identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
2570264FB334FFB198BCF904FC8BFE64.text	2570264FB334FFB198BCF904FC8BFE64.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megacraniinae Hennemann 2020	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Megacraniinae subfam. nov.</p>
            <p> Type-genus:  Megacrania Kaup, 1871: 38 . </p>
            <p> Platycraniae Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1893: 97 (in part - not the type-genus  Platycrana Gray, 1835 ). </p>
            <p> Redtenbacher, 1908: 368 (in part). [  Phibalosomini (II. Sectio Platycraniae] </p>
            <p> Platycraniinae Günther, 1953: 557 (in part). [Incorrect spelling based on misspelled  Platycrania, Westwood, 1859 ]  Platycraninae Bradley &amp; Galil, 1977: 190 (in part). </p>
            <p>Otte &amp; Brock, 2005: 33 (in part).</p>
            <p>Hennemann &amp; Conle, 2008: 24, 26, 57 (in part).</p>
            <p> Acrophyllinae Kirby, 1904: 379 (in part). </p>
            <p> Cladoxerinae Karny, 1923: 237 (in part). </p>
            <p> Diagnosis (♂, ♀):   Small to medium-sized (body length 41.5-132.0 mm) often very colourful  Phasmatidae , form ranging from slender to fairly robust; body sub-cylindrical. ♂♂ apterous (Fig. 3D), brachypterous or with well developed alae (Figs. 1 B–C, 2A, 3A–C), ♀♀ apterous, brachypterous (Figs. 2B, D) or with moderately developed alae (Figs. 1A, 2C). Sexual dimorphism moderate. Head conspicuously enlarged, notably broader and longer than prothorax and flattened dorsoventrally, vertex smooth and with a distinct longitudinal postocular furrow laterally (LCF); genae strongly enlarged (Fig 4 A-J). Eyes more or less decidedly displaced towards the dorsal surface of the head (Fig. 4 A-J). No ocelli. Gula large and covering&gt; ½ of cervical region (Fig. 5 A-B). Lacinia usually with three terminal teeth. Antennae moderately slim to robust and often perlamorph, distinctly segmented and at best equal in length to profemora (much shorter than profemora in ♀♀); consisting of less than 30 segments. Two basal antennomeres flattened dorsoventrally, the scapus moderately broadened. Pronotum with well developed, often very prominent defensive glands at anterolateral corners; these lateral directed (Figs. 4 A-J). Mesothorax&gt; 2x longer than prothorax; parallel-sided and more or less decidedly compressed dorsoventrally; mesonotum usually more or less flattened, mostly smooth to sparsely granulose (Fig. 4G) but may be tuberculose (Fig. 4A) to spinulose in certain taxa (Fig. 4C), with a fine medio-longitudinal carina. Tegmina flat and spatulate; in winged taxa notably shorter than alae. Anal fan of alae transparent, plain grey, pink or orange; only in one known case with a darker outer margin. Median segment longer than metanotum. Abdomen excluding median segment considerably longer than head and complete thorax combined. Abdominal segments II-VI longer than wide. No praeopercular organ on abdominal sternum VII of ♀♀ (Fig.. 8E). Terminalia of ♂♂ (Figs. 6, 7): Anal segment tectiform and split longitudinally to form two movable hemi-tergites that are dorsally connected by a narrow fissure (FI, Figs. 7B, E, G-J); interior surface of hemi-tergites with various specializations, either with paired medio-ventral directed thorn-pads (Fig. 6C), or with often asymmetrical rows of teeth or dentate ridges that are directed medially against each other (Figs. 6A, 6B, 7B, 7E). No vomer (Figs. 6A, C). Paraprocts variable. Poculum (= subgenital plate) small, rather flat to moderately convex and scoop-shaped (Figs. 7A, C, D, F). Terminalia of ♀♀ (Fig. 8): Subgenital plate at best slightly projecting beyond but mostly not reaching to apex of abdomen, obtusely convex to moderately keeled longitudinally; often with a knob-, wart-, or transversely ridge-like basal swelling (here referred to as “opercular organ”, Figs. 8 A-E). Gonapophysis VIII more or less equal in length to gonapophysis IX, gonoplac variable in size, sometimes notably enlarged (Fig. 8A) and occasionally fused with gonapophysis IX; all hidden within subgenital plate and not reaching to apex of abdomen. Gonangulum present but small. Cerci in both sexes compressed laterally, more or less enlarged and elongated, foliaceous or lanceolate in shape (Figs. 6-8). All femora and tibiae trapezoidal in crosssection; tibiae usually less decidedly carinate. Tibiae without an area apicalis. Profemora somewhat constricted and strongly curved in basal portion (Figs. 4 A-E); dorsal carinae very slightly nearing, the posterodorsal carina at best very slightly raised sub-basally and occasionally minutely denticulate. Medioventral carina of all femora midways on ventral surface and often set with a variable number of small spines or teeth. Extrimities otherwise unarmed. Basitarsi slender, not lobed dorsally  . </p>
            <p>Eggs (Figs. 12 A–H): Medium-sized to very large, more or less alveolar and /or polygonal; capsule distinctly longer and higher than wide. Dorsal surface often strongly convex. Polar area mostly more or less distinctly indented. Capsule surface prominently sculptured, being granulose, tuberculose, rugulose, coriaceous or punctured; usually with at least weak irregular longitudinal ridges and/or keels. Micropylar plate small, less than ½ the length of capsule and notably displaced towards the posterior end of capsule; shape more or less rhomboidal. Micropylar cup placed roughly in centre of plate. Internal micropylar plate closed. Operculum strongly raised and conical or peg-like.</p>
