Rakaphyllium schultzei (Giglio-Tos, 1912) comb. nov.

Figs 1A, 3A, 4A, 6, 7, 8

Material examined.

( 3 ♀♀, 3 ♂♂, 3 ♂♂ nymphs, 2 ♀♀ nymphs): Holotype (♀): " New Guinea (No 131) VIII. 1910 L. Schultze L.J.; Pulchriphyllium schultzei Giglio-Tos, E. Giglio-Tos, det.; Mossu südl von Germainhuk; Holotypus; DEI Hemimetabola #100122" (SDEI; Fig. 6). See Suppl. material 1 for additional specimens reviewed, their collection data, and depositories.

Remarks.

This rarely encountered species was described from a female from northern New Guinea (Fig. 6), and since its description over a century ago few additional specimens have been collected. At present due to the rarity of material and lack of fresh material for molecular comparison, the male specimens associated with this species are only assumed based on shared morphology (Fig. 8) but have not been confirmed yet.

Differentiation.

For female Rakaphyllium schultzei comb. nov., the abdominal shape and profemoral lobes easily differentiate it from Rakaphyllium exsectum comb. nov. Within Rakaphyllium schultzei comb. nov. the profemoral exterior lobe arcs smoothly from end to end without a strong angle (Fig. 6B), but in Rakaphyllium exsectum comb. nov. the exterior lobe is distinctly boxy with a right angle (Fig. 9B). Additionally, abdominal shape appears to be reliable for differentiation, but some abdominal variation has been observed in a few Rakaphyllium schultzei comb. nov. females to include perfectly smooth margins and some with slight undulations on the terminal abdominal segments (although none have been observed to be as extreme as in Rakaphyllium exsectum comb. nov.) therefore abdominal shape may also be useful for differentiation.

Distribution.

At present we are aware of records from several locations throughout New Guinea (both on the Indonesian and Papuan sides) and records from the Aru Islands which visually appear to be this species despite the geographic disconnect from mainland New Guinea (see Fig. 5 and Suppl. material 1 for details of these records). The distribution of this species is vague as a thorough knowledge of morphological variation (due to limited material) and molecular analyses are lacking at present, and therefore our identification assumptions are only based upon general morphology. Unfortunately, without positive confirmation of the males we assume are this species, this distribution may be over expansive (possibly representing several species instead of one), and especially for the observational record from the Aru Islands (Fig. 1A), the specimen could not be examined and although the habitus appears to match the morphology of the mainland New Guinea male the fine details may suggest otherwise if a specimen could be examined.