Metrodorinae, Bolivar, 1887

Subfamily Metrodorinae View in CoL Bolívar, 1887

Redescription. Specimens slender or robust ( Figs. 1–125 View FIGURE 1 View FIGURE 2 View FIGURE 3 View FIGURE 4 View FIGURE 5 View FIGURE 6 View FIGURE 7 View FIGURE 8 View FIGURE 9 View FIGURE 10 View FIGURE 11 View FIGURE 12 View FIGURE 13 View FIGURE 14 View FIGURE 15 View FIGURE 16 View FIGURE 17 View FIGURE 18 View FIGURE 19 View FIGURE 20 View FIGURE 21 View FIGURE 22 View FIGURE 23 View FIGURE 24 View FIGURE 25 View FIGURE 26 View FIGURE 27 View FIGURE 28 View FIGURE 29 View FIGURE 30 View FIGURE 31 View FIGURE 32 View FIGURE 33 View FIGURE 34 View FIGURE 35 View FIGURE 36 View FIGURE 37 View FIGURE 38 View FIGURE 39 View FIGURE 40 View FIGURE 41 View FIGURE 42 View FIGURE 43 View FIGURE 44 View FIGURE 45 View FIGURE 46 View FIGURE 47 View FIGURE 48 View FIGURE 49 View FIGURE 50 View FIGURE 51 View FIGURE 52 View FIGURE 53 View FIGURE 54 View FIGURE 55 View FIGURE 56 View FIGURE 57 View FIGURE 58 View FIGURE 59 View FIGURE 60 View FIGURE 61 View FIGURE 62 View FIGURE 63 View FIGURE 64 View FIGURE 65 View FIGURE 66 View FIGURE 67 View FIGURE 68 View FIGURE 69 View FIGURE 70 View FIGURE 71 View FIGURE 72 View FIGURE 73 View FIGURE 74 View FIGURE 75 View FIGURE 76 View FIGURE 77 View FIGURE 78 View FIGURE 79 View FIGURE 80 View FIGURE 81 View FIGURE 82 View FIGURE 83 View FIGURE 84 View FIGURE 85 View FIGURE 86 View FIGURE 87 View FIGURE 88 View FIGURE 89 View FIGURE 90 View FIGURE 91 View FIGURE 92 View FIGURE 93 View FIGURE 94 View FIGURE 95 View FIGURE 96 View FIGURE 97 View FIGURE 98 View FIGURE 99 View FIGURE 100 View FIGURE 101 View FIGURE 102 View FIGURE 103 View FIGURE 104 View FIGURE 105 View FIGURE 106 View FIGURE 107 View FIGURE 108 View FIGURE 109 View FIGURE 110 View FIGURE 111 View FIGURE 112 View FIGURE 113 View FIGURE 114 View FIGURE 115 View FIGURE 116 View FIGURE 117 View FIGURE 118 View FIGURE 119 View FIGURE 120 View FIGURE 121 View FIGURE 122 View FIGURE 123 View FIGURE 124 View FIGURE 125 ). Face generally ovoid or subrectangular, taller than wide, vertex with variable width, differing mainly between tribes (in the tribe Metrodorini vertex usually wider than in the remaining tribes, at least as wide as one of the eyes or a little wider ( Figs. 1D View FIGURE 1 , 7A View FIGURE 7 , 10A View FIGURE 10 , 26C View FIGURE 26 , 34A View FIGURE 34 , 47A View FIGURE 47 )). Antennae with variable lengths and numbers of antennomeres, ranging from 10 to 15 segments, but most taxa with 14 or 15 (the group with the lowest number of segments is subtribe Mucrotettigina stat. nov. of the tribe Metrodorini ) ( Figs. 61B, 61C View FIGURE 61 , 62A View FIGURE 62 )). Antennae rarely modified or flattened ( Figs. 97B, C View FIGURE 97 ), mostly filiform ( Figs. 79 View FIGURE 79 , 107 View FIGURE 107 ); antennal groves located at the middle of the eyes or on the level of the lower margin of the eyes. Medial and lateral carinae of vertex produced only in Metrodorini ( Figs. 26B View FIGURE 26 , 29B View FIGURE 29 , 34B View FIGURE 34 , 47B View FIGURE 47 , 67B View FIGURE 67 , 68C View FIGURE 68 , 74B View FIGURE 74 ) and Metopomystrini trib. nov. ( Figs. 77D View FIGURE 77 , 80B View FIGURE 80 ). Fascial carinae mid-sized, reaching up to the middle of the face, with the branches parallel or divergent so that the scutellum can be narrow to wide ( Figs. 1D View FIGURE 1 , 7A View FIGURE 7 , 10A View FIGURE 10 , 26C View FIGURE 26 , 34A View FIGURE 34 , 47A View FIGURE 47 ). Eyes rounded, with almost straight ventral margin; ocelli present and visible, located in the middle of the eyes (occasionally at the level of the lower margin of the eyes or lower ( Figs. 100B View FIGURE 100 , 102C View FIGURE 102 )), central ocellus on the lower margin of the scutellum ( Figs. 1D View FIGURE 1 , 7A View FIGURE 7 , 10A View FIGURE 10 , 26C View FIGURE 26 , 34A View FIGURE 34 , 47A View FIGURE 47 , 87C View FIGURE 87 , 120C View FIGURE 120 ). Pronotum with different shapes, which may exceed the abdomen or not; median carina may be rised in a crest, or the anterior section may rise together like a hump ( Figs. 10B View FIGURE 10 , 12A View FIGURE 12 , 16B View FIGURE 16 , 22B View FIGURE 22 , 34A View FIGURE 34 , 60B View FIGURE 60 ), although flat pronotum with sub-elevated midline also may occur ( Figs. 1A View FIGURE 1 , 30A View FIGURE 30 , 46A View FIGURE 46 , 68A View FIGURE 68 ); lower margin of the lateral lobes of the pronotum projecting noticeably to the sides ( Figs. 1E View FIGURE 1 , 7C View FIGURE 7 , 12B View FIGURE 12 , 29C View FIGURE 29 , 57C View FIGURE 57 , 74C View FIGURE 74 , 85C View FIGURE 85 , 95B View FIGURE 95 , 108C View FIGURE 108 , 124D View FIGURE 124 ) (in Metopomystrini trib. nov. moderately projected to the sides ( Figs. 77B View FIGURE 77 , 80C View FIGURE 80 , 83B View FIGURE 83 )), the apex may be acute or rounded, rarely projecting into a conspicuous spine. Tegminal sinus usually present, with different development degrees; humeral carinae developed and may be sinuous or straight. Tegmina and hindwings absent or present. If present, tegmina ovoid or lanceolate and medium-sized. Dorsal margin of the fore and mid femora carinated; tarsi elongated, with the first and third segments of the hind tarsi equal in length. Ovipositor valves with normal development and medium-sized denticulations ( Figs. 22G View FIGURE 22 , 49G View FIGURE 49 , 67G View FIGURE 67 ), except for the tribe Garciaitettigini trib. nov., with narrow valves and smaller denticulations compared to the other subfamily members.

