Phryganistria Stål, 1875

Hennemann, Frank H. & Conle, Oskar V., 2008, Revision of Oriental Phasmatodea: The tribe Pharnaciini Günther, 1953, including the description of the world's longest insect, and a survey of the family Phasmatidae Gray, 1835 with keys to the subfamilies and tribes (Phasmatodea: " Anareolatae ": Phasmatidae), Zootaxa 1906, pp. 1-316 : 198-200

6.4 Genus Phryganistria Stål, 1875

126. Phryganistria grandis Rehn, 1906 , ♀ N-Vietnam, Than-Moi (ZMUH)

127. Phryganistria heusii (Hennemann & Conle, 1997) , ♀ N-Vietnam, captive reared (coll. FH, No. 0240-4) 128. Phryganistria heusii (Hennemann & Conle, 1997) , ♂ N-Vietnam, captive reared (coll. FH, No. 0240-11) 129. Phryganistria virgea ( Westwood, 1848) , ♀ N-India, Darjeeling ( ZMUH)

Type species: Bacteria sarmentosa Westwood, 1848: 66 , pl. 32: 1–2 (= Bacteria virgea Westwood, 1848: 66 ), by subsequent designation by Kirby, 1904a: 358.

Phryganistria Stål, 1875: 6 & 63 (in part).

Kirby, 1904a: 358.

Rehn, 1906: 279.

Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1907: 181–183.

Otte & Brock, 2005: 272 (in part).

Chen & He, 2007: 337, figs. 308-309.

Bacteria, Westwood, 1848: 66 , pl. 32: 1–2.

Lonchodes, Westwood, 1859: 46 (in part).

Phobaeticus Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1907: 183 (in part).

Günther, 1934a: 94, fig. 6.

Günther, 1935b: 124.

Brock, 1996: 28 (in part).

Otte & Brock, 2005: 272 (in part).

Description (♂, ♀): Long to very long, mostly very elongate and moderately slender Pharnaciini , both sexes apterous. Sexual dimorphism moderate. ♂♂ either much smaller than ♀♀ or body only indistinctly shorter. Body surface (especially of ♂♂) shiny. Head distinctly longer than wide, vertex flat or very slightly convex and smooth. Antennae of ♂♂ indistinctly longer than those of ♀♀, as long as combined length of head, pro- and mesonotum or slightly longer than complete thorax and head combined. Antennomeres very elongate, usually more than 5x longer than wide. Mesosternum of ♂♂ simple, not keeled. Median segment very short, at best 2/5 the length of metanotum. Abdominal tergites occasionally with a posteromedian tubercle and / or lateral margins of II–VII gently rounded; tergite VII at best with small, rounded lobes posterolaterally. Sternum VII of ♀♀ with a distinct praeopercular organ, formed by two elongate, tooth-like lobes or blunt spines. Semitergites of anal segment of ♂♂ raised anterodorsally, of a roughly triangular overall-shape, apex ± elongated. Subgenital plate of ♂♂ strongly convex, conical and with a blunt hump at the angle. Subgenital plate of ♀♀ either slightly projecting over anal segment or conspicuously lanceolate and projecting over anal segment by more than the combined length of tergites VIII–X. Cerci simple, conical and cylindrical or oval in cross-section. All legs very long and ± prominently dentate or serrate; occasionally single slightly enlarged teeth are present on mid-legs. Anterodorsal carina of profemora ± serrate. Meso- and metafemora of ♂♂ either slender, or distinctly broadened and with a prominent, dagger-like sub-apical spine on the antero- and posteroventral carinae; medioventral carina indistinct. Mesofemora distinctly longer than metanotum and median segment combined. Probasitarsus longer than remaining tarsomeres combined. Meso- and metabasitarsus at least as long as the following three tarsomeres combined; carinae not conspicuously elevated, except for dorsal carina which may be slightly rounded apically.

Eggs (Figs. 186–191): Medium-sized to large. Capsule distinctly longer than high, oval to slightly elliptical in cross-section and with a slight keel on dorsal and ventral surfaces and polar-area. Capsule surface minutely punctate, slightly shiny. External micropylar plate at least 2/3 the length of capsule, elongate, tapering towards anterior end and with a conspicuous notch posteromedially. Operculum flat, oval. Capitulum hatlike and distinctly stalked.

