Tisamenus serratorius Stål, 1875

Tisamenus serratorius Stål, 1875 View in CoL

( Fig. 39-40, 46 U-V)

Tisamenus serratorius Stål, 1875 . 92.

HT, ♀: Coll. Br. v. W., Philippinen, Thorey ded.; det. Redtenb. Tisamenus serratorius ; 3012.[ NHMW, No. 38] .

- Kirby; 1904: 399.

- Redtenbacher, 1906: 43.

- Bruner, 1915: 230.

- Zompro, 2004: 207.

- Otte & Brock, 2005: 335.

- Brock & Büscher, 2022: 521.

- Hennemann, 2023b: 128.

Hoploclonia serratoria, Rehn & Rehn, 1939: 472 . ( Serratoria Group)

Hoploclonia serratorius, Brock, 1998: 57 View in CoL . ( Type data)

[ Not: Tisamenus serratorius, Krijns, 2011: 7 View in CoL , Figs. (Notes on rearing), misidentification. This is T.lachesis ( Rehn & Rehn, 1939) View in CoL ]

[ Not: Tisamenus serratorius, Harman, 2015: 26 . (Notes on PSG culture stock), misidentification.This is T.lachesis ( Rehn & Rehn, 1939) ]

[ Not: Tisamenus serratorius, Dräger, 2012: 12 , Fig. 16-17, misidentification. This is T. lachesis ( Rehn & Rehn, 1939) ]

Material examined

3 ♀, 4 ♂, 1 ♀ (immature), 2 eggs: Philippinen, W-Luzon Island, Prov. Nueva Ecija, Gabaldon Munip., Mingan Mts. , local collector 2013 [ FH, No’s 1525-1 to 8 & E] .

Differentiation. – The ♀ of this species is morphologically most similar to T. lachesis ( Rehn &Rehn, 1939) and T.clotho ( Rehn & Rehn, 1939) but easily separated from both species by having six instead of five mesopleural spines. From lachesis it can also be differentiated by the much smaller size and stockier shape, relatively shorter mesonotum, larger triangular mesonotal area, which covers notably more than half the length of the mesonotum ( Fig. 39J), generally much less developed and more obtuse cephalic spines and body armature, as well as the shorter subgenital plate, that scarcely projects beyond the tip of the epiproct ( Fig. 39 G-I). From clotho it may also be distinguished by the slightly slenderer shape, somewhat longer mesonotal triangular area, which notably surpasses the middle of that segment and has the outer margins gently convex with the anterolateral angles somewhat less protruded than in clotho ( Fig. 39J) as well as the generally less developed spines of the head and body and having the meso- and metapleural spines relatively stronger and less acutely pointed than in clotho . Based on the ♀ only, Rehn & Rehn (1939: 473) suggested close affinity to T.asper Bolivar, 1890 with which serratorius shares having six mesopleural spines. However, these spines as well as the metapleurals are much larger in serratorius and this species is notably slenderer in general shape and has a conical spinose pair of posteriors on abdominal terga II-IV ( Fig.39D).By having sixmesopleuralspines the ♂ of serratorius keysout similarto T.heitzmanni n. sp. from the island A. Dorsal view. B. Dorsolateralview. C. Lateralview. D. Ventralview. E. Lateralviewof HT[ NHMUK © Paul D.Brock]. F. Terminalia of HTin lateral view [ NHMUK © Paul D. Brock]. G. Terminalia in dorsalview. H.Terminalia in ventral view. I. Closeup of head,pro- andmesosternum (arrow pointing to the dentiformapical protrusion on the exterior lateralcarina of the scapus). J. Closeupof head,pro- andmesonotum (arrows pointing to the dentiform apical protrusion on the exterior lateral carina of the scapus and strongly reduced triangular mesonotal area).

of Cebu but otherwise also comes morphologically very close to that of clotho . This ♂ however differs from both species by the presence of distinct conical inter-posterior meso- and metanotals( Fig.40C, I). From the first it may additionally be separated by the much slenderer shape and having the abdominal terga III-VI rather quadrate than transverse like in heitzmanni , the much shorter and more obtuse pleural spines and generally less developed body armature, including notably lower tri-spinose anterior pronotals that are gradually decreasing in size from anterior to posterior ( Fig. 40I; very large and bi-fid in heitzmanni with the posterior element stronger than the anterior one) as well as much lower obtuse anterolateral angles of the mesonotal triangular area ( Fig.40I; a large uprightspine in heitzmanni ). From clotho this ♂ also differs by the slenderer shape but less expanded mesothorax in particular, which is sub-parallel sided and not roundly broadened as in clotho , the longer mesonotal triangular area, which notably surpasses the middle of the mesonotum ( Fig. 40I), and more distinct ventral teeth of the metatibiae ( Fig.40E). The eggs of serratorius ( Fig.46 UV) most closely resemble those of T. napalaki n. sp. and T. spadix ( Rehn & Rehn, 1939) with which they share the strongly developed, raised mesh-work work of verrucose ridges of the capsule. They can however be differentiated from both by the dark almost black overall colouration and noticeably larger micropylar plate, which is 0.8x as long as the capsule with the median portion almost approaching the anterior margin and the posterolateral extensions laterally surpassing the axis of the capsule.