            <p> Comments: The subfamily  Platycraninae was originally established by Brunner v. Wattenwyl (1893: 97) as Platycraniae to include the genera  Platycrana Gray, 1835 ,  Graeffea Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1868 and  Arrhidaeus Stål, 1877 (=  Ophicrania Kaup, 1871 ).  Platycrana is the genus-eponymum and hence the type-genus. Subsequent authors (e.g. Günther, 1953; Bradley &amp; Galil, 1977) traditionally characterized the subfamily mainly by the morphological character combination “Cheeks broader than eye” and “Wings, but the tegmina in particular, shortened or lacking”. </p>
            <p> However,  Platycrana Gray, 1835 (Figs. 9-10) the type-genus of  Platycraninae , differs fundamentally from all other genera currently attributed to the subfamily in numerous morphological characteristics and does not even exhibit the aforementioned main diagnostic characteristic of the subfamily, the distinctly enlarged genae (or “cheeks”). Hence, the subfamily in its present recognition is obviously polyphyletic. This has already been pointed out and illustrated by Bradler (2001: 181, fig. 2) and Bradler (2009: 63, fig. 33), who studied the external genitalia of ♂♂, as well as by Hennemann &amp; Conle (2008: 24, 26), who in their distinguishing key to the subfamilies and tribes of  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata Bradler, 2001) referred to “  Platycraninae ” as comprising all genera attributed to the subfamily at that time except for the type-genus  Platycrana itself. In addition to stating that  Platycrana was not closely related to the remaining genera of  Platycraninae in its traditional recognition, Hennemann &amp; Conle (2008: 57) suggested close relation between  Platycrana and the tribe  Stephanacridini Günther, 1953 (Fig. 11). Bradler (2001: 181, fig. 2; 2009: 63, fig. 33) provided figures of the genitalia of ♂♂ of  Platycrana and two members of  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. , that clearly illustrate the fundamental differences in genital morphology. In ♂♂ of  Platycrana the anal segment is flat and entire with the posterior margin just gently indented and the vomer is well developed as a roughly triangular, strongly sclerotised plate that bears a terminal hook (Fig. 6D). The cerci are small, cylindrical and do not show any specializations. All other genera formerly attributed to  Platycraninae , and here comprised in  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. , have the anal segment more or less tectiform and split longitudinally into two movable hemi-tergites that bear variable dentate specializations on their interior surface to form a clasping apparatus analogous to that of other  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata, Figs. 6-7). Also the genital morphology of ♀♀ of these two clades shows fundamental differences. In  Platycrana the subgenital plate is much elongated and projects considerably beyond the apex of the abdomen, there is a praeopercular organ on abdominal sternum VII but no analogous structure at the base of the subgenital plate as in  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. , the cerci are small and cylindrical, and the gonapophysis VIII are extremely elongated, filiform and project greatly beyond the apex of the abdomen (Figs. 10 A-C). In all other genera formerly attributed to  Platycraninae , and here comprised in  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. , the subgenital plate hardly projects over the apex of the abdomen and bears an opercular organ (OpO) that is formed by a knob-, wart-, or transversely ridge-like swelling at the base (Figs. 8 A–E) and serves as an anchorage for the ♂♂ clasping apparatus during copulation, the cerci are laterally compressed, more or less elongated and foliaceous or lanceolate (Figs. 6-8), and the gonapophysis VIII are not notably elongated and fully hidden within the subgenital plate. Furthermore, the main key feature of  Platycraninae sensu Günther, 1953 , the strongly enlarged genae (“cheeks”) only matches for the genera here comprised in  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. . These have the genae strongly enlarged to accommodate the massive mandibular muscles necessary for feeding on the hard leaves of various palms (  Arecaceae ) e.g. coconut (  Cocos nucifera ) or screw palms (  Pandanus spp.,  Pandanaceae ). The head in these taxa is remarkably large, flattened dorsoventrally and the eyes are more or less distinctly displaced towards the dorsal surface of the head capsule (Fig. 4). Moreover, the head capsule bears a distinct longitudinal postocular furrow here referred to as the lateral cervical furrow (LCF, Fig. 4). In contrast,  Platycrana has a fairly usual phasmatodean head, that is ovoid and somewhat widened towards the posterior with the vertex roundly convex and the eyes placed on the lateral surfaces of the head capsule (Figs. 10 H-J). Finally, also the eggs of  Platycrana are unlike those of all other genera of  Platycraninae sensu Günther, 1953 (here comprised in  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. ), being ovoid with a flat operculum that bears a small knob-like capitulum in the centre and having a large micropylar plate which exhibits two conspicuous lateral hook-like expansions (Figs. 12 J-K). All genera in  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. have more or less alveolar and polygonal eggs that bear a large, conical to peg-like operculum and have a fairly small mostly rhomboidal micropylar plate (Figs. 12 A-H). </p>
