Cardiodactylus philippinensis Bolívar, 1913

Robillard, Tony, 2014, Review and revision of the century-old types of Cardiodactylus crickets (Grylloidea, Eneopterinae, Lebinthini), Zoosystema 36 (1), pp. 101-125 : 112-122

Cardiodactylus philippinensis Bolívar, 1913

Cardiodactylus haani philippinensis Bolívar, 1913: 260 . — Chopard 1968: 352.

Cardiodactylus philippinensis – Otte 1994: 66 (valid species); 2007: 343. — Robillard & Desutter-Grandcolas

2004a: 291. — Eades et al. 2013 ( Orthoptera Species File Online). This study> nomen dubium.

TYPE MATERIAL. — Male type: Philippines. Mindanao I., no precise localities ( MNCN, lost).

TYPE LOCALITY. — The locality mentioned by Bolívar is Mindanao without precision.

REMARKS

The type specimen of C. philippinensis could not be found in MNCN, Madrid where it is supposed to be deposited ( Paris 1993; M. Paris pers. comm. 2012). It is consequently considered as lost. According to the original description, the species is known from the Philippines and was briefly described based on a single male specimen from the large island of Mindanao, without precise locality. Despite Otte (2007a) mentions that C. philippinensis is the only species of Cardiodactylus from Mindanao, several species are described from this island that is famous for its biodiversity (some are described by Otte [2007a] himself). For these multiple reasons, it is impossible to compare C. philippinensis to other species of Cardiodactylus , to redescribe it and/or to define a neotype series. Consequently, this species should be considered as nomen dubium.

Cardiodactylus pictus Saussure, 1878 ( Figs 2D , 3C , 6 , 7 )

Cardiodactylus pictus Saussure, 1878: 521 . — Kirby 1906: 88. — Chopard 1915: 166; 1931a: 17; 1937: 118; 1968: 351. — Wilemse 1926: 521. — Robillard & Desutter- Grandcolas 2004a: 291. — Otte 2007a: 343. — Eades et al. 2013 ( Orthoptera Species File Online). — this study> valid species, effordi species group.

Cardiodactylus novaeguineae – Otte 1994: 66 (synonymy).

TYPE MATERIAL. — Male lectotype (new designation): [ Indonesia]: Molukum [Maluku Islands], #3808, col. Br. V. W. [Brunner von Wattenwyl] ( NHMW) (examined). Paralectotypes: [ Indonesia]: Key Ins. [ Kai Islands ], coll. Br. v. [Brunner von Wattenwyl], 1 ♂, 22-VI-[18]41 ( MNHN- EO-ENSIF3149) ; 1 ♀, (MNHN-EO-ENSIF3150) (new designations).

OTHER MATERIAL EXAMINED. — [ Indonesia]: Key Ins. [Kai Islands], 2 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ ( MNHN). Kei Eil [Kai

Islands ], H. C. Siebers, 1922: Elat, 1 ♂, #156, 1 ♀, #159 ; Gn [Gunung = Mount] Daab, #79 ( MNHN). Key Tual [Kai Islands], 1 ♂, #22.674., Rohde, ex coll. H. Fruhstorfer ( MNHN) .

TYPE LOCALITY. — Indonesia, Maluku Islands, no precise localities.

REMARKS

The species is valid and has not been described under another name since original description. It clearly belongs to the effordi species group according to its small size, colouration, shape of pronotum and male genitalia.

REDESCRIPTION

Size small for the genus, colouration mostly brown with a wide pale band on lateral field of FW in both male and female. Eyes large and prominent, vertex dark brown, fastigium trapezoidal, yellowish with a median brown patch. Face and mouthparts almost homogenously yellow brown, with two faint dark spots between antennae. Scapes yellow brown, with a dark brown ring. Lateral part of head yellow brown. Pronotum posterior margin slightly bisinuated; dorsal disk of pronotum brown, anterior margin yellow brown with black spots; lateral lobes dark brown posteriorly, ventral margin yellow brown with a dark brown anterior pattern. Fore and median legs orange brown, with faint dark spots on femora and faint dark rings on tibiae; legs III almost homogeneously orange brown, sometimes mottled with dark brown; knees dark brown. HW tail dark brown and long, three times longer than pronotum.

Male ( Fig. 6 )

FWs mostly dark brown, with yellow veins basally. 1A bisinuated, with 135 stridulatory teeth on the transverse region of 1A and c. 20 teeth on the angle (total = 155 teeth, n = 1). Harp longer than wide, with one strong W-shaped harp vein and a faint anterior one. Mirror (d1) large, with an accessory vein separating a large anterior cell and a small posterior one. Cell d2 as wide as mirror, well defined. Apical field long and pointed, with 4-5 (m = 5, n = 4) cell alignments. Lateral field with 6-8 (m = 7, n = 4) projections of Sc and 4-5 (m = 5, n = 4) more ventral veins.

