ACANTHOPIDAE, Burmeister, 1838

Rivera, Julio & Vergara-Cobián, Clorinda, 2017, A checklist of the praying mantises of Peru: new records, one new genus (Piscomantis gen. n.) and biogeographic remarks (Insecta, Mantodea), Zootaxa 4337 (3), pp. 361-389 : 382

ACANTHOPIDAE

Metilia brunneri (Saussure, 1871) —Originally described from Surinam, its distribution now includes Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela, French Guiana, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil (Amazonas, Mato Grosso, Pará, Roraima, Rondônia, and Rio Grande do Sul), and Peru ( Lombardo and Agabiti 2001, Ehrmann 2002, Agudelo et al. 2007). Analyses of multiple populations of Metilia from across the neotropics revealed important variation in male genital morphology, thus reflecting the findings of Maldaner (2014) who uncovered considerable hidden diversity within Metilia in her yet unpublished master’s thesis on the taxonomy of that genus. It results evident to us that a yet undetermined number of both described and undescribed species have historically been attributed to M. brunneri , as this name has seemingly been applied to almost every reported member matching its original description. Specimens from Peru currently reported as M. brunneri in the literature are likely heterospecific. Maldaner (2014) further suggested that the name M. adusta —currently a synonym of M. brunneri— should instead apply to at least some populations from northeastern Peru, where the type locality of M. adusta (Iquitos) is found, a conclusion we concur with. This presumed wide distribution of M. brunneri , the yet unrecognized diversity within the genus, and the evident biogeographic gap between its type locality in Surinam and Peru, suggest that the record of M. brunneri from the latter country is most likely equivocal, and thus we remove this species from the Peruvian checklist, in agreement with Maldaner (2014).

“ Metilia pinima Rafael, 2014 ” and “ Metilia vulgaris Rafael, 2014 ”. Patel & Singh (2016a) reported these two species from Peru; however, these two names do not have published morphological descriptions. These names were evidently taken from the unpublished master’s thesis of Maldaner (2014), but inexplicably attributed to “Rafael, 2014”. To be available, every name published after 1931 must be accompanied by a morphological description or be linked to a published reference (ICZN article 13.1). Both requisites are missing in Patel & Singh (2016a) and thus Metilia pinima and Metilia vulgaris are both herein considered to be nomina nuda and thus unavailable as scientific names.