            <p> As already suggested by the distinctive genital morphology of ♂♂ in particular, not only phylogenetic approaches based on morphological characters (e.g. Bradler, 2009) but also molecular-based phylogenetic studies (Buckley et al., 2009; Bradler et al., 2015) have frequently revealed  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. (in all mentioned studies referred to as “  Platycraninae ”) as a subordinate clade of  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata). Thus  Platycrana , and the subfamily  Platycraninae sensu novo consequently, are here removed from  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata), and based on morphological characters shown to be closely related to  Stephanacridini (+ see discussion of  Platycraninae below). Molecular studies (Buckley et al., 2009) have recovered  Stephanacridini as the sister group of  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata) and in removing  Platycraninae from this clade,  Stephanacridini becomes a subordinate taxon of  Platycraninae sensu nov.. Consequently and in accordance to the results of Buckley et al. (2010),  Platycraninae instead of  Stephanacridini can now be considered as the sister group of  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata; Fig. 13). A detailed discussion of  Platycraninae sensu novo and the arrangement of tribes and genera within the subfamily is presented below. </p>
            <p> Given that  Platycrana , the type-genus of  Platycraninae , is not closely related to any of the other genera traditionally attributed to that subfamily a new subfamiliar name is necessary to accommodate these genera. In order to emphasize the main key feature of this subfamily, i.e. the remarkably enlarged head and genae,  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. is here introduced with  Megacrania Kaup, 1871 as the type-genus. This new subfamiliar name, a combination of the Greek μέγας or mega (= large) and κραΝΊΟΝ or cranium (= skull), is chosen because it very well describes the main key characteristic that distinguishes this subfamily from all other related taxa. The vernacular name “Palm stick insects” is here preferred to “Coconut Stick Insects”, as used by Bradler et al. (2015), because members of this subfamily are not exclusively feeding on coconut palms but are known to feed on a variety of different  Arecaceae (e.g.  Caryota spp.,  Cycas spp.,  Cocos nucifera ,  Trachycarpus spp.,  Metroxylon spp.) and screw palms of the family  Pandanaceae . </p>
            <p> It appears noteworthy, that among  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata) members of  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. show two striking morphological features that otherwise are exclusive to genera of the New Zealand clade  Acanthoxylini Günther, 1953 . The opercular organ (OpO) is a conspicuous swelling at the base of the ♀♀ subgenital plate that serves as an anchorage for the ♂♂ clasping apparatus during copulation. It varies considerably in size, shape and sculpturing among the species and genera of  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. ranging in shape from knob-, over wart-like to forming an obtuse transverse ridge. While this structure is very prominent in e.g.  Megacrania Kaup, 1871 (Figs. 8 C-E),  Erastus Redtenbacher, 1908 (Fig. 8A) and  Graeffea Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1868 (Fig. 8B), it is just weakly developed to almost obsolete in  Ophicrania Kaup, 1871 . Being analogous to the structure in  Acanthoxylini it is seen to be similarly variable in this latter clade (see Buckley, Myers &amp; Bradler, 2014: 460, fig. 4). The presence of an opercular organ could be a synapomorphy of  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. +  Acanthoxylini , but further evaluation is needed to confirm this assumption. Another possible synapomorphy of these two clades is exhibited by the eggs. In contrast to all other members of  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata), which show a true capitulum, the eggs of  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. and  Acanthoxylini have a more or less prominently raised and conical or peg-like operculum (Figs. 12 A-H), which may be as high as more than half the length of the egg capsule in some extreme cases (e.g. some species of  Ophicrania ). Moreover, eggs of both clades are more or less polygonal with the dorsal surface bulgy longitudinally and the polar-area more or less prominently indented. It shall bmen- tioned that there have been contrary definitions of the opercular structures of genera of  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. in the past. According to Clark Sellick (1988: 278) the eggs of  Megacrania and  Ophicrania have “raised spongy opercula” but according to Clark Sellick (1997: 118, figs. 71-72) capitula are present in the two genera. Since a true capitulum is defined as a structure that is easily detached from the operculum without damage to the latter and with its loss not having negative influence on the hatching rate (Clark, 1976; Clark Sellick, 1988), there is no capitulum in  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. . </p>
            <p> A detailed differentiation and comparison between  Platycrana Gray, 1853 and  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. is presented in table 1 below. </p>
