Gibocercus Szumik 1998
Creators: name: Pereyra, Veronica
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2017
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Embioptera
Scelembiidae
Gibocercus

description: Gibocercus Szumik, 1997
Gibocercus Szumik, 1997:141, Ross, 2001: 35 (genus composition); Szumik, 2002: 444 (family composition); Szumik, 2004: 229 (phylogeny); Szumik, et al., 2008: 1003 (phylogeny); Szumik, 2012: 352 (family composition). Type species: Gibocercus chaco Szumik, 1997 by original designation.
Diagnosis. Gibocercus iS clearly diStinguiShed by the Shape of the 10Lp with the inner tip hyperdeVeloped and the outer tip Very Short, fleShy and conical; the length of the conical LC1dp iS more than twice the width of the LC1, and haS few Setae and a clear, rounded conVexity on the dorSal face of the proceSS (Szumik 1997).
Composition and distribution. Some of the SpecieS deScribed by RoSS (2001) are Sympatric with SpecieS preViouSly deScribed by Szumik or SpecieS deScribed by himSelf. SurpriSingly, RoSS did not make any reference to their geographic diStribution, neither to their clear Similarity; in fact there are no diagnoSeS for any of them. With the exception of G. sandrae RoSS, 2001, hiS new SpecieS are deScribed without any illuStration, aS in G. flavipes RoSS, 2001 Sympatric with G. nanai Szumik, 1997; G. magnus RoSS, 2001 Sympatric with G. beni Szumik, 1997; and G. napoa RoSS, 2001 Sympatric with G. sandrae RoSS, 2001. Gibocercus flavipes differS from G. nanai only on coloration detailS and the Sympatric diStributionS of the two SpecieS were not diScuSSed by RoSS. According to our cladiStic Study theSe SpecieS are SiSterS (Fig. 3); therefore G. flavipes iS propoSed aS a junior Synonym of G. nanai. A Similar Situation occurS with G. napoa and G. sandrae, giVen that both SpecieS were deScribed by RoSS in 2001; G. napoa iS the junior Synonym of G. sandrae baSed on page priority (G. sandrae iS deScribed on page 39 and G. napoa on page 41), and becauSe G. sandrae waS illuStrated. The Synonymy of G. magnus with G. beni iS diScuSSed below under G. beni.
The low number of localitieS, with Some of the SpecieS known from juSt one or two recordS, SuggeStS that they are quite rare and SenSitiVe to enVironmental changeS; at leaSt thiS iS the caSe for the SpecieS preSent in Argentina. PerhapS the SenSitiVity condition iS connected with the large Size of the SpecimenS; they take almoSt a year to deVelop from egg to adult, whereaS the life cycle in other SpecieS take leSS than three monthS. After Synonymization, the genuS Gibocercus includeS 7 SpecieS: G. chaco from the Dry Chaco region of Argentina, G. beni moStly from BoliVian rain foreSt, G. nanai and G. peruviana from the North and South Amazon BaSinS of Peru, reSpectiVely, G. sandrae from the Amazon BaSin of Ecuador, G. urucumi from the Pantanal of Brazil and G. podamita n. sp. from the Amazon region of Brazil (Fig. 8). HoweVer, giVen that there are only a few locality recordS it iS not poSSible to make a deep biogeographic diScuSSion.
Relationships. According to the phylogenetic analySiS Gibocercus iS a well Supported, monophyletic genuS (Fig. 4). The SynapomorphieS that define the genuS are: male interocular elliptical area lightly depigmented (ch. 1), male poStocular Suture full deVeloped (ch. 7); Ma2 Vein deVeloped on the baSal two-thirdS (ch. 38); LC1dp conical (ch. 55), LC1dp with a conVexity on the de dorSal face (ch. 58); 10Lp1 with inner tip hyperdeVeloped (ch. 68), and microtrichia on 10Rp1 preSent (ch. 73). RoSS (2001) deScribed a few SpecieS and diVided the genuS into two Subgenera, Gibocercus and Amazonembia. According to our phylogenetic analySiS Amazonembia iS a paraphyletic group in termS of Gibocercus. RoSS’S propoSal Should be abandoned aS there iS no need to retain the paraphyletic Amazonembia. InStead, two cladeS are recognized in Gibocercus. One clade containS SpecieS preSent in a “Southern” Sector (Fig. 8, G. chaco, G. urucumi, G. beni, G. peruviana) Supported by female prothorax pigmented (ch. 12); Ma2 and Mp completely deVeloped (chS. 38 and 39); baSal node of LC1 preSent (ch. 59); 10Rp2 broad and diScoidal (ch. 64) and Very Small maleS (ch. 84). The other clade includeS SpecieS preSent in a “northern” Sector (Fig. 8, G. sandrae, G. nanai, G. podamita n. sp.) Supported by haVing femaleS with interocular elliptical area Strongly depigmented (ch. 2); maleS with a large bladder on the hind baSitarSuS (ch. 20); 10Rp2 with longitudinal keelS (ch. 61); Hp Started on right Side of H (ch. 79) and male’S eyeS with OR>0.5 (ch. 90).
description: Published as part of Pereyra, Veronica, 2017, Gibocercus Szumik and Biguembia Szumik (Embioptera, Archembiidae): new species and the potentiality of female traits, pp. 338-354 in Zootaxa 4317 (2) on pages 345-346, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4317.2.9, http://zenodo.org/record/884383