Stenorhamphus Elkins, 1962

Smith, Samantha, Hwang, Wei Song & Weirauch, Christiane, 2019, Synonymy of Mangabea and Stenorhamphus, with the description of two new species (Hemiptera: Reduviidae: Emesinae: Collartidini), Raffles Bulletin Of Zoology 67, pp. 135-149 : 138-142

publication ID 10.26107/RBZ-2019-0011


persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Stenorhamphus Elkins, 1962


Stenorhamphus Elkins, 1962

( Tables 1 View Table 1 , 2 View Table 2 , Figs. 1–8 View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig )

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 View Fig , 4F View Fig ); 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 View Fig , 4B View Fig ), with either fascicle or two pairs of stout setae on gena ventrad of apex of maxillary plate ( Figs. 3B View Fig , 4B View Fig ); 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 View Fig , 4B View Fig ), third labial segment (second visible) with short setae on entire ventral surface ( Figs. 3B View Fig , 4B View Fig ); scapus of antenna with short setae ( Figs. 3B View Fig , 4B View Fig ) Legs: forecoxa, in addition to short vestiture, with posterodorsal series and three or four stout, long setae ( Figs. 3A View Fig , 4A View Fig ), foretibia and foretarsus with relatively dense vestiture ( Figs. 3C View Fig , 4C View Fig ). STRUCTURE: Head: ( Figs. 2A, B, C, D View Fig , 3B, G View Fig , 4B, H View Fig ) elongate, anteocular portion long ( Figs. 3B View Fig , 4B View Fig ), postocular large and sometimes semiglobular ( Figs. 3B View Fig , 4B View Fig ), apex of stout antennifer approximately equidistant from apex of clypeus and anterior margin of eyes ( Figs. 3B View Fig , 4B View Fig ), head anterior to antennifer narrow in dorsal view ( Figs. 3B View Fig , 4B View Fig ), maxillary plate very small, triangular ( Fig. 3B View Fig , 4B View Fig ), mandibular plate very small ( Figs. 3B View Fig , 4B View Fig ); gena with pronounced, elongate anterior portion ( Figs. 3B View Fig , 4B View Fig ), clypeus slender, not produced, labrum small, elongate ( Figs. 3B View Fig , 4B View Fig ). Eyes: either globulose and subsemispheric in dorsal perspective or drop–shaped ( Figs. 3G View Fig , 4H View Fig ); consisting of relatively few, large ommatidia ( Figs. 3B View Fig , 4B View Fig ). Antenna: extremely long, slender ( Figs. 2A, B, C, D View Fig ). Labium ( Figs. 3B View Fig , 4B View Fig ): 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 View Fig , 4F, H View Fig ): pronotum longer than wide, anterior and posterior lobes separated by distinct furrow ( Fig. 3B View Fig , 4F View Fig ); 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 View Fig ) or without spine laterally on posterior lobe; scutellum subrectangular ( Fig. 4G View Fig ). Legs ( Figs. 2A, C View Fig , 3A, C, D, E View Fig , 4A, C, D, F View Fig ): slender, foreleg distinctly stouter and shorter than mid and hind leg, hind leg longer than middle leg ( Figs. 2A, C View Fig ), tarsi with three, slender tarsomeres, first tarsomere very short, second and third tarsomeres of equal length ( Figs. 3C View Fig , 4C View Fig ); foreleg with coxa very long and slender ( Figs. 3A View Fig , 4A View Fig ), trochanter spined, femur straight, relatively slender ( Figs. 3E View Fig , 4A View Fig ), tibia straight, slightly wider toward the apex ( Fig. 4A View Fig ); mid and hind legs with coxae ovoid, femora and tibiae very long and slender. Forewing ( Figs. 5A, B View Fig ): 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 View Fig ). Abdomen ( Figs. 2A, B, C, D View Fig , 3F View Fig , 4E View Fig ): elongate ovoid, lateral margin smooth, second to seventh spiracle small, circular, on mediosternites ( Fig. 3F View Fig , 4E View Fig ), eighth spiracle on dorsolateral surface of segment 8. Genitalia ( Figs. 6 View Fig , 7 View Fig ): segment 8 well developed, membranous on dorsal surface; pygophore elongate ovoid, with spine-like medial process, transverse bridge present ( Fig. 6 View Fig ); parameres slender, curved, apex rounded ( Fig. 6 View Fig ); aedeagus ( Fig. 7 View Fig ) 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 View Fig ), basal plate struts short ( Figs. 7G, I View Fig ), dorsal phallothecal sclerite curved, more heavily sclerotised anteriorly and posteriorly ( Fig. 7A View Fig ), endosoma with sclerotised ventral and lateral lobes with small spicules ( Fig. 7E View Fig ).

Discussion. Prior to the discovery of the twonew Collartidini species from the Oriental Region described below, though morphological differenceswere small, geographic boundaries kept Stenorhamphus (Sri Lanka) and Mangabea (Madagascar) separate. However, with the additions of Stenorhamphus segerak , new species and Stenorhamphus phuphan , new species, it became clear that the characters defining Collarhamphus , Stenorhamphus and Mangabea overlap, 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 describing Mangabea ). 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 of Stenorhamphus , 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 of Stenorhamphus nubiferus by 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 of Stenorhamphus are 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.












Stenorhamphus Elkins, 1962

Smith, Samantha, Hwang, Wei Song & Weirauch, Christiane 2019


Villiers A 1970: 809


Wygodzinsky PW 1966: 86


Elkins JC 1962: 422