            <p> Genera excluded from  Megacraniinae : The Australian  Echetlus Stål, 1875 (Type-species:  Bacillus peristhenes Westwood, 1859: 13 , pl. 7: 1) was included in former  Platycraninae by Günther (1953: 557) and has since been retained in the subfamily by all subsequent authors. Brock &amp; Hasenpusch (2007: 74) and Hennemann &amp; Conle (2008: 28) doubted  Echetlus to be a member of  Platycraninae sensu Günther and stated it was likely to belong in  Phasmatinae . Indeed,  Echetlus is obviously not at all closely related to either  Platycrana , and the subfamily  Platycraninae sensu nov. respectively, nor to any of the genera of  Megacraniinae subfam nov.. Consequently, since the genus does not have any of the characteristics and can hence not be incorporated in either  Platycraninae sensu nov. or  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. , it is here provisionally transferred to Phasmatinaea:  Acanthomimini . Morphological features such as the slender and stick-like habitus, the characteristic profemora which have the anterodorsal carina strongly raised and serrate and are triangular in cross-section, the elongate and cylindrical head as well as short and stocky antennae that are considerably shorter than the profemora and also the geographic distribution in Western Australia suggest close relation to genera currently in  Acanthomimini . Hennemann &amp; Conle (2008: 28) also pointed out that the the Brazilian species attributed to  Echetlus by Zompro (2004) is not congeneric and is a member of the New World  Diapheromeridae :  Diapheromerinae . </p>
            <p> Redtenbacherus Özdikmen &amp; Darilmaz, 2008 was introduced as a replacement name for the preoccupied  Ernodes Redtenbacher, 1908 (Type-species:  Ernodes sumatranus Redtenbacher, 1908: 374 ). In discussing  Redtenbacherus and transferring all species except for the type-species to  Lopaphus Westwood, 1859 (subfamily  Necrosciinae ), Seow-Choen (2018: 450) commented “ This species appears to be a  Lopaphus species […]. The antennae appear damaged, and therefore artificially shortened. It is likely to be proven to belong to that genus when more information is available. ”. Indeed,  R. sumatranus strongly resembles certain species of  Lopaphus and the species has none of the characteristic features of either  Platycraninae sensu nov. or  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. . If taking broken antennae into account in the unique holotype, the slender and cylindrical body and stick-like habitus, entirely unarmed extremities, triangular cross-section of the profemora, which have the anterodorsal carina strongly raised, morphology of the head and genitalia clearly place this genus in the subfamily  Necrosciinae . Consequently, and since it cannot be retained in either  Platycraninae nor  Megacraniinae ,  Redtenbacherus is here transferred to  Necrosciinae . </p>
            <p> The genus  Elicius Günther, 1935 (Type-species:  Elicius microbasileus Günther, 1935: 16 ) was described from a unique male from Mount Latimojong, South Sulawesi. Already Günther (1935: 16) was in doubt about the systematic position and relationships of this tiny species and placed it in  Platycraninae with reservation. The author commented that the position of the genus within Platycaninae was just as incoherent as if it had been placed in the subfamily  Necrosciinae . However, detailed examination of the holotype in the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Germany (MNHU) proves that  Elicius is not a member of  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. (=  Platycraninae sensu Günther ). This is seen by morphological features such as the ovoid head that has the large eyes positioned laterally, the genae not notably enlarged and lacks a lateral cervical furrow, the small gula, tectiform but entire anal segment, presence of a well-developed vomer, cylindrical cerci, and long antennae that are almost as long as the front legs. These features place  Elicius in the subfamily  Necrosciinae to which it is here transferred. The enlarged head as well as the smooth and shiny body surface resemble certain Wallacean members of  Paranecroscia Redtenbacher, 1908 and the genital morphology is similar to e.g.  Moritasgus Günther , 19035, both members of the  Necrosciinae . </p>
            <p> Natural History: Many papers have dealt with the biology (e.g. Franzman, 1974; Bedford, 1978; Preston-Mafham, 1990; Rapp, 1995; Cermak &amp; Hasenpusch, 2000), ecology, host plants and pest status (e.g. Baker, 2015; Deesh et al., 2020), population dynamics and dispersal (Kobayashi et al., 2014; Kobayahshi et al., 2016) and chemical defensives (e.g. Smith et al., 1979; Chow &amp; Lin, 1986; Ho &amp; Chow, 1993; Jones &amp; Bulbert, 2020) of members of this particular subfamily. Natural host plants comprise various palms of the families  Arecaceae and  Pandanaceae . For example, the so-called “Peppermint Stick Insect”  Megacrania batesii Kirby, 1896 is reported to feed on  Pandanus tectorius ,  P. monticola and  P. soloms-laubachii in coastal parts of North Queensland, Australia (Cermak &amp; Hasenpusch, 2000). The closely related  Megacrania tsudai Shiraki, 1933 also feeds on  Pandanus tectorius in similar habitats in Taiwan (Chow &amp; Lin, 1986). Several species, including  Graeffea crouanii (Le Guillou, 1841) ,  G. minor Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1868,  G. lifouensis Sharp, 1898 ,  G. leveri (Günther, 1937) and  Acanthograeffea denticulata (Redtenbacher, 1908) feed predominantly on coconut (  Cocos nucifera ,  Arecaceae ) in their natural habitats. While  Acanthograeffea denticulata has also been recorded on a species of  Pandanus in the Marianas (Muniappan, 2002),  Graeffea crouanii has been observed to feed on sago (  Metroxylon sagu ,  Arecaceae ; Bedford, 1978) and the grass  Miscanthus floridulus (Poaceae) in Fiji (Lever, 1947). In captivity in Europe various palms of the  Arecaceae family are frequently accepted as substitutes by species of the genera  Graeffea Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1868 and  Ophicrania Kaup, 1871 . These include  Dypsis lutescens ,  Howea forestiana ,  Trachycarpus fortunei ,  Phoenix canariensis and  Livistona australis but also bamboo (Phyllostachyus aurea,  Poaceae ) was readily taken by  G. crouanii in captivity (Bruno Kneubühler, pers. comm.). Although  Megacrania tsudai causes considerable damage to  Pandanus screw palms in Taiwan (e.g. Chow &amp; Lin, 1986) and  M. batesii to the same host plants in coastal parts of Northeast Australia (Cermak &amp; Hasenpusch, 2000), these damages are not of economic importance. The so-called “Coconut Stick Insect”  Graeffea crouanii however, is for long known to defoliate coconut palms (  Cocos nucifera ) in many islands of the South Pacific and to be of great economic importance. Since coconut palms are one of the most important crops and the coconut industry is the most important agricultural commodity for many smaller islands throughout the Pacific, it plays important roles in the livelihoods of people in terms of food and nutrition security and economic aspects. Hence, a decrease in infestation of coconut palms by  G. crouanii is mandatory for the survival and boost of the coconut industry (Deesh et al., 2013). The worst damage is mostly seen on old trees that are at least 25 m in height and in times of severe damage, frequently whole plants are defoliated and die (Swaine, 1969). For example, Paine (1968) reported a severe outbreak on the island of Taveuni, Fiji in 1958-1959 and extending into 1961 with over 500 acres of coconut palms affected of which at least 50% of the older fronds were completely defoliated and almost 400 palms killed. Many species of  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. are found in coastal regions, which is mostly due to the distribution and occurrence of their host plants. Kobayashi et al. (2014) suggested a dispersal of eggs through seawater to be a possible distributional mechanism of  Megacrania tsudai and tested this hypothesis in laboratory conditions. The tests provided support for this assumption because eggs were shown to have specific characteristics that allow their survival when they float in the sea and that the hatching rates were not negatively affected. The same seawater resistance and dispersal by floating was reported for  Graeffea crouanii in the South West Pacific (Swaine, 1969). Members of the subfamily are also characteristic for having well developed bilateral prothoracic defensive glands, which have their openings at the anterior corners of the pronotum. From these the insects can spray good amounts of a white, milky and often strongly smelling and irritating secretion towards potential predators. The secretion does not effect human skin (Franzmann, 1974) but irritates the eyes on contact (Cermak &amp; Hasenpusch, 2000). In species of  Megacrania the smell resembles peppermint (e.g. Franzmann, 1974) and in  Graeffea leveri the smell is described as lemon-like (Bruno Kneubühler, pers. comm). Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analyses of the defensive secretion of  Megacrania tsudai in Taiwan have shown it’s major component to be actinidine but also to contain boschniakine and two stereoisomeres of 1-acetyl-3-methylcloptentane (Ho &amp; Chow, 1993). </p>
            <p> Distribution: Oriental Region from Japan and Taiwan in the north over Peninsular Malaysia, Borneo and the Philippines towards Wallacea, the Papuan subregion and NE-Australia, and throughout the South West Pacific in Melanesia, southern Micronesia, New Caledonia and as far South East as French Polynesia. One species is endemic to the Seychelles and one possibly extinct genus,  Xenomaches Kirby, 1896 , was described from Rodrigues Island, both in the Indian Ocean. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2570264FB334FFB198BCF904FC8BFE64	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Hennemann, Frank H.	Hennemann, Frank H. (2020): Megacraniinae-The Palm Stick Insects: A new subfamily of Old World Phasmatodea and a redefinition of Platycraninae Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1893 (Phasmatodea: “ Anareolatae ”). Zootaxa 4896 (2): 151-179, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4896.2.1
2570264FB326FFAF98BCFE36FDF8FAE3.text	2570264FB326FFAF98BCFE36FDF8FAE3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Platycraninae Brunner v. Wattenwyl 1893	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Platycraninae Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1893 sensu nov. </p>
            <p> Type-genus:  Platycrana Gray, 1835: 36 . </p>
            <p> Platycraniae Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1893: 97 (in part - only the type-genus  Platycrana Gray, 1835 ) </p>
            <p> Redtenbacher, 1908: 368 (in part). [  Phibalosomini (II. Sectio Platycraniae] </p>
            <p> Platycraniinae Günther, 1953: 557 . [Incorrect spelling based on misspelled  Platycrania Westwood, 1859 ] </p>
            <p> Platycraninae Bradley &amp; Galil, 1977: 190 (in part). [Corrected spelling] </p>
            <p>Otte &amp; Brock, 2005: 33 (in part).</p>
            <p> Acrophyllini Redtenbacher, 1908: 436 (in part). </p>