Description

♀ ( Fig. 39)

Form and colouration. – Size rather small for the genus (body length 46.0– 55.5 mm); general form stocky with the elements of armature well developed and the mesopleurae with six strong spines. Colour greyish chestnut brown with some darker areas on thorax and the femora; meso- and metasternum, most of tibiae and all ventral teeth of femora buff.All the larger spines of thorax and abdominal terga dark brown with orange tips. Antennae mid brown with the terminal five joints ochre. Holotype generally fuscous with some dark ochraceous areas.

Head. – Sub-quadrate, just a little longer than wide with genae parallel-sided; supra-orbitals fairly prominent, conical and accompanied by a small tubercle in front and behind; occipitals small, tubercular; coronals somewhat more pronounced, conical tubercular and the median coronals occasionally weakly bifid ( Fig. 39J). Genae supplied with 2-3 low, granular gulars. Eyes rather small, sub-globose and their diameter corresponding to somewhat less than half the length of gena. Antennae moderately strong, reaching to tip of protarsi and with 26 segments; scapus roundly triangular with interior margin rounded apically; pedicellus about half as long as scapus, round in cross-section and with a nodose dorsolateral basal swelling; III a little longer than pedicellus, IV much shorter and the following up to XIV somewhat increasing, the following decreasing in length; terminal antennomere elongated and about as long as two preceding joints taken together.

Thorax. – Pronotum sub-trapeziform, the triangular area just weakly indicated and only marked by low tubercles in the post-sulcal area; anteriors represented by rather strong, trifid, sub-spinose tubercles ( Fig. 39J).

A. HT, dorsal view [NHMW © Paul D. Brock]. B. HT, lateral view [NHMW © Paul D. Brock]. C. Dorsal view [FH 1525-1]. D. Dorsolateral view [FH 1525-1]. E. Lateral view [FH 1525-1]. F. Ventralview [FH 1525-1]. G. Terminalia in lateral view. H. Terminalia in dorsal view. I. Terminalia in ventral view. J. Closeup of head, pro- and mesonotum. K. Closeup of head, pro- and mesosternum.

Mesothorax broad, somewhat widening towards the posterior with the lateral margins of pleurae weakly rounded; about 2x longer than prothorax. Mesonotum almost rectangular with the posterior half slightly but abruptly narrowed, 1.8x longer than width at anterior margin; triangular area reaching to middle of notum, slightly longer than width over anterolateral angles, the weakly arched convergent lateral margins granulate and the anterolateral angles obtusely tubercular ( Fig. 39J). Posterior portion with a distinct medio-longitudinal carina that is well continued throughout the whole length of the triangular area; surface of keel granular and with a pair of low nodes pre-posteriorly. Mesopleurae strongly expanded and armed with five strong laterals, the anterior one of which is small and tubercular and the remaining fours spinose; mesopleural strong, spinose and scarcely shorter than the four large laterals; supra-coxal small, tubercular. Metanotum weakly trapeziform, about 0.45x length of mesonotum and with the medio-longitudinal keel like in mesonotum. Metapleurae with two sub-spiniform laterals and the expanded supra-coxal angle with a strong, conical and bifid metapleural, whose posterior spike is much smaller; supra-coxal low, conical. Mesosternum distinctly tri-carinate with the medio-longitudinal keel acute and the lateral carinae somewhat irregular and medial of these about three low, rounded mesosternalsthatare marked by black dots ( Fig. 39K); metasternum onlywith a weakly indicated medio-longitudinal carina ( Fig. 39F).

