Thespoides bolivari Chopard 1916
Creators: name: Rivera, Julio
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2014
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Mantodea
Mantidae
Thespoides
Thespoides bolivari

description: Thespoides bolivari Chopard, 1916
(Figs. 1–2)
The actual holotype (Fig. 1) is incomplete, as the mesothorax, metathorax and abdomen are all now missing. The only parts left are the pronotum, both forelegs, and the head, the latter partially damaged. The specimen bears three labels (Fig. 1). The original description of the complete insect was accompanied by three illustrations that are reproduced in Figure 2. After comparing this specimen with the original description and accompanying illustrations, the author was able to draw several conclusions about its identity, as follows:
A) The only surviving parts of the type (i.e., the prothorax and head) conform to the original description of T. bolivari. The left foretibia and femur are notoriously smaller than the right ones, a clear sign of a regenerated lost limb; this anatomical feature of the type was not mentioned by Chopard. Analysis of pronotal proportions, armature of the forelegs and general habitus of these parts confirms that the type of T. bolivari is ascribed to Angela guianensis Rehn, 1906 (Table 1), a widespread and frequently collected species throughout the Amazon basin, including localities in Colombia. Consequently, the now missing parts of the type specimen (i.e., the mesothorax, metathorax and abdomen), which were described and illustrated by Chopard (Fig. 2), almost certainly belong to another species, as they depart markedly in form from the anatomy of other Angela spp., including A. guianensis. For example, the cerci in T. bolivari were originally described and illustrated as cylindrical, rather than laminar, the latter a putative synapomorphy of Angela and a character of widespread use in identification keys (e.g. Terra, 1995). Similarly, the wings of T. bolivari were described as “hairy”, a condition not observed in Angela. Accordingly, it is highly likely that the specimen studied by Chopard was a composite specimen comprised of disarticulated body parts from two different species, one of which was A. guianensis (Table 1). This likely explains why the abdomen was markedly shorter than the pronotum.
B) Although the posterior thorax and abdomen are now lost, the original description provides clues about the identity of the other species. The wings depicted by Chopard (Fig. 2) exhibit characteristics typical of members of the family Thespidae, such as the vein pattern, the elongated stigma on the forewing and the conspicuous pilosity on the wing surface. Similarly, the triangular supra-anal plate is another feature commonly observed in Thespidae (Fig. 2). Unfortunately, the actual identity of this part of the type cannot be determined based on the description alone, but judging from the metrics provided by Chopard, it likely corresponded to a species of comparable size, such as members of Musonia Saussure, 1869 or Pseudomusonia Werner, 1909.
C) The distal margin of the type specimen’s pronotum contains a residue of glue, which provides additional (though circumstantial) evidence that, at one time, the anomalous posterior elements of the specimen were glued to the anterior elements.
D) Chopard (1916) assigned Thespoides to the subfamily Miopteryginae, a lineage that today constitutes the family Thespidae. Interestingly, the name Thespoides was inspired from the apparent similarities between the proposed genus and Angela (the species of which were assigned to Thespis at the time of Chopard’s publication). Both Angela and Thespis are now considered valid and distinct genera. These two facts suggest that Chopard himself was confused by the dual nature of the specimen before him, without realizing that it was a composite of non-conspecific, disarticulated parts. Regardless, his classification was based on the thespid traits of the type.
Under Article 73.1.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999) “ if the nominal species-group taxon is based on a single specimen, either so stated or implied in the original publication, that specimen is the holotype fixed by monotypy ”. Chopard described T. bolivari on the basis of a single specimen, citing it simply as the “type”. Chopard clearly considered the whole specimen as a single individual, therefore his procedure conforms to the ICZN and thus this specimen can be considered as the holotype. However, Article 73.1.5 states “ If a subsequent author finds that a holotype which consists of a set of components (e.g. disarticulated body parts) is not derived from an individual animal, the extraneous components may, by appropriate citation, be excluded from the holotype … ”. Thus, in agreement to Article 73.1.5 and to provide nomenclatural stability, the non-conspecific lost parts from the type of T. bolivari, already physically removed from the type, are removed from the description. In addition, Angela guianensis was described by Rehn (1906) ten years before Chopard’s Thespoides bolivari description, making it necessary to apply the “Principle of Priority” (ICZN Article 23.1). Accordingly, it is established that Thespoides bolivari as a new junior synonym of Angela guianensis. A summary of the taxonomy follows:
Genus Angela Serville, 1839
= Thespoides Chopard, 1916 n. syn.
Angela guianensis Rehn, 1906
= Thespis infuscata Chopard, 1911
= Thespoides bolivari Chopard, 1916 n. syn.
In addition, the type of Thespis infuscata Chopard, 1911, also deposited at the MNCN was examined. This species is considered to be a junior synonym of A. guianensis by Giglio-Tos (1927), an action later accepted by Rehn (1935) that is herein corroborated. Because A. guianensis is a rather common species across the Amazon basin, further studies are needed to determine whether or not other synonyms remain to be discovered.
description: Published as part of Rivera, Julio, 2014, On the identity and taxonomic status of the enigmatic mantid Thespoides bolivari Chopard, 1916 (Mantodea: Mantidae, Angelinae), pp. 269-273 in Zootaxa 3797 (1) on pages 269-272, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3797.1.16, http://zenodo.org/record/4915468