Diagnosis ( Table 2): Closely related to Phobaeticus Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1907 and Baculonistria gen. nov.. With the first it shares the prominent praeopercular organ of ♀♀, but it is easily distinguished by: the shorter median segment, which is at best 2/5 the length of the metanotum and and the lack of a median keel on the mesosternum of ♂♂. The eggs differ from those of Phobaeticus by the longer, lanceolate micropylar plate, which covers at least 2/3 of the capsule length, and the less laterally compressed, not lens-shaped capsule.

From Baculonistria gen. nov. it differs by: the relatively longer mesonotum, which is distinctly longer than the metanotum; longer median segment (only about 1/8 the length of metanotum in Baculonistria ); longer mesofemora, which clearly exceed the metanotum and median segment in length; lack of a sub-apical spine on the medioventral carina of the meso and metafemora and much longer antennae of both sexes. ♀♀ furthermore differ by: the lack of spines between the eyes; elongate antennomeres and prominent praeopercular organ, which is formed by two spines or pointed lobes at posterior margin of sternum VII of ♀♀ (a single, transverse lobe in Baculonistria ). The eggs differ from those of Baculonistria gen. nov. by the laterally compressed, almost smooth egg-capsule and relatively longer, more slender micropylar plate.

Variation: As in the closely related Phobaeticus several features of the insects are subject to strong intrageneric variability. The length of the subgenital plate is considerably variable: it is either short with the tip just reaching the posterior margin of the anal segment or strongly elongated, lanceolate and projects strongly over the apex of the abdomen. The meso- and metafemora of ♂♂ are either slender and unarmed subapically, or conspicuously thickened, distinctly broader than the corresponding tibiae and sub-apically armed with a long, dagger-like spine on the two outer ventral carinae. Species, in which ♂♂ have strongly thickened meso- and metafemora and a distinct sub-apical spine on the ventral carinae, tend to show less striking sizedimorphism with both sexes being almost equal in body length. In contrast, ♂♂ of those species which have the meso- and metafemora not distinctly thickened and lack a prominent sub-apical spine on the ventral carinae, are considerably shorter than the corresponding ♀♀. In all other genera of Pharnaciini the sexual dimorphism is much more striking with ♂♂ being conspicuously smaller than ♀♀, reaching at best 65% of their body length.

Comments: Stål (1875: 6 & 63) established Phryganistria for Bacteria sarmentosa Westwood, 1848 , Bacteria virgea Westwood, 1848 and Phasma (Cladoxerus) acanthopus, de Haan, 1842 (not Burmeister, 1838, → see Tirachoidea biceps Redtenbacher, 1908 ). Stål placed Phryganistria in close relation to genera currently belonging in the subfamily Lonchodinae , and apart from exhibiting distinctly armed and dentate legs, characterized the genus by the short median segment: “..segmento mediano longiore quam latiore…. (1875: 6)”. Due to the first two species are synonymous and the latter belongs in the genus Tirachoidea Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1893, Kirby (1904a: 358) designated Bacteria sarmentosa Westwood as the type species of Phryganistria , unaware this had been synonymised with Bacteria virgea Westwood, 1848 by Westwood (1859: 46).

Brunner v. Wattenwyl (1907: 181) contained Phryganistria in his tribe Clitumnini and distinguished it from Phobaeticus Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1907 by the smooth medioventral carina of the meso- and metafemora, which is however a variable feature. It is true for Ph. virgea , the only species that Brunner v. Wattenwyl (1907: 181) contained in Phryganistria , but other members have the medioventral carina set with minute spines. Although Phobaeticus Brunner v. Wattenwyl has subsequently been transferred from Baculini Bradley & Galil, 1977 (= Clitumnini ) to Pharnaciini by Brock (1996: 26) no author has so far identified the close relation between Phryganistria and Phobaeticus , why Phryganistria has as yet remained in Clitumnini . It’s affiliation to Pharnaciini is however obvious, why Phryganistria is here transferred to Pharnaciini . All former authors have erroneously interpreted the short median segment as a link to Clitumnini , as did Stål (1875: 6) himself.

Distribution ( Fig. 85): So far recorded from NE-India, the southern flanks of the Himalaya ( Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling), Bangladesh, Myanmar, N-Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and southern China (Guangxi). One species has most certainly been erroneously recorded from Peninsular Malaysia and Java (these two records are excluded in Fig. 85).