            <p> Cladoxerinae Karny, 1923: 237 (in part). </p>
            <p> Lanceocercata Bradler, 2001: 179 (in part). </p>
            <p> Pharnaciini Günther, 1953: 555 (in part). </p>
            <p>Bradley &amp; Galil, 1977: 193 (in part).</p>
            <p> Phasminae Karny, 1923: 240 (in part). </p>
            <p>Günther, 1953: 554 (in part).</p>
            <p> Phasmatinae Bradley &amp; Galil, 1977: 192 (in part). [Corrected spelling of  Phasminae Karny, 1923: 240 ] </p>
            <p>Phryganistriinae Kirby, 1904: 358 (in part).</p>
            <p> Diagnosis (♂, ♀): Moderately sized to very large  Phasmatodea (body length 76.0-300.0 mm) and comprising some of the world’s longest insects. Very strong sexual dimorphism; ♂♂ stick-like, form of ♀♀ ranging from slender to very stocky and sometimes remarkably massive. Both sexes apterous, brachypterous or pterous; apterous or brachypterous ♀♀ often with corresponding ♂♂ brachypterous or with fully developed alae. Body surface ranging from smooth and slightly glossy to moderately sculptured; mesonotum und mesopleurae often tuberculose or spinose. Head ovoid to sub-spherical; no ocelli. No gula, only two small gular sclerites. Antennae much shorter than body; in ♀♀ shorter than in ♂♂. Mesothorax slender in ♂♂, often more or less swollen medially in ♀♀ or either lateral margins of mesonotum or mesopleurae deflexed and/or dentate. Median segment variable in length but mostly shorter than metanotum. Praeopercular organ on sternum VII of ♀♀ indistinct (Figs. 6C, 11D, 11F). Terminalia of ♂♂: Anal segment simple and entire (Figs. 6D, 11H, 11K), at best slightly tectiform an with posterior margin indented medially; ventral surface of posterior margin with paired, ventral directed thorn-pads (TP, Figs. 6D, 10F, 11J, 11L). External vomer well developed and sclerotised; mostly triangular in shape and with a single terminal hook (Figs. 6D, 10F, 11J, 11L). Terminalia of ♀♀: Gonapophysis VIII strongly elongated, filiform and projecting considerably beyond apex of abdomen (Figs. 10 A-C, 11D-G); much longer than gonapophysis IX or gonoplacs. No gonangulum present. Subgenital plate prominently keeled longitudinally and usually projecting considerably beyond apex of abdomen; shape variable (Figs. 10 A-C, 11D-G). Extremities with most or all carinae more or less strongly dentate, serrate and/or occasionally with single lobes. Profemora trapezoidal in cross-section, compressed and curved basally; the medioventral carina indistinct and roughly midways on ventral surface of profemur; the posterodorsal carina moderately raised. Meso- and metafemora trapezoidal in cross-section. Tibiae without an area apicalis. Basitarsus longer than the following two segments combined. </p>
            <p>Eggs (Figs. 12 J–M): Small to large, shape variable; ranging from simply ovoid over almost spherical to considerably longer than high with the cross-section distinctly oval and capsule surrounded by a dorso-ventral bulge. Surface of capsule ranging from smooth and glossy to strongly sculptured. Internal micropylar plate closed, no median line. Operculum flat, capitulum present but not stalked.</p>
            <p> Comments: The subfamily  Platycraninae was based on the genus  Platycrana Gray, 1835 . As discussed in detail above, the type-genus  Platycrana is not closely related with all other genera that were traditionally attributed to the subfamily. These genera are here removed from  Platycraninae and accommodated in  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. . As a result,  Platycrana is the only genus that remains in  Platycraninae sensu nov.. Close relation between  Platycraninae sensu novo and the tribe  Stephanacridini Günther, 1953 has already been suggested by Hennemann &amp; Conle (2008: 57) and based on a prolific set of morphological characters this relation is supported herein. Common characters include the lack of a gula (only two small gular sclerites present), small and more or less cylindrical cerci of both sexes, a simple and entire anal segment (Figs. 10D, 11K) and well developed external vomer of ♂♂ (Figs. 6D, 10 E-F, 11J, 11L), as well as the more or less prominently elongated subgenital plate and often enormously elongated and filiform gonapophysis VIII of ♀♀, that considerably project beyond the apex of the abdomen (Figs. 10 A-C, 11D-G). The eggs share a flattened operculum and knob-like central capitulum (Figs. 12 J-M). All these features are not only shared by  Platycrana and  Stephanacridini , but they also distinguish both clades from  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. and the entire family  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata). Consequently,  Stephanacridini was removed from  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata) by Hennemann &amp; Conle (2008) which has received strong support by subsequent phylogenetic approaches based on morphological data (Buckley et al., 2009) and molecular data (Buckley et al., 2009; Robertson et al., 2018). These studies have moreover recovered  Stephanacridini as the sister group of  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata) but  Stephanacridini has since remained without a subfamiliar affiliation. The here revealed close relation to  Platycrana places  Stephanacridini as a subordinate taxon of  Platycraninae sensu nov., which consequently means that automatically  Platycraninae , instead of  Stephanacridini , should now be considered as the possible sister taxon of  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata).  Platycraninae senso nov. comprises two tribes, i.e. the monotypical  Platycranini , which only contains its type-genus  Platycrana , and  Stephanacridini . </p>
