Stenorhamphus Elkins 1962
Creators: name: Smith, Samantha
name: Hwang, Wei Song
name: Weirauch, Christiane
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2019
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Reduviidae
Stenorhamphus

description: Stenorhamphus Elkins, 1962
(Tables 1, 2, Figs. 1–8)
Stenoramphus Elkins, 1962: 422. Type species: Stenorhamphus nubiferus (Distant, 1906).
Stenorhamphus Wygodzinsky, 1966: 86.
Mangabea Villiers, 1970: 809, new synonym. Type species: Mangabea orientalis Villiers, 1970.
Type species. Guithera nubifera Distant, 1906, by original designation.
Diagnosis. Recognised within Collartidini by long discal cell on the forewing, second labial segment not reaching anterior margin of the eye with either a row of stiff setae along the entire segment or apically, and third labial segment with row of stiff setae.
Redescription. Total length 5.7–11.8 mm. COLOURATION: fairly uniform brown or yellow, coxa and abdomen ventrally often lighter. VESTITURE: Body and appendages covered with evenly spaced, short setae (Figs. 3A, B, G, 4F); Head: ventral surface of head with three to five pairs of long, stout setae located posterior to antennifer, at anterior and posterior margins of eye (Figs. 3B, 4B), with either fascicle or two pairs of stout setae on gena ventrad of apex of maxillary plate (Figs. 3B, 4B); second labial segment (first visible) with fascicle of medium-length stout setae on ventral surface in apical half of segment or with row of stiff setae along entire segment (Figs. 3B, 4B), third labial segment (second visible) with short setae on entire ventral surface (Figs. 3B, 4B); scapus of antenna with short setae (Figs. 3B, 4B) Legs: forecoxa, in addition to short vestiture, with posterodorsal series and three or four stout, long setae (Figs. 3A, 4A), foretibia and foretarsus with relatively dense vestiture (Figs. 3C, 4C). STRUCTURE: Head: (Figs. 2A, B, C, D, 3B, G, 4B, H) elongate, anteocular portion long (Figs. 3B, 4B), postocular large and sometimes semiglobular (Figs. 3B, 4B), apex of stout antennifer approximately equidistant from apex of clypeus and anterior margin of eyes (Figs. 3B, 4B), head anterior to antennifer narrow in dorsal view (Figs. 3B, 4B), maxillary plate very small, triangular (Fig. 3B, 4B), mandibular plate very small (Figs. 3B, 4B); gena with pronounced, elongate anterior portion (Figs. 3B, 4B), clypeus slender, not produced, labrum small, elongate (Figs. 3B, 4B). Eyes: either globulose and subsemispheric in dorsal perspective or drop–shaped (Figs. 3G, 4H); consisting of relatively few, large ommatidia (Figs. 3B, 4B). Antenna: extremely long, slender (Figs. 2A, B, C, D). Labium (Figs. 3B, 4B): second (first visible) labial segment slender, elongate, not reaching anterior margin of eye, third (second visible) labial segment slender and elongate, fourth (third visible) segment slender, tapering towards apex, second, third or fourth labial segment longest. Thorax (Figs. 3B, G, 4F, H): pronotum longer than wide, anterior and posterior lobes separated by distinct furrow (Fig. 3B, 4F); posterior lobe slightly wider than long, distinctly wider than anterior lobe, except in Stenorhamphus troglodytes, new combination, where anterior lobe is wider than posterior lobe, slightly depressed medially, posterior margin concave, with Stenorhamphus segerak, new species (Fig. 4F) or without spine laterally on posterior lobe; scutellum subrectangular (Fig. 4G). Legs (Figs. 2A, C, 3A, C, D, E, 4A, C, D, F): slender, foreleg distinctly stouter and shorter than mid and hind leg, hind leg longer than middle leg (Figs. 2A, C), tarsi with three, slender tarsomeres, first tarsomere very short, second and third tarsomeres of equal length (Figs. 3C, 4C); foreleg with coxa very long and slender (Figs. 3A, 4A), trochanter spined, femur straight, relatively slender (Figs. 3E, 4A), tibia straight, slightly wider toward the apex (Fig. 4A); mid and hind legs with coxae ovoid, femora and tibiae very long and slender. Forewing (Figs. 5A, B): if macropterous, forewing elongate, Rvein with setae along basal portion, basal area between R, M+Cu, Pcu, and posterior margin of wing slightly more sclerotised than actual membrane, Mand Cu fused, basal cell rhomboid or pentagonal, discal cell very long and slender, rmcu cross vein absent or present (Figs. 5A, B). Abdomen (Figs. 2A, B, C, D, 3F, 4E): elongate ovoid, lateral margin smooth, second to seventh spiracle small, circular, on mediosternites (Fig. 3F, 4E), eighth spiracle on dorsolateral surface of segment 8. Genitalia (Figs. 6, 7): segment 8 well developed, membranous on dorsal surface; pygophore elongate ovoid, with spine-like medial process, transverse bridge present (Fig. 6); parameres slender, curved, apex rounded (Fig. 6); aedeagus (Fig. 7) with basal plates stout and strongly curved and capitulate process relatively large, ponticulus basilaris slender or nonexistent, basal plate extension relatively short (Figs. 7A, D), basal plate struts short (Figs. 7G, I), dorsal phallothecal sclerite curved, more heavily sclerotised anteriorly and posteriorly (Fig. 7A), endosoma with sclerotised ventral and lateral lobes with small spicules (Fig. 7E).
