Dryococelus australis ( Montrouzier, 1855 )

Hennemann, Frank H. & Conle, Oskar V., 2006, Papuacocelus papuanus n. gen., n. sp. a new Eurycanthinae from Papua New Guinea, with notes on the genus Dryococelus Gurney, 1947 and description of the egg (Phasmatodea: Phasmatidae: Eurycanthinae), Zootaxa 1375, pp. 31-49 : 40-43

Dryococelus australis ( Montrouzier, 1855)

Figs. 7–9, 11–12 & 19

Karabidion australe Montrouzier, 1855: 86 . ST, ♂ & ♀: Lord Howe Island, Mr. Want Esquire

(Institution Sainte Marie de Saint-Chamond, Loire – believed to be destroyed).

Etheridge, 1889: 31–33.

Lea, 1916: 145, pl. 9: 17.

Karabidion australis, Kirby, 1904: 395 .

Carabidion australe, Redtenbacher, 1908: 340 . Dryococelus australis, Gurney, 1947: 384 , figs. 10 (♀) and 11–12 (♂).

Smithers, 1966: 252.

McAlpine, 1967: 71. [Rediscovery]

Key, 1974: 403, fig. 25.14 a & b (♂).

Vickery, 1983: 6.

Balderson et al., 1998: 367.

Humphrey, 2001: 6.

Priddel et al., 2003: 1391.

Otte & Brock, 2005: 131.

Eurycantha australis, Westwood, 1859: 65 , pl. 1: 1 (♂) & 2 (♀).

Lucas, 1872, pl. 10: 13 (hind leg of ♂)

Clark Sellick, 1998: 224, fig. 34A. [Egg] Eurycantha (Karabidion) australis, Sharp, 1895: 274 , fig. 160 (♂). Eubulides spuria Kirby, 1904a: 441 . HT, ♂ (nymph): Eurycantha spuria , Australia, Mr. Stevens

Coll. (BMNH). [synonymised by Otte & Brock, 2005: 131]

Kirby, 1904b: 395.

Vickery, 1983: 6.

Balderson et al., 1998: 367.

Material examined [5 ♂♂, 11 ♀♀, 10 nymphs, 9 eggs]:

1 ♂: Eurycantha Atlas Westw male, 55 –53, Admiralty Coll. Mr. McGillivray ( BMNH - specimen illustrated by Westwood, 1859, pl. 1: 1) ; 1 ♀: Eurycantha Atlas Westw, Lord Howes Island, 54–64 ( BMNH) ; 1 ♀ (nymph): Lord Howes I. 54 –61 ( BMNH) ; 6 eggs (on card): Eggs of Eurycanthus horribilis, No. 13–14, 5685 Lord Howes Island ( BMNH) ; 3 ♀♀, 5 ♂♂ (subadult), 2 ♀♀ (nymphs): Lord Howes Island det. Eurycantha australis Mont., Lord Howe Island: other particulars wanting, possibly Challenger Coll. Sept. 1883 ( BMNH) ; 1 ♂ (penultimate instar): 54–47, Lord Howe’ Isld, Eurycantha australis (Montr.) Lord Howe’s Isl. ( BMNH) ; 1 ♀: 86, 54–47 Lord Howe’ Isld., australis Mont. female ( BMNH – specimen illustrated by Westwood, 1859, pl. 1: 2, atypical colouration) ; 3 eggs: Lord Howe Is.: possibly Challenger Coll., Sept. 1883 ( BMNH) ; 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀, 1 nymph: Coll. Br. v. W. Lord Howe Isl., det. Br. v. W. Carabidion australe , 2.355 & 8.759 ( NHMW, No. 693 ) ; 2 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀: Lord Howe Island, P.R. Pedley July 1916 ( ANSP) ; 1 ♂, 1 ♀: Museum Paris, 55, Karabidion australe Mont. ( MNHN) .

Comments

Montrouzier (1855: 86) described Karabidion australe from males(s) and female(s) obtained on Lord Howe Island. The original type specimens were deposited at the Institution Sainte Marie de Saint-Chamond, Loire (France) and appear to have been destroyed during military occupation in the two World Wars ( Vickery, 1983: 6). Therefore, any more comprehensive treatment of this species, or a revisional study of the Eurycanthinae should include the designation of a neotype, in order to fix Montrouzier’s species. Westwood (1859) provided descriptions and illustrations of both sexes (pl. 1, figs. 1 & 2), and having identified the invalidity of Montrouzier’s Karabidion , included it in Eurycantha . The distinctive hind leg of the male was accurately figured by Lucas (1872, pl. 10: 13). Gurney (1947: 384) placed it in his new genus Dryococelus and provided descriptions and photos (1947, figs. 10–12) of both sexes.

Kirby (1904a: 441) described Eubulides spuria from a unique presumed adult ♂, which from the original description appears to be a nymph. Balderson et al. (1998: 367) presumed the HT of E. spuria Kirby, 1904 to be lost. Otte & Brock (2005: 131) stated the HT to be not traced in BMNH and that the only specimen represented in that collection and labelled “ Eurycantha spuria Australia” was shorter than the 55.0 mm recorded by Kirby (1904a: 441). Judith Marshall (BMNH) has kindly examined this specimen and found that the length is 55 mm if the antennae are included and that the dimensions of the mesonotum (Kirby erroneously stated “pronoti”) are 10.0 mm x 8.0 mm, just as given by that author. Therefore, and as the specimen agrees with every other aspect of the original description, it can be regarded the presumed lost HT of E. spuria Kirby, 1904 . As it is merely a ♂ nymph of D. australis (Montrouzier) Otte & Brock (2005: 131) have synonymised E. spuria Kirby with this species.

Clark Sellick (1998: 224, fig. 34A) briefly described the micropylar plate and figured the egg of D. australis , but no formal description and illustration have so far been published. Several authors (e.g. Etheridge, 1889; Lea, 1916; McAlpine, 1967; Priddel et al., 2003) have dealt with the biology and natural habitats of D. australis on Lord Howe Island and Balls Pyramid.

Body lengths (mm): ♂♂ 98.0–112.0 mm, ♀♀ (including subgenital plate) 108.0–133.0 mm.

Eggs ( Fig. 19 )

Large, oval, capsule 1.7x longer than wide and slightly narrowed anteriorly, sub-cylindrical in cross-section. Colouration of capsule, micropylar plate and operculum dull black. Capsule surface entirely covered with a fine, raised net-like structure. Similar structure on operculum but roughly radially directed. Operculum slightly oval and convex with a blunt spine in the centre. Micropylar plate very small and displaced towards posterior half of capsule, the anterior end roughly at mid point of dorsal capsule surface. Roughly spearshaped, tapered towards the anterior and with a constricted, pointed posterior end. Outer margin distinctly raised and with a fine whitish line dorsally. Micropylar cup indistinct and placed close to posterior end of plate.

Measurements (mm): Length (including operculum) 6.2, length 6.0, width 3.6, height 3.8, length of micropylar plate 2.4.

Figures

FIGURE 19: Dryococelus australis (Montrouzier, 1855): egg, dorsal view (BMNH).