            <p> Simon et al. (2019) have obtained  Xenophasmina Uvarov, 1940 , an Indo-Chinese genus that currently is considered to be a member of the polyphyletic subfamily  Xeroderinae , as the sister taxon of  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata). Moreover, these authors considered that  Xenophasmina might be a member of  Stephanacridini . From a morphological point of view however, there is absolutely no support for this assumption. Although ♂♂ of  Xenophasmina possess an entire anal segment and a well developed vomer, both sexes have notably enlarged, dorsoventrally flattened and more or less foliaceous cerci, that remarkably resemble the cerci found throughout  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata) and ♀♀ lack the elongated and filiform gonapophysis VIII seen iStephanacridini. Moreover, the eggs of  Xenophasmina lack the knob-like central capitulum seen in  Stephanacridini but have a strongly raised opercular structure with a central hollow instead and the internal micropylar plate is open with a distinct median line (closed in  Stephanacridini ). Other remarkable morphological characters, such as the notably flattened head, laterally lobed abdominal terga VII-X of both sexes and notably deflexed, undulate and strongly setose lower outer carinae of all legs in ♀♀ distinguish  Xenophasmina from  Stephanacridini . Hence, an inclusion of  Xenophasmina in future analyses appears desirable in order to uncover the relationships of the genus. </p>
            <p>Distributuion: Taiwan, Peninsular Malaysia, Borneo, Philippines, Wallacea, New Guinea, Solomon Islands, NE-Australia, Micronesia and Melanesia (Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Vanuatu, New Caledonia &amp; Western French Polynesia).</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2570264FB326FFAF98BCFE36FDF8FAE3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Hennemann, Frank H.	Hennemann, Frank H. (2020): Megacraniinae-The Palm Stick Insects: A new subfamily of Old World Phasmatodea and a redefinition of Platycraninae Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1893 (Phasmatodea: “ Anareolatae ”). Zootaxa 4896 (2): 151-179, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4896.2.1
2570264FB324FFAC98BCFF39FFB3F97E.text	2570264FB324FFAC98BCFF39FFB3F97E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Platycranini Brunner	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Tribe  Platycranini Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1893 </p>
            <p>(Figs. 6D, 9-10, 12 J-K)</p>
            <p> Type-genus:  Platycrana Gray, 1835: 36 . </p>
            <p>Platycraniae Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1893: 97</p>
            <p> Otte &amp; Brock, 2005: 13. [First use as  Platycranini - noted that technically not needed] </p>
            <p>Seow-Choen, 2018: 449.</p>
            <p> Diagnosis (♂, ♀): Moderately sized (body length ♂♂ 80.0–90.0 mm, ♀♀ incl. subgenital plate 125.0–155.0 mm), very stocky and massive (♀♀ in particular) bright green  Platycraninae (Fig. 9). Both sexes with fully developed alae that cover more than half of abdomen; anal fan plain transparent pink. Head strongly globose with vertex rounded and smooth. Pronotum quadrate (♂♂) or transverse (♀♀). Mesothorax short and less than 3.5x longer than prothorax. Mesonotum smooth in ♀♀ with the lateral margins strongly deflexed, rounded and overlapping mesopleurae; in ♂♂ slender and prominently tuberculose or spinose (Fig. 10G). Mesopleurae simple (minutely tuberculose in ♂♂). Median segment longer than metanotum. Abdominal tergites II–VII of ♀♀ with lateral margins noticeably deflexed; II-VI wider than long. Subgenital plate of ♀♀ strongly keeled longitudinally, boat-shaped and projecting over apex of abdomen by considerably more than length of anal segment (Fig. 10A). Vomer of ♂♂ with a ridge-like to conical basal swelling (Figs. 6D, 10D, 10F). </p>
            <p>Eggs (Figs. 12 J–K): Large and ovoid; colour plain pale to mid brown. Entire capsule surface deeply and densely punctured; otherwise with some obtuse bulges. Micropylar plate very large, almost as long as capsule and of a complex shape with two large, hook-like lateral expansions and the polar portion very narrow and almost reaching to posterior pole; entire plate slightly lowered. Outer margin distinctly marked by dark brown, the inner portion sculptured like capsule. Micropylar cup small and just above narrow posterior portion of plate. Internal micropylar plate with a very long and slender posterior extension. Chorion very thick (ca. 0.7-0.8 mm), comb-like and consisting of tube-like, radially directed hollow compartments. Operculum dark reddish brown, almost circular and with a slightly swollen, somewhat granulose circular bulge some distance off the outer margin; the central portion impressed. Capitulum small, mushroom-like in shape; orange. Measurements [mm]: overall length 6.3-6.5, capsule length 5.9-6.1, width 4.0-4.2, height 4.3-4.7, length of micropylar plate 4.9-5.1, width of micropylar plate 3.6-3.7.</p>
