Scelimena kempi ( Hancock, 1915 )

Muhammad, Amira Aqilah, Tan, Ming Kai, Abdullah, Nurul Ashikin, Azirun, Mohammad Sofian, Bhaskar, Dhaneesh & Skejo, Josip, 2018, An annotated catalogue of the pygmy grasshoppers of the tribe Scelimenini Bolívar, 1887 (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae) with two new Scelimena species from the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra, Zootaxa 4485 (1), pp. 1-70 : 46

Scelimena kempi ( Hancock, 1915)

Eugavialidium kempi: Hancock 1915 .

Scelimena kempi: Günther 1938a , Steinmann 1970, Otte 1979, Shishodia 1991, Blackith 1992, Shishodia et al. 2010, Zha et al. 2017.

Eugavilidium indicum [misidentification, partim]: Hancock 1913.

Type material not examined. According to Hancock (1915) the species is described from a single female (holotype). OSF reports female holotype to be deposited in Philadelphia. Shishodia (1991) reported male type, deposited in the National Zoological Collection in Kolkata (Zoological Survey of India) .

Type locality: India: Assam: Rebang stream above Panji.

Notes. The species is here tentatively assigned to Scelimena discalis species group. It could also be a member of the genus Indoscelimena , according to the original description ( Hancock 1915) and comparison with Indoscelimena birmanica . Examination of type specimens is needed to correctly assess its taxonomic status. Hancock (1915) writes about nodulated pronotum and legs in S. kempi , and because of that the species is here assigned to Scelimena discalis species group. Note that Scelimena discalis group is in morphology close to certain Indoscelimena species and in future further re-arrangement of the species between the genera could be performed. Shishodia (1991) presented drawings of S. kempi which are very similar to S. india , but we are not sure if the identification was correct. Furthermore, Shishodia (1991) reported one male paratype to be deposited in the Zoological Survey of India, with the data Abor Expedition: above Panji 1216 m a.s.l., Rebang stream, under the inventory number 7565/19. Hancock (1915) however, did not report males, but since the specimen is from the type locality it could be conspecific with female holotype.