Male genitalia ( Fig. 6E, F ). Posterior part of pseudepiphallus forming a characteristic flat rectangular plate; anterior part trapezoidal, median area concave, its anterior margin slightly indented and covered with short setae. Rami long and strong, their apical stems long and slightly convergent. Ectophallic arc complete, curved posteriorly; ectophallic apodemes very long and thin, their basis with a sclerotised anterior expansion. Endophallic sclerite elongated, adodeme including a dorsal crest and narrow lateral lamellas.

Female ( Fig. 7 )

FWs dark brown, veins yellow brown, with 9 (n = 3) strong longitudinal veins. Lateral field with 6-7 projections of Sc and 4 more ventral veins (n = 3). HW forming a long tail posteriorly. Ovipositor very long, apex slightly denticulate dorsally ( Fig. 2D ).

Female genitalia ( Fig. 3C ). Copulatory papilla conical laterally, with a thin basal sclerotisation.

Measurements

See Table 2.

Cardiodactylus praecipuus ( Walker, 1869) ( Fig. 8 )

Platydactylus praecipuus Walker, 1869: 83 .

Madasumma praecipua – Kirby 1906: 94. — Chopard 1925: 533; 1929: 49; 1936: 75; 1968: 351; 1969: 312. — Shiraki 1930: 233.

Cardiodactylus praecipuus – Chopard 1936: 75; 1968: 351; 1969: 312. — Bhowmik 1979 [1981]: 44. — Otte 1994: 66; 2007: 343 (probably not belonging to Cardiodactylus ). — Robillard & Desutter-Grandcolas 2004a: 291. — Eades et al. 2013 ( Orthoptera Species File Online). — this study> nomen dubium (confirmation)

Orbega pallida Walker, 1869: 91 . — Chopard 1933: 171 (nymph of Cardiodactylus ).

TYPE MATERIAL. — Female lectotype: [ Sri Lanka] Ceylon, #212, det by B. Uvarov, ( BMNH) Examined.

TYPE LOCALITY. — Sri Lanka (no precise localities).

REMARKS

Otte (2007) hypothesised that this species described based on a single female was probably wrongly placed under Cardiodactylus by Chopard (1968). Re-examination of the type in London however confirms that this is a specimen of Cardiodactylus belonging to the large species group novaeguineae ( Fig. 8 ). But as Otte (2007a) remarked, the occurrence of this only specimen of Cardiodactylus in Sri Lanka is awkward, as this island is far outside of the range of distribution of the genus. Instead of a wrong identification, this may result from a label error of the specimen studied by Walker (1869). I consider this species as a nomen dubium.

Cardiodactylus rufidulus Saussure, 1878 ( Figs 2E , 3D , 9 , 10 , 11 )

Cardiodactylus rufidulus Saussure, 1878: 523 . — Kirby 1906: 88. — Chopard 1937: 118 (type not found); 1951: 481; 1968: 352. — Otte & Alexander 1983: 309 (nomen dubium, type not found in Paris or Geneva). — Otte 1994: 66 (nomen dubium); 2007a: 343 (nomen dubium). — Eades et al. 2013 ( Orthoptera Species File Online: nomen dubium). — this study> valid species, effordi species group.

Cardiodactylus sp. near rufidulus – Robillard & Desutter- Grandcolas 2004a: 273; 2004b: 479 (morphological phylogeny); 2006: 644 (molecular and morphological phylogeny). — Robillard 2004: 29; 2006: 675 (morphological phylogeny).

Cardiodactylus tathimani Otte, 2007a: 354 . — Otte 2007b: 32. — Eades et al. 2013 ( Orthoptera Species File Online). This study: junior synonym of C. rufidulus , new synonymy (see remarks).

TYPE MATERIAL. — Female lectotype (new designation): [ Solomon Islands]: Arch. Salomon, I. San George [San Jorge Island], #803.41, #152, 1841, Jacquinot ( MNHN- EO-ENSIF3151).

