Galiblatta pipo Heleodoro, Pereira-Filho & Mendes 2024, sp. nov.
Creators: name: Heleodoro, Raphael Aquino
name: Filho, Walterley Vilhena Pereira
name: Mendes, Diego Matheus De Mello
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2024
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Blattodea
Blaberidae
Galiblatta
Galiblatta pipo

description: Galiblatta pipo Heleodoro, Pereira-Filho & Mendes, sp. nov.
Figures 1–3, 6
Etymology. The species name is a tribute to Filippo Pedroza Damasio, nicknamed “Pipo”, brother-in-law and dear person of the first author.
Diagnosis. Galiblatta pipo sp. nov. (Fig. 1A–B) can be recognized by the light brown coloration of the male palpi and tarsus (Fig. 1B). Right tegmen has a conspicuous yellow band at cubital margin (Fig. 2A); tergite 10 not divided medially, trapezoidal, slightly emarginated at posterior margin (Fig. 3A–B); cercus with last two segments short and robust (Fig. 3B); sternite 8 rectangular, wider than long, with all margins nearly straight (Fig. 3C). Sternite 9 (subgenital plate) strongly asymmetrical, with latero-posterior part that gradually curves and increases in width, slightly convex posterior margin and robust stylus (Fig. 3D). Sclerite L2d with posterior part of constant width forming almost a 90 ºC angle; apex rounded (Fig. 3E–F). Sclerite R2 with single latero-basal spinesrather close to each other (Fig. 3G). Lower plate of sclerite L1 reniform, anterior half broadened, posterior narrowing; upper plate broad (Fig. 3H).
Differential diagnosis. The new species can be easily distinguished from Galiblatta cribosa and Galiblatta williamsi by the presence of the light-yellow band on the cubital margin of tegmina (Fig. 2A) (absent in latter two species), by the almost straight margins of sternite 8 (Fig. 3C) (strongly curved in the latter two species, see Fig. 5C for Galiblatta williamsi) and by the robust styli compared to the slender styli of Galiblatta cribosa and Galiblatta williamsi (Fig. 3D for the new species, 5C for Galiblatta williamsi).
The male genitalia of Galiblatta cribosa differ clearly from those of the other congeneric, as they have a very long left dorsal sclerite, which is twice as long as the left dorsal sclerite of Galiblatta pipo sp. nov. and Galiblatta williamsi.
Due to the morphological similarity, Galiblatta pipo sp. nov. is compared in more detail with Galiblatta williamsi. The pronotum of Galiblatta pipo sp. nov. is slightly less pronounced at the lateroposterior margin (Figs. 1A, 2A) than that of Galiblatta williamsi (Fig. 4A); in addition, the posterior margin of the pronotum is convex in the new species, whereas is straight in Galiblatta williamsi. In Galiblatta pipo sp. nov. the structures are colored light brown (Fig. 1B), whereas in Galiblatta williamsi the palpi and ventral part of the tarsi are colored in a strong and shiny light-yellow (Figs. 4B, 5A), sometimes also whitish. In addition, the first tarsomere of mid tarsus is 2.2 times longer than the second one in Galiblatta pipo sp. nov., while this ratio is equal to 1.7 in the alternative species.
In regards to male terminalia and genitalia, the tergite 10 (supranal plate) main difference is that the posterior margin in the new species is not divided medially and the shape is trapezoidal (Figs. 3A–B), while in Galiblatta williamsi the tergite 10 is divided medially at posterior margin and has a semi-cordiform shape (Fig. 5B). Furthermore, the paraproct of the new species is rectangular (Fig. 3B), while in Galiblatta williamsi it has parabolic shape (Fig. 5B). The cercus of Galiblatta pipo sp. nov. is somewhat more robust compared to the of Galiblatta williamsi. The last segment of the new species is 1.5 times longer than the preceding segment, whereas it is two times longer in the latter species. In addition, the cercus of Galiblatta williamsi is 1.2 times longer than the tergite 10, whereas in the new species the cercus is shorter than the tergite 10.
As for the subgenital plate (sternite 9), the main differences are on the lateral and posterior margin. The lateral margin of Galiblatta williamsi is wider and longer (Fig. 5C) than that of Galiblatta pipo sp. nov. (Fig. 3D). The new species has the posterior margin gradually widening and elongating, with a very wide aspect (Fig. 3D), while in Galiblatta williamsi the posterior margin strongly narrows towards the apex and gives the shape of a semi-trapezium to the posterior margin (Fig. 5C). Regarding the styli, Galiblatta williamsi has the left stylus conspicuously slender, while the right stylus is slightly stouter, but shorter (Fig. 5C). In Galiblatta pipo sp. nov. both styli are fairly stout and roughly of the same length (Fig. 3D).
In the male genitalia, the main differences are in the sclerites L1 and L2d. In L1 of Galiblatta pipo sp. nov. the lower plate has a reniform shape, with anterior portion widened and posterior portion narrowing, and the lower plate has a posterior lobule very wide (Fig. 3H). In Galiblatta williamsi, the lower plate is drop-shaped and the upper plate has a posterior part that is similar in width to other parts (Fig. 5G)). In the L2d sclerite, the posterior portion points more laterally and nearly form a 90º angle in the new species, as well as having a constant width and being comparatively shorter than in Galiblatta williamsi (Fig. 3E–F). In the latter species, the L2d is pointed more latero-apically, forming roughly a 45º angle. The posterior part gradually increases in width towards the apex (Fig. 5D–E).
