Stethophotopsis, Pitts, 2000

STETHOPHOTOPSIS Pitts in Pitts & McHugh, 2000, ♂ ♀

( Figs 270–282 View FIGURES 270–278 View FIGURES 279–283 )

Stethophotopsis Pitts in Pitts & McHugh, 2000: 31. Type species: Stethophotopsis maculata Pitts in Pitts & McHugh, 2000. Stethophotopsis : Pitts & Manley 2002: 673. Female description.

Diagnosis. FEMALE. Females can be recognized by their coloration, having the body entirely pale orange-brown exept for the two separated black cuticular patches on the T2 disc ( Figs 270–271 View FIGURES 270–278 ). Additionally, the following characters are also present: mandible without ventral tooth basally; mesonotum with simple and brachyplumose setae only; T1 shape narrowly sub-sessile; T2 with coarse areolation, at least basally; and T6 convex without defined pygidial plate. MALE. Males can be recognized by their absence of wings and coloration ( Figs 274–275 View FIGURES 270–278 ): the body entirely pale orange-brown exept for the two separated black cuticular patches on the T2 disc. The following characters are also useful for diagnosis: mandible with ventral tooth indistinct or absent; mesosternal area armed with large posteriorly-directed triangular tooth on each side; mid-tibia cylindrical with two spurs; and hypopygium wider than long with truncate or weakly convex posterior margin.

Included species. Only the type species, Stethophotopsis maculata Pitts, 2000 , which is known from both sexes.

Remarks. In 2023, two specimens of St. maculata were collected by KAW and the ITS1 sequence was amplified and sequenced. Pitts & McHugh (2000) suggested that the closest relative of Stethophotopsis was Acanthophotopsis . The distance tree presented here ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 ) supports that hypothesis. In this tree, Stethophotopsis is nested within Acanthophotopsis . We retain Stethophotopsis as a discrete genus, however, for a few reasons. First, this is a distance tree and not a phylogenetic reconstruction, so inferences about monophyly or paraphyly could be misleading. Second, by raw genetic distances, St. maculata is more distant from its “sister” A. evansi than the two included Acanthophotopsis species are from one another. Finally, there are morphological differences between the genera, especially in the wingless nature and mid-tibial morphology of males. Further analyses in the future may provide evidence to sink Stethophotopsis within Acanthophotopsis , but we retain them as discrete genera in this study.