Malagasyphisis, Hugel, 2012

Hugel, Sylvain, 2012, New and little known Phisidini from Madagascar, Comoros and Seychelles (Orthoptera, Ensifera, Meconematinae), Zoosystema 34 (3), pp. 525-552 : 546-550

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5252/z2012n3a3
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C287D4-013C-FFB0-FF45-FA7ED22AFC5F
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Malagasyphisis
status	gen. nov.

Treatment

Genus Malagasyphisis View in CoL n. gen.

( Figs 15 View FIG , 16 View FIG ; Table 8)

TYPE SPECIES. — Malagasyphisis maromizaha n. sp., by present designation.

DISTRIBUTION. — Indian Ocean, Madagascar.

ETYMOLOGY. — After the type locality.

DIAGNOSIS. — Pro with shallow lateral lobes; prosternum armed with moderate processes; thoracic auditory opening large; front coxal process present, very minute; mid trochanteral spine present; T2 dorsal apical spur present; T2 with 2-3 mid dorsal subbasal spurs; male epiproct not specialised, male paraprocts small, not visible from above; male SGP with distinct styli; male FW reduced, slightly longer than Pro; male epiphallus with two widely separated rods, protruding from each side of the basal lobe.

DESCRIPTION

Body size moderate (12 mm). Pro: anterior margin weakly concave; lateral lobes shallow; ventral margin rimmed; prosulcus distinct, mesosulcus distinct on lateral lobes; prosternum armed with moderate processes, mesosternum armed with short bulges, metasternum unarmed. Thoracic opening large. FW reduced, slightly longer than Pro. Fore leg with minute coxal spine. Tympanal area of T1 weakly inflated. Mid leg with a distinct trochanter spine. T2 with 2-3 dorsal subbasal spurs on both sides; with dorsal apical spur.

Males

Wings ( Fig. 16 View FIG ): left mirror area D-shaped, slightly higher than wide. Terminalia ( Fig. 15 View FIG ): epiproct small, not fused with last tergum, with a shallow median depression. Paraprocts not visible dorsally. Cerci: long, curved inwards, broadly cylindrical, with a process on the middle. SGP: broad; posterior margin with distinct styli. Genitalia ( Fig. 15D, E View FIG ): phallus with distinct sclerified plates on dorsal phallomeres. Epiphallus with two widely separated rods, protruding from each side of the basal lobe.

Females

Unknown.

Body Head Pro Tibia Femora FW L L W L W H 1 2 3 1 2 3 L 3 W L

♂ Holotype 11.8 1.2 2.1 3.0 2.5 1.3 8.8 7.2 14.3 7.6 5.7 11.7 1.8 3.7

Colour

Green; males left FW with dark spot on the mirror area and more distally.

BIOACOUSTICS

Unknown.

REMARKS

Within Phisidini View in CoL , Malagasyphisis View in CoL n. gen. is close to Decolya Bolívar, 1900 View in CoL but differs by: thoracic auditory opening large (small to moderate in Decolya View in CoL except in D. kelletti (Henry, 1922)) View in CoL ; T2 with 2-3 dorsal subbasal spurs (characteristic only partially shared with Kevanophisis Jin,1992 View in CoL , having1-2mid dorsal subapical spurs); male epiphallus with two widely separated rods, protruding from each side of the basal lobe (characteristic only shared with Rodriguesiophisis Hugel, 2010 View in CoL ).

Malagasyphisis maromizaha View in CoL n. sp. ( Figs 15 View FIG ; 16 View FIG ; Table 8) HOLOTYPE. — Madagascar, Anevoka , Maromizaha, 1000 m alt., 18°58’S, 48°27’E, 1,5 m h, 24.I.2011, S. Hugel, ♂ ( MNHN-ENSIF3006 ;2011 MADA SH 591). GoogleMaps

TYPE LOCALITY. — Indian Ocean, Madagascar, Maromizaha.

ETYMOLOGY. — Named after the type locality, Maromizaha.

DIAGNOSIS. — Ventral spur formulae: T1 7/7 subapical spurs; F1 5/4 spurs; T2 6/6 (proximal subapical spur minute) subapical spurs; F2 3/3 spurs. T2 with 2 (on one leg)-3 (on the other leg) dorsal subapical spurs. Cerci with a wide basis, cylindrical, regularly bent inwards; with an inner lobe on the middle ( Fig. 15C View FIG ). Epiphallus with two widely separated rods, protruding from each side of the basal lobe, apex of the rods pointing sidewards ( Fig. 15D, E View FIG ).

BIOLOGY. — I observed this species in the undergrowth of the core of Maromizaha nature reserve.

DESCRIPTION

In addition to generic characters.

Ventral spur formulae:T1 7/7 subapical spurs; F1 5/4 spurs;T2 6/6 (proximal subapical spur minute) subapical spurs; F2 3/3 spurs. T2 with 2 (on one leg)-3 (on the other leg) dorsal subapical spurs. F3 with 12 ventral spines.T3 with: 12/9 ventral spines; 17/17 dorsal spines.