Discussion. Prior to the discovery of the twonew Collartidini species from the Oriental Region described below, though morphological differenceswere small, geographic boundaries keptStenorhamphus(Sri Lanka) andMangabea(Madagascar) separate. However, with the additions ofStenorhamphus segerak, new species andStenorhamphus phuphan, new species, it became clear that the characters definingCollarhamphus, StenorhamphusandMangabeaoverlap, making the assignment of the two new species to genus difficult. The discovery of the species from Borneo also considerably extends the known species range distributions of Collartidini further south in the Oriental Region. As Collartidini are extremely rarely collected, most species descriptions are based solely on the holotype. This makes it impossible to evaluate the variability of morphological features within species, and negatively impacts our ability to identify species-diagnostic characters. Previous authors have also sometimes relied on geographic distribution to assign species to existing or new genera (e.g., Villiers [1970] in describingMangabea). Our phylogenetic analysis is an effort to better understand character distributions across genera, and to identify genus-diagnostic characters that show low homoplasy. We refrain from a full revision ofStenorhamphus, and key to species, for two reasons: the recently described taxa from Madagascar (Weirauch, 2008; Chłond et al., 2018) are well documented and revised diagnoses and descriptions are unnecessary. In contrast, the redescription ofStenorhamphus nubiferusby Elkins (1962) does not comprehensively document this species, but since both the holotype and paratype appear to be in poor shape, we believe that fresh material from Sri Lanka will be critical to better document this species. Since the non-Madagascan species ofStenorhamphusare currently clearly separated by their geographic distribution, and the three Madagascan species are morphologically very distinct (see Weirauch, 2008; Chłond et al., 2018), we are not providing a key to species.
Elkins (1962) original spelling of Stenorhamphus nubiferus was Stenoramphus nubifera. Wygodzinsky (1966) used the spelling Stenorhamphus nubiferus, which has subsequently been used by all later authors (Maldonado, 1990; Putshkov & Popov, 1995; Rédei, 2004; Rédei & Tsai, 2010) except Weirauch (2008) who included a “[sic]”. Stenorhamphus nubiferus is therefore in prevailing usage, “that usage of the name which is adopted by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their work was published.” (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, fourth edition) and we are adopting the spelling used by Wygodzinsky (1966).
This revision not only greatly enlarges the range of Stenorhamphus, but also places the age of the genus at approximately 36 to 54 million years old (Wolfe et al., 2009) greatly increasing our understanding of the evolution of the group. It is now clear that Stenorhamphus species, despite being rarely collected, are widespread, and have maintained relatively similar morphological characters for around 30 million years.
description: Published as part of Smith, Samantha, Hwang, Wei Song & Weirauch, Christiane, 2019, Synonymy of Mangabea and Stenorhamphus, with the description of two new species (Hemiptera: Reduviidae: Emesinae: Collartidini), pp. 135-149 in Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 67 on pages 138-142, DOI: 10.26107/RBZ-2019-0011, http://zenodo.org/record/3677265