Doratomantispa Poinar

Genus Doratomantispa Poinar View in CoL in Poinar & Buckley, 2011

Figures 1 View Fig , 2 View Fig , 3 View Fig , 4 View Fig , 5 View Fig , 6 View Fig , 7 View ◂ , 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

Poinar & Buckley, 2011: 2; Shi et al., 2019a: 449; Lu et al., 2020: 2.

Type species: Doratomantispa burmanica Poinar in Poinar & Buckley, 2011, by original designation and monotypy.

Lonchomantispa Shi, Yang & Ren in Shi et al., 2020: 1062. Type species: Lonchomantispa longa (Shi, Yang & Ren in Shi et al., 2020) , by original designation and monotypy. New synonym.

Revised diagnosis Profemoral ISs rows: anteroventral row consisting of a major process with two basal branches (anterior branch absent), and several short processes along distal 1/3–1/2 length of profemur; posteroventral row commencing by a long primary process, with 3–9 processes. Protibia with a row of angularly curved prostrate setae (near Type k4). Male gonocoxites 9 short and broad, distally simple, or bifurcated; gonapophyses 10 broad, long, blade-like, anteriorly weakly sclerotized, each tapering posteriorly into a strongly sclerotized point; gonostyli 10 (pseudopenis) curved dorsad or coiled. Female sternum 7 posterolaterally not produced; gonocoxites 9 ventrally rounded, not produced; ectoprocts ventrally produced.

Remarks Shi et al. (2020) mentioned that Lonchomantispa can be distinguished by (1) the long and recurrent forewing humeral vein, (2) ScP terminated on C with no distal scp-r, (3) two proximal scp-r, and (4) only one distal ra-rp crossvein from Doratomantispa and Paradoxomantispa [(1) the forewing humeral vein either absent or weak, (2) ScP fused with RA distally or connected with RA by the distal scp-r, (3) only one proximal scp-r, (4) two or three ra-rp]. However, these differences above are questionable and inappropriate to separate Lonchomantispa from the latter two genera.

Character (1): The simple or bifurcated recurrent humeral vein with short branches, not or slightly extending to the forewing base, is normally present in the forewing in both Doratomantispa and Paradoxomantispa as well as in most mantispoids. Besides, this vein is trifurcated or multi-branched with short or long branches, distinctly extending to the forewing base in some taxa of Berothidae (e.g., species in Berothimerobius , Berothone , Cyrenoberotha , Elektroberotha , Magniberotha , Mesithone , Oloberotha ), Rhachiberothidae (e.g., species in Raptorapax , Paradoxoberotha ), Mesomantispinae (e.g., Ovalofemora ), and Symphrasinae (e.g., species in Archaeosymphrasis , Habrosymphrasis , Haplosymphrasites , Parasymphrasites , and Plega ). But, the bifurcated recurrent humeral vein with a very long branch that distinctly extends to the forewing base as described by Shi et al. (2020) is only known in Lonchomantispa . In light of our study, the so-called “recurrent humeral vein” of Lonchomantispa probably comprises the “ScA” which is also present in D. pubescens and some species of extinct drepanicines ( Lu et al., 2020, figs. S5B, S7C-D, S11D), and the simple true recurrent humeral vein as in many doratomantispines. These two veins are actually separated but were erroneously linked together by Shi et al. (2020).

Character (2): The distal parts of ScP and RA on the forewing is poorly preserved in L. longa . Based on Shi et al. (2020, figs. 6B, C), we found that the forewing ScP of L. longa actually bends abruptly into RA distally and there are still some weak incorporated veinlets of pterostigma observed to directly connect RA as in Symphrasinae and Doratomantispinae , indicating that the ScP of this species possibly fused with RA distally. The distal part of ScP, which is drawn as separated from RA in Shi et al. (2020), should belong to the posterior boundary of the dark pigment of the pterostigma.

Character (4): The distal forewing ra-rp in Mantispoidea may be present in the radial space distal to the pterostigma ( Figs. 3a View Fig , 14a View Fig , 18a, b View Fig , 21a, b View Fig ; Ardila-Camacho et al., 2021, figs. 30, 32; Lu et al., 2020, figs. S6G-H, S8E-F), while the forewing apex of L. longa is broken, and thus the radial space distal to the pterostigma is unknown. Therefore, there may be more than one ra-rp in the forewing of this species.

Additionally, there are some misinterpretations of the profemur and male genitalia of L. longa in Shi et al. (2020). Based on Ardila-Camacho et al. (2021) and the present study, the major process of this species is basally branched as the same as that in Doratomantispinae , and the short process close to the longest process (primary branch) is the secondary branch. In Mantispidae , the male gonocoxites 9 are located laterally under the hypomeres or gonapophyses 10 ( Ardila-Camacho et al., 2021; Hoffman, 1992; Lambkin, 1986a, b). Therefore, according to the position and shape of the genital sclerites of L. longa , the “hypomere” and “9th gonocoxite” interpreted by Shi et al. (2020) are the gonocoxites 9 and the gonapophyses 10, respectively.