Abdomen. – Median segment transverse with anterior margin broadly rounded; medio-longitudinal keel obtuse and posterior margin with a transverse series of low granules. Segments II-VII all distinctly transverse with II-IV roughlyuniform in width and V-VII progressively narrowing;II almost 2.5x and VII only about 2x wider than long. Terga II-VI with a slight indication of two closely spaced medio-longitudinal carinae, these more pronounced in VIII-IX, fused and terminatingin a conical posterior swelling( Fig.39 G-H);II-IV with a strongand spinose pair of second paired posteriors, which are present but merely represented by tubercles on V. Sterna II–VII with a weakly indicated medio-longitudinal line; praeopercular organ formed by a widely spaced pair of low swellings at posterior margin on VII ( Fig. 39I). Terga VIII-X progressively narrowing, IX strongly tectate longitudinally.Anal segment obliquely declining

Faunitaxys, 13 ( 24), 2023: 1 – 85. 71 A. Dorsal view [FH 1525-6]. B. Dorsolateral view [FH 1525-6]. C. Lateral view [FH 1525-6]. D. Ventral view [FH 1525-6]. E. Anteroventral view of right hind leg. F. Terminalia in lateral view. G. Terminalia in dorsal view. H. Terminalia in ventral view. I. Closeup of head, pro- and mesonotum. J. Closeup of head, pro- and mesosternum.

with a distinct medio-longitudinal keel and anteriorly with a pair of obtuse nodes, the lateral margin obliquely convergent in posterior half andthe posterior margin very weakly rounded ( Fig. 39H). Epiproct convex with a faint indication of a medio-longitudinal carina, weakly convergent and the apex obtusely rounded to roundly angular ( Fig. 39H). Subgenital plate navicular, distinctly carinate apically and gradually narrowing towards a rather pointed apex, that slightly surpasses the epiproct ( Fig. 39I).

Legs. – Of average shape for the genus with armature moderately developed; profemora scarcely and mesofemora notably shorter than mesothorax, metafemora reaching about halfway along abdominal segment V and metatibiae almost reaching posterior of anal segment. Basal dorsal tooth andthe two apical ventral teeth of meso- and metafemora more spinose than others. Pro- and mesotibiae destitute of teeth; metatibiae with 6-7 small but uniformly sized teeth on ventral carinae. Basitarsi short, a little shorter than following three tarsomeres taken together.

Measurements of ♀ in coll. FH [mm]. – Body 54.0-55.5, pronotum

3.9-4.0, mesonotum 9.9-10.1, metanotum 4.5–4.6, median segment 3.0,

profemora 9.7-9.8, mesofemora 8.0-8.4, metafemora 10.1-11.3, protibiae 9.7-9.9, mesotibiae 8.8-9.1, metatibiae 12.8-13.2, antennae 27.5-28.0. Body length of the holotype ♀ 46.0 mm.

♂ ( Fig. 40)

Form and colouration. – Size average for the genus (body length 39.0– 40.5 mm), general form fairly slender and elongate, the elementsof armature essentially like in ♀ but comparatively more developed; the legs broader and stouter with the metafemora somewhat incrassate and thickened towards the base. Colour like in ♀. The terminal twelve antennomeres russet (terminal joint ochre) and glossier than rest of antennae.

Head. – Like in ♀ but supra-orbital notably longer, slenderer and spinose andthe eyes proportionately larger with their diameter corresponding to about 0.55x the length of gena ( Fig. 40I).Antennae only with 24 segments with all joins proportionally longer; almost reaching to tip of protarsi.

Thorax. – Pronotum essentially as in ♀ but less trapeziform in outline and the trifid anterior noticeably longer, spinose with the anterior spine distinctly projecting over anterior margin of notum ( Fig. 40I). Meso- and metanotum gibbose, conical and distinctly bi-nodose posteromedially ( Fig. 40C, I). Mesothorax 2.2x longer than prothorax and slightly progressively widening towards posterior. Mesonotum with lateral margins slightly convergent in anterior half, then followed by a distinct concave indention and in the gibbose posterior portion somewhat rounded, about 2.1x longer than width at anterior margin; the triangular area notably longer than in ♀, about 0.6x the length of mesonotum and 1.4x longer than width across anterolateral angles; the convergent lateral margins granular and the anterolateral angles obtusely sub-spiniform; posterior portion with a distinct, granular medio-longitudinal keel, that is notably continued throughoutmost of the triangular area Fig. 40I). Mesopleurae like in ♀, but all elements of armature comparatively slenderer and more acutely pointed. Metanotum sub-trapeziform in outline, noticeably longer than wide and with the same medio-longitudinal bulge seen on mesonotum. Metapleurae essentially as in ♀, but with all spines relatively larger. Mesosternum like in ♀, but with the mesosternals obtuse ( Fig. 40J); metasternum only with a weakly indicated medio-longitudinal carina ( Fig. 40D).