            <p> Comments: This tribe only contains the monotypical type-genus  Platycrana Gray, 1835 , that is widely distributed throughout Wallacea and some of the more southern Philippine Islands. Although  P. viridana (Olivier, 1792) appears to be fairly abundant in certain localities, almost nothing is currently known about the habits and natural food plants. Morphologically the massive, bright green ♀♀ resemble winged version of certain species of  Macrophasma Hennemann &amp; Conle, 2006 (tribe  Stephanacridini ), e.g.  M. oreitrephes (Günther, 1929) . Since the egg has not yet been formally described, a detailed description and measurements are here presented. The description is based on two examples from the Philippine Island of Panay in the authors collection (coll. FH, No. 0173-E). </p>
            <p> A questionable Wallacean species attributed to the Mascarene  Megacraniinae genus  Xenomaches Kirby, 1896 (+ see above) by Redtenbacher (1908: 379) and since retained in that genus by subsequent authors is not a member of  Xenomaches nor the subfamily  Megacraniinae subfam. nov. . Examination of the holotype ♂ of  Xenomaches moderata (Kirby, 1884) from the island of Ambon in Natural History Museum, London, U.K. (NHMUK) has recovered this to be a strongly discoloured specimen of  Platycrana viridana (Olivier, 1792) . The pale yellow colour was obviously caused by long-term storage in ethanol. This species is here synonymised with  P. viridana (syn. nov.). </p>
            <p>Distribution: Wallacea and Philippines.</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2570264FB324FFAC98BCFF39FFB3F97E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Hennemann, Frank H.	Hennemann, Frank H. (2020): Megacraniinae-The Palm Stick Insects: A new subfamily of Old World Phasmatodea and a redefinition of Platycraninae Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1893 (Phasmatodea: “ Anareolatae ”). Zootaxa 4896 (2): 151-179, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4896.2.1
2570264FB321FFA998BCFF79F9FEFA27.text	2570264FB321FFA998BCFF79F9FEFA27.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stephanacridini Gunther 1953	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Tribe  Stephanacridini Günther, 1953</p>
            <p>(Figs. 11, 12 L-M)</p>
            <p> Type genus:  Stephanacris Redtenbacher, 1908: 441 . </p>
            <p> Stephanacridini Günther, 1953: 555 . </p>
            <p>Bradley &amp; Galil, 1977: 194.</p>
            <p>Hennemann &amp; Conle, 2004: 48.</p>
            <p>Otte &amp; Brock, 2005: 33.</p>
            <p>Hennemann &amp; Conle, 2008: 54, figs. 37, 43, 60-61, 80-82.</p>
            <p> Pharnaciini Günther, 1953: 555 (in part). </p>
            <p>Bradley &amp; Galil, 1977: 193 (in part).</p>
            <p>Otte &amp; Brock, 2005: 32 (in part).</p>
            <p> Diagnosis (♂, ♀): Variably sized often very large  Platycraninae (body length ♂♂ 76.0– 186.5 mm, ♀♀ incl. subgenital plate 135.0-300.0 mm), shape very variable and ranging from very slender and stick-like to stocky and robust. ♂♂ apterous, brachypterous or with fully developed alae, ♀♀ mostly apterous but sometimes brachypterous with alae at best covering median segment and hardly longer than tegmina. If alae present, anal fan in ♂♂ transparent, in ♀♀ colourful. Pronotum longer than wide. Mesothorax elongate and&gt; 3.5x longer than prothorax; always slender in ♂♂. Mesonotum and mesopleurae often armed; in ♀♀ lateral margins of mesonotum at best slightly widened and mesopleurae occasionally strongly deflexed. Abdominal segments II–VI of ♀♀ longer than wide (quadrate only in one species). All extrimities armed, occasionally with single enlarged lobes. Basitarsi slender or lobed. </p>
            <p>Eggs (Figs. 12 L–M): Variable in shape, size and capsule sculpturing. Micropylar plate small, less than 2/3 the length of capsule and more or less rhomboidal in shape. Micropylar cup placed roughly in centre of plate.</p>
            <p> Comments:  Stephanacridini was originally established by Günther (1953: 555) as a tribe of the subfamily  Phasminae (=  Phasmatinae Bradley &amp; Galil, 1977 ) and originally only contained the type-genus  Stephanacris Redtenbacher, 1908 . The fundamental differences concerning to the morphology of the genitalia and eggs, that prove the tribe cannot be a member of  Phasmatidae s. str. (= Lanceocercata) were summarized and illustrated by Hennemann &amp; Conle (2008: 55), who transferred several misplaced genera from  Pharnaciini Günther, 1953 and provided a list of genera included in  Stephanacridini . However,  Stephanacridini has since remained without a definite affiliation to a subfamily and is here attributed to  Platycraninae sensu nov.. </p>
            <p> The two New Guinean genera  Stephanacris and  Macrophasma Hennemann &amp; Conle, 2006 have been revised by Hennemann &amp; Conle (2006) and a revision of  Phasmotaenia Návas, 1907 was presented by Hennemann &amp; Conle (2009). A review of  Nesiophasma Günther, 1934 is in progress by the author and the remaining four genera are intended to be reviewed in the future as well. </p>
            <p>Distribution: Taiwan, Borneo, Philippines, Wallacea, New Guinea, Solomon Islands, NE-Australia, Micronesia and Melanesia (Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Vanuatu, New Caledonia &amp; Western French Polynesia).</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2570264FB321FFA998BCFF79F9FEFA27	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Hennemann, Frank H.	Hennemann, Frank H. (2020): Megacraniinae-The Palm Stick Insects: A new subfamily of Old World Phasmatodea and a redefinition of Platycraninae Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1893 (Phasmatodea: “ Anareolatae ”). Zootaxa 4896 (2): 151-179, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4896.2.1
