Panoploscelis Scudder 1869
Creators: name: Hugel, Sylvain
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2019
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Orthoptera
Phaneropteridae
Panoploscelis

description: Genus Panoploscelis Scudder, 1869
PANOPLOSCELIS SCUDDERI BEIER, 1950 AND PANOPLOSCELIS ANGUSTICAUDA BEIER, 1950 N. SYN.
Both species were described in the same article by Max Beier (1950). Panoploscelis scudderi was described from North Brazil after a single subaldult male and P. angusticauda from Northwestern Brazil after a single adult female. Since holotypes of both species are from different genders and one is immature, only non-sexual characters present in both adults and immatures might help to distinguish P. scudderi and P. angusticauda, should these really be different. We examined unpublished high quality pictures of both holotype specimens, and the only character that may be used to distinguish them as separate species is the shape of the epiproct: more rounded in P. angusticauda holotype and angulose in P. scudderi holotype.
Our colony of Panoploscelis from Mitaraka displays quite variable shape of epiproct in both males and females (Fig. 1 J- N), making impossible to rely on this character to conclude whether P. scudderi and P. angusticauda holotypes really belong to different species.
With the currently available characters and since characters previously used to distinguish the species are quite variable in our colony reared form Mitaraka samples, we found no support that P. angusticauda and P. scudderi are different species and consider at this stage that Panoploscelis scudderi Beier, 1950 and Panoploscelis angusticauda Beier, 1950 are synonyms.
Interestingly, one additional adult female was included in the original description of P. scudderi as female allotype. This female is mentioned from “Stettin” collections by Max Beier (1950) and is now in Warsaw/Łomna. This female is from a distinct locality (British Guiana). Beier probably considered this female as conspecific with the male holotype of P. scudderi since both display an angulose epiproct. Although P. scudderi holotype cannot be recognized as different from P. angusticauda holotype, that female might belong to another yet unnamed species. The epiproct of this female falls within the range of variation of our Mitaraka specimens (similar to Fig. 1J) and does not allow to recognize another species. As pointed by Beier (1950, 1960), this female allotype has a wide ovipositor, 5 times longer than wide, lanceolate, whereas P. angusticauda holotype has more slender ovipositor, 6.5 times longer than wide, with regularly converging margins. Females in our colony of Panoploscelis from Mitaraka have very variable ovipositor shape and length (Fig. 1B), and ovipositor of the female considered by Beier as P. scudderi allotype is only slightly less slender than extreme specimens in our colony, raising doubts on reliability of this character. Interestingly, the left forewing of this specimen has 5-6 transverse tubercle-bearing veins on the mirror whereas P. angusticauda female holotype has 3-4 tubercle-bearing veins on the mirror. In addition, the shape of the mirror of that female considered by Beier as P. scudderi allotype is very unusual, much narrow distally, and tubercle bearing veins as well as large cells occur outside of the mirror area and might suggest an abnormality. Our colony of Panoploscelis from Mitaraka typically displays 3-4 tubercle-bearing veins on the mirror (Fig. 1A, Fig. 3A), but a significant proportion displays variation (2-5 veins, Fig. 1 B-D) indicating that this character might not be very stable and/or subject to abnormalities. At this stage, it is difficult to define whether this specimen corresponds to Panoploscelis scudderi with abnormal wings or to another yet unnamed species.
description: Published as part of Hugel, Sylvain, 2019, Panoploscelis scudderi Beier, 1950 and Gnathoclita vorax (Stoll, 1813): two katydids with unusual acoustic, reproductive and defense behaviors (Orthoptera, Pseudophyllinae), pp. 327-340 in Zoosystema 41 (17) on page 329, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a17, http://zenodo.org/record/3724532