Miogryllodes Hebard, 1928

Desutter-Grandcolas, Laure, 2014, New taxa and data for Neotropical Phalangopsidae (Orthoptera, Grylloidea), Zootaxa 3866 (3), pp. 398-420 : 400-402

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3866.3.5
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F6DC5177-CF46-482F-82DC-70DF87D53580
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6132377
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E65C87DF-1321-FF94-7CD7-70F761CAF8C3
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Miogryllodes Hebard, 1928
status

Treatment

( Figs 1 View FIGURE 1 , 2 View FIGURE 2 )

Miogryllodes Hebard, 1928a: 14 .

Type species. Miogryllodes panamae Hebard, 1928 (type Hebard collection N°1092, ANSP, Panama, Porto Bello).

Other species included. Amphiacusta diaphoros Otte, 2006 , Miogryllodes hebardi Desutter-Grandcolas , n. sp.

Distribution. Panama and Costa Rica.

Diagnosis. Miogryllodes has been described by Hebard (1928a) after a female specimen. The male characters are diagnosed and described here for the first time. This genus is characterized by its small size, its short legs, its setose abdomen, pronotum and head, the lack of tympanum on TI and of FWs in both sexes, its very high head with small and not protruding eyes, the shape of its maxillary palpi ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 A) and transverse pronotum ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 A), and long setae on head, pronotum and all legs. Males can also easily be recognized by their slightly concave face ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 B), dorsally expanded tergite IV ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 C) and genitalia ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 D–F, K, L). Females are additionnally characterized by their very small ovipositor, deeply indented subgenital plate ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 G, M) and small, flat copulatory papilla ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 H–J, P, O).

Complement to description. Size small. FWs and tympanum lacking in both sexes. Abundantly setose, especially on abdomen. Head high ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 B); dorsum rounded; fastigium as wide as the scapes; ocelli small, the distance between the lateral ones greater than the distance between the median and one lateral ocellus; eyes small and not protruding, eye length about two third the distance between the lower margin of the eye and the epistemal suture; scapes slightly longer than wide ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 B); maxillary palpi not elongate, joint 5 longer than joints 3 and 4, very concave on dorsal margin and truncate on about half its length ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 A). Pronotum very transverse; lateral lobes rectangular. TI with 2 apical spurs, ventral. TII with 3 apical spurs, the dorso outer spur lacking. TIII with 4 pairs of subapical spurs increasing in length toward tibia apex, except for the first spur which is the smallest; inner subapical spurs smaller than the outers; 3 pairs of apical spurs, dorsal spur the longest on inner side, median spur the longest on outer side; serrulation made of few spines, very small above last subapical spurs, bigger between subapical spurs. Basitarsomeres III neither flat, nor furrowed dorsally, but regularly thinner from apex to base; two rows of small, dorsal spines, the inner row very reduced; spines bigger toward apex. Cerci long.

Coloration. Head, pronotum and abdomen dark brown, legs lighter, TI and TII ringed. Palpi white.

Male. Head very high ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 B); face distincly concave at the level of the epistemal suture. Distal margin of tergite IV expanded and widened mid dorsally, glandular with its surface as an orange peel ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 C). Subgenital plate transverse; distal margin bisinuate ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 C). Supra anal plate longer than wide, furrowed longitudinally.

Male genitalia. Very small and little sclerotized. Pseudepiphallic sclerite ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 D, K) transverse; distal margin deeply emarginate; two short and thin, membranous median lophi; two longer lateral lophi, sclerotized dorsally from the pseudepiphallic sclerite and ventrally from the pseudepiphallic parameres; rami thin and long, wellseparate from pseudepiphallic sclerite. Ectophallic arc very thin; ectophallic apodemes short and thin, widely apart ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 D, K). Ectophallic fold large and bulbous; sclerotized ventrally as a pair of long sclerites. Endophallic sclerite trifid, the median part more dorsal and longer than the lateral ones ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 E, K); endophallic apodeme as a long and high crest ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 F); a transverse, narrow sclerite between the endophallic sclerite and the ventral sclerites of the ectophallic fold, delimiting a very small endophallic cavity ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 E, K); glands of ejaculatory duct large.

Female. Tergites not glandular. Subgenital plate very short and transverse; apex deeply concave ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 G, M). Ovipositor very short, a little longer than half FIII.

Female genitalia. Copulatory papilla having the shape of a flat rectangle in dorsal or ventral view ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 H–J, N, O).

Habitat. Miogryllodes diaphoros has been most often collected by day and by night in the leaf litter of cloud forest. Some specimens have been found by night inside a hollow standing dead tree, near the entrance of cavities (pers. obs.).

Phylogenetic relationships. The relationships of Miogryllodes have never been analyzed up to now. In the most extensive molecular phylogeny of crickets available today (Chintauan-Marquier et al., submit.), Miogryllodes is the sister group of a large clade including ( Phalangopsis Serville, 1831 — Philippopsis Desutter-Grandcolas, 1992 ) on the one hand, and on the other hand a clade made of genera of the C-group ( Lerneca Walker, 1869 , Microlerneca de Mello, 1995, Prosthama Hebard, 1928 ) sister group of genera from the B-group ( Luzara Walker, 1869 , Niquirana Hebard, 1928 , Amusodes Hebard, 1928 , Luzarida Hebard, 1928 , Acantoluzarida Desutter- Grandcolas, 1992, Luzaridella Desutter-Grandcolas, 1992 ). According to male genitalia, Miogryllodes clearly does not belong to B-, nor C- group of Luzarinae ; its genitalia are actually more similar to those of Lernecella , but these similarities may represent plesiomorphies within the Luzarinae , according to Chintauan-Marquier et al. ’s topology.