Genuotermes Emerson

Rocha, Mauricio M., 2013, Redescription of the enigmatic genus Genuotermes Emerson (Isoptera, Termitidae, Termitinae), ZooKeys 340, pp. 107-117 : 108-112

Genuotermes Emerson

Type-species.

Genuotermes spinifer Emerson, by monotypy Emerson 1950: p. 5-6 (soldier, Fig. 2).

Mathews 1977: p. 121 (soldier redescription, no figures; imago description, figs 51, 63; worker description, plate 25).

Description.

Imago. Eyes semispherical, oval in profile, close to but not touching lower margin of head and ocellus (Fig. 4). Fontanelle indistinct, resembling a small slit on the dorsal surface of the head (Fig. 3). Pronotum subtrapezoidal, with anterolateral margins rounded. Posterior margin of mesonotum deeply notched and acute, margin of metanotum more shallow and rounded (Fig. 5). notched Formula for tibial spurs 3:2:2. Head and labrum covered with moderately dense layer of erect bristles, remainder of body covered with very dense layer of decumbent bristles.

Soldier. Mandibles elongated, elbowed at proximal one-third, distal two-thirds with serrated blade on inner surface and salient tooth at base (Figs 1, 6-9). Molar plate and prominence visible at the base (Fig. 2, arrows). Head capsule subrectangular in dorsal view, with a characteristic frontal projection, best viewed in profile (Figs 10-13). Frontal gland aperture at tip of head projection, oriented anteriorly. Labrum subrectangular. Formula for tibial spurs 3:2:2. Head with very sparse bristles, denser on postclypeus and labrum surface, and around the frontal gland aperture. Pro-, meso- and metanotum with bristles only around all margins. Tergites, sternites and legs covered with bristles of variable length, denser than on remainder of body.

Worker. Head capsule rounded in dorsal view. Fontanelle inconspicuous. Antenna with 14-15 articles. Mandibles as in Fig. 19; apical tooth much more developed than marginal teeth, the latter with recognizable tips. Head capsule pilosity similar to imago; thorax and abdomen pilosity similar to soldier.

Digestive tube. Gizzard (Figs 20 and 21) having a columnar belt with 24 visible folds, six of the first order, six of second, and 12 of third, first-order folds with distinctive ornamentation of spines (Fig. 21), pulvilli of second order one-third as large as first-order pulvilli. Mesenteric tongue (MT) elongated, of uniform width, covering half length of mesenteric arch and facing anterodorsal region of body (Figs 15 and 16). Malpighian tubules inserted close to each other on inner surface of mesenteric arch (Fig. 18). P1 dilated, located on left side of body, with the final portion forming an elongated loop that reaches the dorsal region and down to insert on P3 (Fig. 14). Enteric valve (P2) composed by three equidistant longitudinal cushions (Fig. 22), slightly dilated at apex and covered with strong erect spines in a brushlike arrangement (Fig. 23), remaining surfaces with aciculiform and decumbent spines. P3a and P3b without a clear distinction, isthmus clearly recognizable, inserted subapically to beginning of P4 (Figs 14, 17). P4 short, situated in dorsal region of body.

Comparisons with other Neotropical genera of Termitinae

Imago. The imago of many species are still unknown and it is difficult to make a comparison for this caste, however some combination of characters may be useful for a diagnosis of this species. The mandibles are very characteristic, with the apical teeth well developed and very acute, the marginal teeth are all well recognizable (in some soil feeder species the M3 of both mandibles are not prominent) and the interval between the M3 and molar plate is narrow. Other unusual characteristics of this species are the thorax and abdomen covered only with decumbent bristles, without any erect setae or bristle.

Soldiers. Genuotermes soldiers have a combination of characters that make it easily distinguishable from other Neotropical Termitinae genera. Genuotermes and Orthognathotermes Holmgren 1910 (supposed by Emerson as the closest genera) have elongate mandibles, slightly elbowed outward and symmetrical, a unique characteristic among all Neotropical Isoptera ; however, there are some clear differences between the two genera. Genuotermes has a projection on the anterior dorsal region of the head, which is absent in Orthognathotermes . The frontal gland aperture is recognizable at the apex of projection, whereas in Orthognathotermes the aperture is inconspicuous. In the remaining Termitinae genera with similar head structures ( Cavitermes Emerson, 1925; Cornicapritermes Emerson, 1950; Dihoplotermes Araujo, 1961; Divinotermes Carrijo and Cancello, 2011; Inquilinitermes Mathews, 1977; Spinitermes Wasmann, 1897; Termes Linnaeus, 1758) the gland opening is situated on the base of their respective projections. In the Genuotermes soldier the molar plate and prominence are visible at the base of the mandibles (Fig. 2, arrows), in Orthognathotermes these structures are absent.

Workers. In the gut the differences among other Neotropical Termitinae genera are much more evident. In Orthognathotermes the P1 is tubular, with the same diameter as the mesenteron; the enteric valve (P2) insertion is situated on the right side of the body; and the armature is composed of cushions with projections to the P3 lumen (see Rocha and Cancello 2009: p. 20). In Genuotermes the P1 is more enlarged than the mesenteron, with the distal end narrowed, forming a short neck prior to the attachment to P3, and inserted on the left side of the body. This conformation is similar to Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901, Amitermes Silvestri, 1901 (see Sands 1998: p. 640-668, 395), Neocapritermes Holmgren, 1912 (see Constantino 1998) and some Syntermitinae species (is particularly very similar to Curvitermes , see Carvalho and Constantino 1998: p. 650; and Silvestritermes , see Rocha et al. 2012: p. 811-812). The enteric valve armature is very similar to Neocapritermes , with columnar cushions arranged triradially (Fig. 22), but, some Syntermitinae species apparently share this triradial digitiform pattern ( Paracurvitermes , see Constantino and Carvalho 2011 p. 285; Cyrilliotermes , Constantino and Carvalho 2012 p. 38 and Embiratermes festivellus , see Rocha et al. 2012: p. 801), although not so similar.