Male

Wings ( Fig. 16 View FIG ): distinctly longer than Pro. File with 131 lamellar teeth ( Fig. 16C View FIG ). Terminalia ( Fig. 15 View FIG ): epiproct small, fitting in a semicircular notch of the last tergum, with a small median depression ( Fig. 15A View FIG ). Paraprocts small, not visible in dorsal view ( Fig. 15A, B View FIG ). Cerci with a wide basis, cylindrical, regularly bent inwards; with an inner lobe on the middle ( Fig. 15C View FIG ). SGP posterior margin strait ( Fig. 15B View FIG ). Genitalia ( Fig. 15D, E View FIG ): epiphallus with two widely separated rods, protruding from each side of the basal lobe, apex of the rods pointing sidewards.

Female

Unknown.

Measurements

See Table 8.

BIOACOUSTICS

Unknown.

KEY OF PHISIDINI JIN, 1987 View in CoL GENERA FROM SOUTH WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN ISLANDS AND PHISIDINI View in CoL SPECIES FROM COMOROS ARCHIPELAGO

1. Prosternum unarmed; mid dorsal apical spur present; one mid dorsal subbasal spur; Comoros archipelago .................................................................................................. 2

— Prosternum armed; mid dorsal apical spur present or absent; 0, 1, 2 or 3 mid dorsal subbasal spurs ............................................................................................................. 3

2. Front coxal process present, minute; male cerci cylindrical; cephalic lobe of epiphallus bifurcated apically ( Fig. 11D, I View FIG ) .................................................. Comorophisis View in CoL n. gen. 8

— Front coxal process absent; male cerci more complex; cephalic lobe of epiphallus simple ( Fig. 6A, C, E, G, I View FIG ) ..................................................................... Comorocolya View in CoL n. gen. 9

3. Mid trochanteral spine absent; male epiproct elongated; male paraprocts elongated, specialised ............................................................................................ Phisis Stål, 1861 View in CoL

— Mid trochanteral spine present; male epiproct reduced; male paraprocts reduced or elongated and specialised ............................................................................................ 4

4. FWs long, covering the abdomen; mid dorsal apical spur absent ................................. 5

— FWs reduced, not covering the abdomen; mid dorsal apical spur typically present ................................................................................................................................... 7

5. Mid dorsal subbasal spur absent; male cerci with a distinct process ( Fig. 1C, G View FIG ); granitic Seychelles............................................................................................ Seselphisis View in CoL n. gen.

— Mid dorsal subbasal spur present; male cerci without process; Mascarene archipelago ................................................................................................................................... 6

6. Pro with shallow lateral lobe; epiphallus with widely separated rods; Rodrigues ............. ........................................................................................ Rodriguesiophisis Hugel, 2010 View in CoL

— Pro with deep lateral lobe; epiphallus with one single rod; Mascarene archipelago ......... .......................................................................................... Brachyphisis Chopard, 1957 View in CoL

7. T2 with 2-3 dorsal subbasal spurs; epiphallus with widely separated rods ( Fig. 15D View FIG ); Madagascar.................................................................................. Malagasyphisis View in CoL n. gen.

— T2 with one dorsal subbasal spur; epiphallus with one single rod and undivided cephalic lobe; Mascarene archipelago ......................................................... Paradecolya Jin, 1992 View in CoL

8. Brachypterous, wings distinctly longer than Pro ( Fig. 12A, B View FIG ); epiphallus rod narrowed before the cephalic lobe (dorsal view; Fig. 11D View FIG ); female SGP posterior margin weakly projecting ( Fig. 13B View FIG ) ................................................. Comorophisis labati View in CoL n. gen., n. sp.

— Micropterous, wings at most as long as Pro ( Fig. 12D, E View FIG ); epiphallus rod not narrowed before the cephalic lobe (dorsal view; Fig. 11I View FIG ); female SGP posterior margin distinctly projecting ( Fig. 13D View FIG ) ......................................... Comorophisis mayottensis View in CoL n. gen., n. sp.

9. Cerci elongated, distal part moderately curved inwards (dorsal view; Fig. 5C, E View FIG ); Anjouan ...................................................................... Comorocolya ndzuwaniensis View in CoL n. gen., n. sp.

— Cerci stout, distal part bent (dorsal view; Fig. 5A, G, I View FIG ) ............................................ 10

10. Cerci stout, distal part bent, almost at right angle, with apex pointing ( Fig. 5G, I View FIG ); Mohéli ................................................................ Comorocolya mwaliensis View in CoL n. gen., n. sp.

— Cerci stout, basal half with a posterior lobe; distal part bent at right angle, with apex rounded (side view; Fig. 5C, E View FIG ); Grande Comore ................... Comorocolya ngazidja View in CoL n. gen., n. sp.