OTHER MATERIAL EXAMINED. — [ Solomon Islands] Solomon Is. Guadalcanal, Nalimbiu R. [river], 12.IX.1963, #0122, M. McQuillan, 1 ♂, identified C. rufidulus by L. Chopard ; Solomon Is, Malaita, Auki , 2-20m, 22.IX.1957, J. L. Gressitt, 1 ♀ ; Solomon Islands, Guadalcanal, Mt Austen , forest clearing, 24. VIII.1965, 1 ♀, Roy. Soc. Exped ( BMNH, B. M. 1966-1) ; Solomon IS, Guadalcanal, Suta , 500-1200 m, 27.VI.1956, 1 ♂, J. L. Gressitt ; Solomon IS., Malaita, Tangtalau , 200 m, 30.IX.1957, 1 ♀, J. L. Gressitt ; Solomon IS., Malaita, Tangtalau , 150-200 m, 25.IX.1957, 1 ♀, J. L. Gressitt ; Solomon IS. Guadalcanal, Rua Vatu , 20.XI.1954, #1565, E. S. Brown: 1 ♂, determined C. rufidulus by B. C. Townsend ( BMNH), 1 ♀, 1 ♂ ( BMNH) ; Solomon IS. Guadalcanal, Rua Vatu , 07.IV.1955, 1 ♂, E. S. Brown (BMNH-BM.1955-33) ; Solomon IS., Malaita, Dala , 55 m, 12.VI.1964, ex coll. BISHOP, 1 ♂, J. & M. Sedlacek ; Kiwi Creek , Guadalcanal, 21.VII.1944, 1 ♀, G. E. Milliron ; Solomon IS., Guadalcanal, Honiara, 0-100 m, XII.1976, 1 ♂, N. H. L. Krauss (BMNH-BM.1984-365) ; Solomon IS., Malaita, Makwanu , 25.IX.1963, #7824, 1 ♀, M. McQuillan ; Solomon IS. Malaita, Auki , 2-20 m, 22.IX.1957, 1 ♀, J. L. Gressitt ; Solomon IS. Guadalcanal, Kerl ***?, 20.IX.1954, #1049A, 1 ♀, E. S. Brown ( BMNH). [ Solomon Islands], Buma (Malaita) Salomonen, V.1929, 1 ♂ ; E. Paravicini, identified C. rufidulus by L. Chopard.

TYPE LOCALITY. — Locality mentioned by Saussure (1878) is “La Nouvelle Hollande ”. The labels mention “Arch. Salomon, I. San George”, which probably refers to San Jorge Island in the Solomon archipelago, south of Isabel Island.

REMARKS

The species C. rufidulus has been repeatedly treated as a nomen dubium, since the type specimen, a single female supposed to be deposited in Paris, from “La Nouvelle Hollande ” (wich refers to Solomon Islands in the case of C. canotus , see above), was considered lost by Otte & Alexander (1983) and Otte (1994, 2007a). I confirm that the female type to C. rufidulus is not in Paris, despite a series of more recent specimens matching the original description have been identified C. rufidulus by L. Chopard. A series of specimens from the same species was found in London, among which one female is labelled “Museum Paris” and matches the original description, locality and measurements of the type. This female also lacks hind legs, and the dates of collection and of depository in Paris Museum (1841) are consistent with the hypothesis that this specimen could be the missing type of Saussure. I consequently consider that this female specimen is the lost type from Paris, which is designated here as the lectotype of the species. However no explanation can be given to explain why it was found in London. Old types rarely bear a “type” label, so this legless female specimen could have been exchanged with London by someone who did not recognise it as the type of the species. One female specimen from MHNG also lacking hind legs and identified C. rufidulus (examined) was also supposed by Hollier et al. (2013) to be the type of Saussure, but this female is from New Guinea (locality on label is “Katow”) without collection date, and does not match the particular coloration pattern of the species.

In the meantime, specimens of the same species have been described by Otte (2007a) as C. tathimani , as clearly shown by the photographs of habitus and male genitalia. C. tathimani should consequently be considered as a junior synonym of C. rufidulus (new synonymy).

REDESCRIPTION

Size average for the genus, with a slender shape; colouration mostly yellow or pale orange brown with dark brown and whitish patterns on dorsum. Shape of head differing from other species of the genus: eyes large and prominent, vertex and fastigium on different levels, fastigium longer than wide, quite narrow, with a median furrow.Vertex anterior region black, posterior region orange brown to yellow, with four faint brown longitudinal lines. Fastigium yellow brown. Face, mouthparts and maxillary palpi almost homogenously yellow or orange brown, with two faint dark spots between antennae. Scapes rather large, yellow brown. Lateral part of head yellow brown. Pronotum posterior margin slightly bisinuated; dorsal disk posterior half dark brown to black, anterior area almost homogeneously yellow or orange brown, sometimes with a few black spots, lateral edges yellow; lateral lobes homogenously yellow or orange brown, the dorso-lateral angle

A

C

underlined by a black line sometimes interrupted. Legs homogeneously orange brown. TaIII-1 with a row of 2-4 spines (m = 3, n = 6) on external side in addition to dorsal rows. HW tail grey brown, twice longer than pronotum. FW colouration very characteristic and similar in both sexes despite presence of male stridulatory apparatus: FW mostly orange brown, anteriorly dark brown with two wide whitish or yellow areas, a basal one including base of FW and of anal veins, and one near FW quarter (anterior to file in male); external margin of FW whitish basally, including bases of CuA and M, with a whitish spot near third of FW length (posterior corner of harp in male). Lateral field orange brown except R, R/Sc area and posterior part of M/R area dark brown. HW tail twice longer than pronotum, grey brown. Abdomen yellow brown to grey brown. Cerci very long for the genus, yellowish, their inner basal region dark brown.