Abdomen. – Median segmentalmost semi-circular inoutline, the medio-longitudinal carina just weakly indicated. Segments II-VII almost uniform in length and width, II sub-trapeziform and III-VII sub-quadrate; the second paired posteriors represented by strong but short spines on II-III, sub-spiniform tubercles on IV and merely by nodes on V. An indication of a shallow medio-longitudinal carina visible throughout entire length of dorsal surface of abdomen, but most prominent and posteriorly terminating in an obtuse triangular swelling on VIII and IX ( Fig. 40F). Sterna II-VII with a fine but definite medio-longitudinal carina. Terga VIII and IX notably transverse and shorter than all preceding segments. Anal segment somewhat declining towards the posterior, the lateral margins obliquely angular and the posterior portion narrowed with the margin shallowly emarginated and the outer angles obtusely protruded ( Fig. 40G). Epiproct broadly transverse, weakly rounded androughly reaching to posterolateral protrusions of anal segment ( Fig. 40G). Vomer broad, hear-shaped, slightly asymmetrical with the short but strong terminal hook somewhat displaced dextrally; the basal portion shallowly indented and with some weakly indicated transverse furrows. Poculum deeply cup-shapedwithan obtuselyangular central protrusionatthe angle ( Fig. 40F); the posterior flange roundly angular and weakly bi-labiate and slightly down-curved ( Fig. 40H).

Legs. – All teeth comparatively more developed than in ♀. Profemora about as long and mesofemora slightly shorter than mesothorax, metafemora reaching to posterior of abdominal segment V and metatibiae roughly attaining tip of abdomen. Ventral teeth more spiniform than those on dorsal carinae, the two apical ventral teeth of metafemora in particular notably more pronounced than all others. Ventro-basal swelling of metafemora roundly gibbose and smooth ( Fig. 40E). Ventral carinae of metatibiae each with about 6-8 strong teeth, that are relatively larger than in ♀ ( Fig. 40E).Tarsi like in ♀.

Measurements [mm]. – Body 39.0-40.5, pronotum 3.6-3.7, mesonotum 7.2-7.5, metanotum 3.4-3.7, median segment 1.8-1.9, profemora 8.0-8.1, mesofemora 6.6-6.8, metafemora 9.3-9.7, protibiae 7.2-7.4, mesotibiae 6.8-7.0, metatibiae 8.9-9.2, antennae 13.0-13.5.

Variability. – The ♀ holotype is smaller than the other samples at hand (46.0 mm) and differs from these by the somewhat darker colour and slightly less developed cephalic and thoracic armature, which concerns to supra-orbitals and pronotal anteriors in particular. The specimens from Mingan Mountains in the authors collection show no noteworthy variability .

Egg ( Fig. 46 U-V)

Of moderate size for the genus; capsule ovoid with the dorsal surface more bulgy than ventral surface; capsule 1.56x longer than wide. Surface minutely granulose, very slightly shiny and all over covered by an uneven raised network of verrucose ridges; the lots between the ridges slightly larger and more regular belowanterior margin of capsule. The anterior marginsomewhat inflated and verrucose. Micropylar plate large and about 0.8x as long as capsule; rather narrowly Y-shaped with the median portion large, almost uniform in width and almost approaching anterior margin of capsule; the two posterolateral extensions slightly widened medially and tapered apically, tip notably surpassing the axis of the egg if seen laterally. Posterior portion 110° andV-shaped with a bowl-shaped micropylar cup in centre that has an obtuse tubercle above. Outer margin of plate somewhatraised and sculptured like the verrucose ridges of the capsule, the interior portion raised and densely but unevenly verrucose and the moderately broad somewhat rim in between the outer margin and sculptured inner portion of the plate smooth. Median line indistinctand seen to be ashallowlyraised and rathershort carina. Operculum almost circular in outline; near the outer margin with a collar of short peg-like or fringy protuberances and interiorly with a broad rim of similar excrescences; both connected by a few very fine irregularly radial directed carinae. Central portion smooth with a small tubercle in centre. Colour plain blackish brown with all the raised parts slightly lighter brown to buff. Measurements [mm]: Length incl. operculum 3.7, length 3.6, width 2.3, height 2.8, length of micropylar plate 3.0.

Remarks. – Stål (1875:92) described this rather small species from a unique ♀ in the collection of NHMW. The holotype is in good condition except for having the right lateral portions of abdominal segment II-VII destroyed by parasites and lacking the tips of both antennae as well as the right metatarsus. So far, the species has not again been recorded and the examples in the author’s collection provide the first definite locality. Rehn & Rehn (1939: 473) had not examined Stål’s specimen, hence due to the fairly brief descriptions provided by Stål (1875) and Redtenbacher (1906: 43) were not able to interpret the species correctly and suggested close affinity to T. asper Bolivar, 1890 . All references to cultured specimens are misidentifications and do not represent T. serratorius but T. lachesis ( Rehn & Rehn, 1939) instead (e. g. Dräger, 2012: 12).

Distribution. – “ Philippines ” [NHMW – type locality]. W-Luzon: Province Nueva Ecija (Gabaldon, Mingan Mountains [FH]).