Pelagomanes tekopua (O’Connor, 1997) n. comb.

Plate 40, Fig. 13.

Pseudodictyophimus sp. B, O’Connor, 1993, pl. 6, figs. 14–15.

Lophophaena tekopua n. sp., O’Connor, 1997, pl. 2, figs. 11–14, pl. 7, figs. 7–10.

Lophophaena tekopua O’Connor, Kamikuri, 2019, pl. 14, fig. 14 (non fig. 13).

Remarks. This species is very similar to Pelagomanes cantharoides (Pl. 40, Figs. 1–3, 7–8, 10, 14) and P. morawanensis (Pl. 40, Figs. 4A – 6, 9, 11–12), and O’Connor (1997) provided no differential diagnosis between any of these species. The type material of this species appears to indicate a relatively larger cephalis:thorax ratio than either Pelagomanes cantharoides or P. morawanensis . However, the range of variability is not clear and we are not certain that this is indeed a separate species. Renaudie 2014 considered Lophophaena tekopua O’Connor along with Pseudodictyophimus sp. B O’Connor to be conspecific with P. morawanensis (Funakawa) . Kamikuri (2019) identified two specimens as Lophophaena tekopua O’Connor; one of these is almost identical to the type material illustrated by O’Connor, and the other appears to more closely match the original illustrations of P. morawanensis . It is not evident to us whether these are two endpoints on a morphological continuum, or two distinct morphotypes that should be considered separate species. The group of taxa including P. cantharoides, P. morawanensis, and P. tekopua will require further work to determine the consistent differences between species, if there are any. For the purposes of this manuscript, we are tentatively retaining the three separate species concepts until more material can be examined.

Range. Middle Miocene, EEP (Table 1). Range poorly constrained.