Minor differences were observed in the R2 sclerite. In Galiblatta williamsi, the spines are sparse at the base and always have a pair of spines directly after the first spine (Fig. 5F) (observed in 9 analyzed males of this species). In Galiblatta pipo sp. nov., the spines are closer to each other and the base does not have a pair of spines (Fig. 3G).
Description. Holotype Male.
Head (Fig. 1B). Head round, dark brown to reddish, with light brown palpi and antennae. Vertex barely surpasses pronotum; frontally with rough surface; two pale yellow ocelli near antennal socket. Eyes wide and long, having nearly half head length. Clypeus and labrum light yellow. Clypeus trapezoidal, with anterior base wider than posterior base. Labrum rectangular, with anterior margin straight, laterals slightly convex, posterior slightly concave. Palpi setose, gradually increasing in length and width from first to last segment; last segment ellipsoid. Antenna with more than 45 antennomeres, but incompletely preserved at apex.
Thorax. (Figs. 1A–B) Pronotum is punctuate, with margins well marked; similar to a D shape, but with lateral and posterior slightly convex; with elevation from medial to posterior portion. Mesonotum rectangular, wider than long, dark brown, smooth. Metanotum the same as mesonotum.
Wings (Figs. 1A, 2A–C). Tegmina punctuated, wide, with posterior margin convex; dark brown almost entirely, except for apical third gradually turning light brown; right tegmen with conspicuous light yellow marking at cubital margin; veins inconspicuous. Posterior wing with strong golden band at costal margin; left and right wing with similar vein configuration: Subcostal posterior (ScP) ending slightly after basal third of costal margin; Radial vein bifurcation in Radial anterior (RA) and Radial posterior (RP) at basal third of wing length; RA with one bifurcation; RP with nine bifurcations; Cubital vein bifurcation only in Cubital anterior (CuA) and Cubital posterior (CuP); Postcubital vein reaching apex of medial third of wing length; Vannal veins (V) with 11 branches, V1 with four bifurcations.
Legs (Fig. 1B). Very shiny, dark brown to dark reddish from coxae to femora, gradually turning light brown at tibia towards apex of tarsus. Length increasing from anterior to posterior leg. Coxae, trochanters and femora without spines on the lateral and ventral margins. All coxae ventrally bulged. All femora longer than wide, rectangular, with conspicuous large and striated sulcus on the anterior and posterior margins; dorso-apically with pair of spines. All tibia rectangular, slender. All tarsomeres slender, projecting ventrally; tarsal claw with pair of strong symmetrical spines.Anterior coxa longer than wide.Anterior tibia with two anterodorsal spines, five posterodorsal and four apical; spines sparse from each other. Mid tibia with six spines dorsoanteriorly, 10 spines on the dorsoposterior margin and two dorso- and ventroapically. Mid tarsus with first tarsomere 2.1 times longer than second. Posterior tibia with five spines at dorsoanterior margin, 12 spines on the dorsoposterior margin and two dorso- and ventroapically. Posterior tarsus with first tarsomere 2.3 times longer than second. Arolium present, subtriangular, thin.
Abdomen (Fig. 1B). Tergites 1–8 shiny, pale yellow, rectangular, wider than long, with similar length. Tergite 9 the same as previous, but slightly shorter and longer. Tergite 10 undivided medially, trapezoidal, slightly emarginated at posterior margin; setose; paraproct rectangular, dark brown pigmented (Fig. 3A–B). Cercus cylindrical, with setae; last segment 1.5 times longer than previous one (Fig. 3A–B). Sternites punctuated, dark brown. Sternites 1–3 indistinct. Sternites 4–7 rectangular, wider than long, with all margins straight. Sternite 8 the same, but as long as wide and slightly narrower than previous. Sternite 9 (subgenital plate) strongly asymmetrical, with latero-posterior part that gradually curve and increase in width, posterior margin convex, not exceeding stylus (Fig. 3D). Styli asymmetrical, not segmented, with left stylus slightly shorter and thinner than right cercus, bearing only a few setae apically (Fig. 3D).
Internal genitalia (Figs. 3E–H). L1 complex with a C-shaped sclerite, with both acute apexes nearly touching each other; lower plate of sclerite L1 reniform, anterior half widened, posterior narrowing; upper plate wide. L2d with constant width of posterior part, forming almost a 90º angle; apex rounded. R2 sclerite with latero-basal spines single, fairly close to each other.
Coloration. Overall coloration dark brown, with light yellow to light brown spots, very shiny tegument.
Female: Unknown.
Geographical records. Brazil: Amazonas (Fig. 6).
Type data. “ Brasil, Amazonas, Manaus, Reserva Ducke, 2º55’49”S, 59º58’31”W, 25.iii.2011 ”, registered under catalog number INPA-BLA 000148.
Measurements (mm). Holotype ♂. Total length 18.7; head (frontal view) 3.4; mandibular palpi (from base to apex) 2.2; pronotum 5.5; left tegmina 14.3; right tegmina 15.1; anterior coxa 2.5; anterior femur 3.2; anterior tibia 2.8; rmid coxa 2.8; mid femur 3.9; mid tibia 3.1; posterior coxa 3.4; posterior femur 4.6.
description: Published as part of Heleodoro, Raphael Aquino, Filho, Walterley Vilhena Pereira & Mendes, Diego Matheus De Mello, 2024, A new cryptic species of Galiblatta Hebard, 1926 (Blaberidae: Epilamprinae) from the Brazilian Amazon Basin and redescription of Galiblatta williamsi Roth, 1968, pp. 276-286 in Zootaxa 5543 (2) on pages 278-282, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5543.2.9, http://zenodo.org/record/14386174