Distribution. Neotropical and Greater Antilles (Maps 1–8).

Remarks. This subfamily is widely distributed worldwide, with representatives in America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. Currently, it includes more than 100 genera and almost 700 species ( Cigliano et al. 2024). The taxonomy of the group must have additional studies for the effective delimitation of its taxa, since it is not considered monophyletic (Pavón et al., 2012; Silva et al., 2017). This contribution proposes a tribal system (with five tribes) and an adjustment to the American and Malagasy Metrodorinae classification.

This description for Metrodorinae is made by focusing on the American taxa, which meets some of the characters traditionally used to distinguish the subfamily, in addition to others incorporated here. The inconsistency in several traditional characters is mainly noted in the taxa of Africa, Asia, and Oceania. For these last two regions, additional studies are necessary to verify the affiliation with the subfamily or determine if a different classification, as proposed here for Malagasy taxa, is needed.

Currently, within the Metrodorinae , some genera do not fit the diagnosis, most likely because they are Tetriginae , that are superficially similar to the Metrodorinae , or that were included with doubts in that subfamily, which is why the following taxa are relocated, and their respective justification is argued below:

1) It is proposed to move Allotettix Hancock, 1899 and Crimisus Bolívar, 1887 into the subfamily Tetriginae since they fit the typical characters of the subfamily, such as: the antenna inserted at the lower margin of the eyes; Lshaped carinae of the vertex, rounded lateral lobes of pronotum close to pronotum (slightly sidewards); the presence of post-humeral spots in speciemens, and pulvilli of first tarsomere of the hind tarsi with small apical teeth. These genera have large oval tegmina, which is common in several genera of American Tetriginae , to which it is related, as Danielatettix Cadena-Castañeda, 2021 and Stenodorsus Hancock, 1906 . Likewise, the previously mentioned genera differ from the other Tetriginae by having the first and third posterior tarsomeres of similar length.

The genus Allotettix needs additional review to delimit its species. A significant contribution was made by Pavón-Gonzalo et al. (2012), differentiating Allotettix simoni (Bolívar, 1890) and Allotettix peruvianus ( Bolívar, 1887). Allotettix fuscipennis Bruner, 1910 is placed here in the new genus Brunneritettix gen. nov.; Allotettix chapadensis Bruner, 1910 syn. nov. is synonymized under Danielatettix caudatus (Saussure, 1861) , adjusting to the color form two known for this species (Cadena-Castañeda et al., 2021). The type series of Allotettix cayennensis ( Bolívar, 1887) is lost, and the remaining species of this genus must be delimited and compared with better-known species.

The genus Crimisus also needs revision, and its species are poorly delimited. The type species ( Crimisus patruus Bolívar, 1887), is similar to D. caudatus , although (for us) they are not synonyms. On the other hand, it must be verified if the species described by Bruner are all deposited in ANSP or if any were lost, as has happened with other taxa described by this author ( Cadena-Castañeda & Cortés-Torres, 2013).

2) Cotys Bolívar, 1887, is a genus with two species that resemble some Crimisus species with short-pronotum. Its status should be reviewed to verify if both genera are synonymous. For now, Cotys is moved to Tetriginae due to its morphological similarity and closeness to Crimisus and Danielatettix .

3) The genus Scabrotettix Hancock, 1907 is also being transferred to Tetriginae . It meets the common characters for this subfamily, fitting in the same way as Allotettix and Crimisus . Scabrotettix additionally has a very conspicuous, ovoid, relatively long tegmina and the hind wings surpass the apex of the pronotum. The females are robust and resemble in habitus some species of Paratettix Bolívar, 1887, and it can be easily confused. A notable case is Scabrotettix magistralis (Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1900) , which is the only species with lateral lobes of pronotum strongly acutely produced outwards, incongruent with the typical concept of Tetriginae regarding this character. Five species of this genus were described from South America. It would be important to verify if they are different species or synonyms.

4) Similarly to the genera mentioned above, Crimisodes Hebard, 1932 fits the characters of Tetriginae .Although, it differs from them by not having conspicuously oval tegmina, and, in this case, the first and third hind tarsomeres are not similar in length. Crimisodes resemble the shape of the pronotum, fore femur, and frontal costa of Micronotus Hancock, 1902 and Liotettix Bolívar, 1906 species.