Hereto, the only definite difference between Lonchomantispa and the two genera of Doratomantispinae is the presence of two forewing proximal scp-r (character (3)). However, Lonchomantispa actually shows many diagnostic characters of Doratomantispinae : the tubular pronotum with paratergal lobes ventrally fused; profemur distinctly shorter than protibia plus protarsus, not compressed along ISs row, proximally broadened, two ISs rows with ISs saber-shaped, major process very long and branched basally, protibia with a row of prostrate setae on well-developed ventral keel, protarsus 5-segmented with tarsomere 1 not prolonged and not distally spinately produced, tarsomeres 1–4 ventrally bearing conical setae, two simple pretarsal claws, arolium small, subtriangular, acutely tapering; trichosors well developed and male gonostyli 10 whip-shaped. Therefore, Lonchomantispa is synonymized with Doratomantispa by sharing many diagnostic characters of the latter genus such as the following: the major process with two basal branches with the anterior branch absent, posteroventral row commencing by a long primary process, with nine processes; protibial ventral prostrate setae distally angularly curved (near Type k4); male gonocoxites 9 short and broad and gonostyli 10 curved dorsad. Accordingly, a new combination “ Doratomantispa longa (Shi, Yang & Ren in Shi et al., 2020)” is proposed. The character 3 is unique and may be an apomorphy of D. longa , because there is only one proximal forewing scp-r in the other members of Doratomantispa .

Lu et al. (2020) distinguished Doratomantispa from Paradoxomantispa by the absence of hind wing 1ra-rp (the most proximal ra-rp, present in the latter genus). However, according to the present study, the 1ra-rp is present in D. arcimaculata sp. nov., D. ares , D. zhangwenjuni sp. nov., D. gaoyuhei sp. nov., D. zhangzhiqiae sp. nov., and D. yumeiyingae sp. nov., but absent in D. burmanica . Notably, the 1ra-rp is present on the right but absent on the left hind wing in D. zhangzhiqiae sp. nov., indicating that this character is variable intraspecifically. Therefore, the presence or absence of hind wing 1ra-rp is excluded for distinguishing the two genera of Doratomantispinae .

Key to species of Doratomantispa

1. Two proximal scp-r ( Shi et al., 2020, fig. 6E)…….… D. longa (Shi, Yang & Ren in Shi et al.)

– One proximal scp-r…………………………….…. 2

2. Forewing immaculate ( Lu et al., 2020, figs. S5B, D)… …….………………………… D. pubescens Lu et al.

– Forewing with some markings......……………….… 3

3. Forewing with almost all costal crossveins proximal to level of proximal ra-rp simple……………….……... 4

– Forewing with many or almost all costal crossveins proximal to level of proximal ra-rp branched………………………………………….. 6

4. Hind wing with only one ra-rp................................... D. pouilloni Jouault & Nel

– Hind wing with at least two ra-rp............................ 5

5. Six profemoral processes present, gap between primary and secondary branches of major process wide; forewing costal space narrower; forewing proximal r-m absent; hind wing medial inner gradates present ( Figs. 7d–f View ◂ ; Poinar & Buckley, 2011, figs. 9 and 10)……...…….........…….… D. burmanica Poinar in Poinar & Buckley

– Fourteen profemoral processes present, gap between primary and secondary branches of major process narrow; forewing costal space broader; forewing proximal r-m present; hind wing medial inner gradates absent ( Figs. 20 View Fig c-d, 21a-c)………….………. D. zhuozhengmingi Zhuo, Li & Liu sp. nov.

6. Presence of distinct stripe (formed by markings on 2m-cu, cua-cup and between CuP and A1) at posteroproximalportion of forewing……………...…...…………….………………. 7

– Absence of distinct stripe (formed by markings on 2 m-cu, cua-cup, and between CuP and A1) at posteroproximalportion of forewing ….………………….……………………………… 8

7. Protibial prostrate setae dense, feebly angularly curved; male gonostyli 10 very long and coiled, gonocoxites 11 posterodorsally without any spinous setae ( Figs. 15e View Fig , 16 View Fig e-f)……… …………………..… D. zhangwenjuni Zhuo, Li & Liu sp. nov.

– Protibial prostrate setae sparse, strongly angularly curved; male gonostyli 10 short and curved dorsad, gonocoxites 11 posterodorsally with four thick spinous seate ( Figs. 17g View Fig , 19a–f View Fig )…………………… D. zhangzhiqiae Zhuo, Li & Liu sp. nov.

8. Major process with primary branch 2.0 × length of secondary branch……....................……….....…….. 9

– Major process with primary branch ≥ 2.5 × length of secondary branch………..…………………….… 10.

9. Profemoral posteroventral row with gap between primary and following first process distinctly wider than that between following first and second processes; forewing with three ra-rp and a medial arcuate marking; male sternum 9 shallowly scoop-like, surpassing apex of short oval ectoprocts strongly ( Figs. 2 View Fig a-b, e-f, 3a, 4a–d)……………. D. arcimaculata Li et al. sp. nov.

– Profemoral posteroventral row with subequal gaps among proximal three processes of profemoral posteroventral row; forewing with two ra-rp and lacking medial arcuate marking; male sternum 9 deeply scoop-like, not surpassing apex of long subtriangular ectoprocts ( Figs. 5 View Fig h-i, 6a, d-e; Lu et al., 2020, S4D-H)…………....… …………………. D. ares Lu et al.

10. Major process with primary branch 2.5 × length of secondary branch; forewing with 27 costal crossveins proximad pterostigma, 1/4 of them bifurcated; female tergum 9 ventrally narrow, ectoprocts narrower (length/ width lower) ( Figs. 8 View Fig d-e, 9a, e, 10c-d)…………….… D. gaoyuhei Li et al. sp. nov.

– Major process with primary branch 3.0 × length of secondary branch; forewing with 17 costal crossveins proximad pterostigma, nearly half of them bifurcated or multiforked; female tergum 9 ventrally distinctly broadened, ectoprocts broader (length/ width higher) ( Figs. 13 View Fig c-d; 14a, e-f)..……..……… …………. D. yumeiyingae Zhuo, Li & Liu sp. nov.