972), one group of four genera was distinguished by the following three character-states: absence of elongate setae on anterior margin of head; presence of prominent external fore tarsal hamus; reduction of prosternal basantra (=praepectus) to a pair of small triangles placed laterally. However, there is considerable overlap in character states amongst the nine species involved under these four generic names, and Ulitzka and Mound (2014) decided to include all nine species within a single genus, Urothrips . The alternative to accepting a single genus to encompass the range of variation amongst these species would be to recognise more than four monotypic genera, each of which would be supported by a single autapomorphy with no obvious systematic significance. The problem of distinguishing genera based on characters that seem to vary progressively in fusion or size increases when all 12 of the species now listed in Urothrips are considered. In one of these species, U. lancangensis , the fore tarsal hamus is very small, and in U. calvus it appears to be quite undeveloped. Similarly, the only available specimen of U. bagnalli Trybom is uncleared but seems to have transverse basantra. At species level within the genus there appear to be further problems, in that populations of paradoxus in Africa differ in colour details, as is known amongst populations of reedi in Australia ( Mound 1972).