Male

FWs narrow for the genus, mostly orange brown or yellow brown, anterior region of dorsal field dark brown, including the harp and the region anterior to the file. 1A slightly bisinuated, with 250 stridulatory teeth on the transverse region of 1A, c. 30 on the angle and c. 40 on the basal longitudinal part of the file (total = 320 teeth, n = 1). Harp small, longer than wide, with a weak W-shaped harp vein and a fainter anterior one; whitish posterior angle of harp forming a semi-circular sclerotisation. Mirror (d1) not differentiated from the rest of D alignment. Apical field long and pointed, with 4-5 (m = 4, n = 4) cell alignments. Lateral field with 9-12 (m = 10, n = 4) projections of Sc and 4-5 (m = 4, n = 4) more ventral veins.

Male genitalia ( Fig. 10 E-G). Posterior part of pseudepiphallus narrow, ended by a triangular plate; anterior part trapezoidal, median area concave, its anterior margin slightly indented.Rami long, as long as pseudepiphallic sclerite, their apical stems long and slightly convergent. Pseudepiphallic parameres large, trilobate, the long posterior lobe pointed with a preapical hook, the two other lobes pointed and convergent. Ectophallic arc complete but thin, v-shaped; ectophallic apodemes thin, divergent, their basis with a ventral sclerotised expansion forming a rectangular plate; ectophalic fold widened apically, with thin lateral sclerites, median area possibly glandular. Endophallic sclerite small, with a triangular posterior expansion and small lateral arms; apodeme forming a thick anterior expansion, including a dorsal crest and lateral lamellas fused together.

Female

FW colouration with similar pattern as in male, with 8-11 (m = 10; n = 4; lectotype = 11) strong parallel longitudinal veins on dorsal field.Lateral field with 9 projections of Sc and 4-5 more ventral veins (n = 4). Ovipositor ( Fig. 2E ) as long as FIII, apex elongate, smooth on both dorsal and ventral edges.

Female genitalia ( Fig. 3D ). Copulatory papilla conical, with a thin basal sclerotisation; apex elongate.

Measurements

See Table 2.

Figures

FIG. 2. — Apex of ovipositor of: A, C. canotus Saussure,1878; B, C. gaimardi (Serville, 1838); C, C. haani Saussure,1878; D, C. pictus Saussure, 1878; E, C. rufidulus Saussure, 1878. Scale bar: 1 mm.

FIG. 3. — Copulatory papilla in ventral (left) and lateral (right) views of: A, C. haani Saussure, 1878; B, C. canotus Saussure, 1878; C, C. pictus Saussure, 1878; D, C. rufidulus Saussure, 1878. Scale bars: 1 mm.

FIG. 6. — Cardiodactylus pictus Saussure,1878, male lectotype: A, lateral view; B, dorsal view; C, head in facial view; D, FW venation; E, male genitalia in dorsal view; F, male genitalia in ventral view. Scale bar: A, B, 5 mm.

FIG. 7. — Cardiodactylus pictus Saussure, 1878, female paralectotype: A, dorsal view; B, lateral view; C, FW venation; D, head in dorsal view; E, head in facial view; F, labels. Scale bars: A, B, 1 cm; C-E, 1 mm.

FIG. 8. — Cardiodactylus praecipuus (Walker, 1869), female lectotype: A, dorsal view; B, lateral view; C, apex of ovipositor. Scale bars: A, B, 1 mm.

FIG. 9. — Cardiodactylus rufidulus Saussure, 1878, female lectotype: A, dorsal view; B, lateral view; C, head in facial view; D, labels. Scale bars: A, B, 1 cm; C, 1 mm.

FIG. 10.—Cardiodactylus rufidulus Saussure,1878:A, male in dorsal view;B, male in lateral view;C, femalein dorsal view;D, female in lateral view; E, male genitalia in dorsal view,F, male genitalia in ventral view; G, male genitalia in lateral view.Scale bars: A-D,1 cm; E-G,1 mm.

FIG. 11. — Cardiodactylus rufidulus Saussure, 1878: A, male FW venation; B, female FW venation; C, head in view facial; D, head in dorsal view. Scale bars: 1 mm.