ZOOTAXA

ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition)

ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition)Copyright © 2018 Magnolia Press

Zootaxa 4418 (1): 093–097

http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/Article

https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4418.1.6

http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:E90A4390-1F7A-4604-8D8E-835E63F12739

Nymph inadvertently described as new species for a fourth time?

On the identity of Euscelimena hardi (Tetrigidae: Scelimeninae)

with general remarks on the identification of pygmy grasshopper nymphs

JOSIP SKEJO1,2,5, SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA1,3 & JOSEF TUMBRINCK1,4

1SIGTET—Special Interest Group Tetrigidae <http://home.scarlet.be/~ping0646>2University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Department of Biology, Division of Zoology, Evolution Lab, Rooseveltovtrg 6, HR–10000

Zagreb, Croatia3Zoological Survey of India, Prani Vigyan Bhavan, ‘M’ Block—New Alipore, IN–700053 Kolkata, India.

E-mail: skumarento@gmail.com4Auf der Hees 1, D-41849 Wassenberg, Germany. E-mail: J.Tumbrinck@t-online.de5Corresponding author. E-mail: skejo.josip@gmail.com

Abstract

Euscelimena hardi Gupta et Chandra, 2018 was described earlier this year from Chhattisgarh (India) as a unique species

within the genus, characterized in small size, long pronotal projections, and a lack of wings. In this commentary we pro-

vide evidence that E. hardi is a nymph of E. harpago (Serville, 1838), hence a new synonymy is proposed: Euscelimena

harpago (Serville, 1838) = Euscelimena hardi Gupta et Chandra, 2018 syn. nov. Since this is the fourth time a nymph of

Euscelimena Günther, 1938 has been described as a new species, we present general remarks on how to distinguish pygmy

grasshopper nymphs and adults. Presence of a groove on the dorsal margin of the hind femora, directly before the knee

(separating antegenicular and genicular teeth) is the only definite feature to separate nymphs from adults in brachypronotal

or micropronotal wingless species. In macropterous species, morphology of tegmina and alae is helpful to separate

nymphs from adults, nymphs having alae rich in radial venation in front of tegmina, while in adults tegmina are in front

of developed alae. When dealing with a potential new species, researchers should firstly take into account known pygmy

grasshoppers fauna of the studied area via Orthoptera Species File Online database Complex search (with imput Scope of

search: Tetrigidae, Place name from geographic hierarchy: continent or country name).

Key words: Orthoptera, antegenicular, adult, tegmina, alae, misidentification, E. harpago, new synonymy

Introduction

Earlier this year, Gupta & Chandra (2018) described Euscelimena hardi (Fig. 1C), a new species of the genus

Euscelimena Günther, 1938, from Chhattisgarh (India). Contrary to other Euscelimena species, E. hardi is small,

apterous and has high pronotal projections. In the paper, some misinformation was presented, which is corrected

here. In addition, general remarks for the identification of nymphs are given, so that authors in the future could

have a reference point for the recognition of nymphs.

Commentary on Gupta & Chandra (2018)

1 In the title, Gupta & Chandra cited ‘Bolívar 1887’ as the author of the genus Euscelimena, however Günther

described the genus within his revision of Scelimeninae in 1938.

2 There are currently three valid species in the genus and six accompanying synonyms. These are: (i) E. gavialis

(Saussure, 1862) [synonyms Scelymena nodosa Walker, 1871, Scelimena spinata Hancock, 1915, and Abbasia

subserrata Kirby, 1914—Fig. 1G] from the southernmost India and Sri Lanka, (ii) E. harpago (Serville,

1838)—Figs. 1A, 1B, [1C], 1D [synonyms Scelymena contracta Walker, 1871, Gryllus (Locusta) femorata Stoll,

Accepted by M. Pocco: 8 Mar. 2018; published: 4 May 2018 93

1813 and Tetrix uncinata Serville, 1838] widely distributed in India, and (iii) E. logani (Hancock, 1904) endemic to

Sri Lanka.

3 There are numerous localities in Chhattisgarh where E. harpago is present, for example Bastar, Bilaspur,

Kabirdham, Raipur and Surguja (Gupta 2016, Gupta & Chandra 2017). Identification of macropterous adult

specimens from those localities is confirmed by the first author.

4 Important diagnostic features of the genus Euscelimena (see Fig. 1) are: (i) narrow vertex with V-shaped

carinae (Fig. 1A) (ii) large lateral ocelli, (iii) elongated antennae (Figs. 1A, 1B), (iv) visible interhumeral carinae

(Fig. 1A), (v) strong ventrolateral spine (Fig. 1A), (vi) fore and mid femora with visible teeth on dorsal and ventral

margins (Fig. 1B), (vii) hind femora with strong teeth on its dorsal margin (Figs. 1B, 1C, 1D), (viii) tibia of the

hind leg significantly widened towards the apex (Fig. 1A), (ix) first segment of the hind tarsi significantly longer

than the third (Fig. 1B), (x) pronotum and alae long (Figs. 1A, 1B), (xi) tegmina large and oval (Fig. 1B), (xii)

pronotum in adults bears low projections (promedial—PM, metamedial—MM, metamediolateral—MML) (Figs.

1A, 1B), in nymphs higher projections (Figs. 1C, 1G) (consult e.g. Günther 1938, Blackith 1992).

5 Chandra & Gupta (2018) stated for E. hardi ‘Tegmina [were] reduced, not visible, covered by pronotum,

[while] alae [were] present, visible under pronotum, [and did] not reach the apex of the pronotum.’, but from the

holotype and paratype photos it is visible that alae have radial venation, meaning they are not fully developed,

which indicates that the specimens are immature.

6 From the photos it is visible that specimens lack a clear groove on the dorsal line of the hind femora (Fig. 1C,

compare with Fig. 1E)—the groove defining genicular and antigenicular teeth (Fig. 1D, compare with Fig. 1F), a

feature crucial to determine adult tetrigids and especially useful in separating nymphs from brachypronotal

wingless species.

7 All the evidence supports that Gupta & Chandra (2018) misidentified nymphs of E. harpago for a new species

of Euscelimena. The identical error happened three times already—to Serville (1838) with description of Tetrix

uncinata based on female nymph of E. harpago from Bombay, to Walker (1871) with description of Scelymena

contracta based on a female nymph of E. gavialis from [South] India, and to Kirby (1914) with description of

Abbasia subserrata Kirby, 1914 (Fig. 1G) based on a nymph from Kerala. All the aforementioned authors have

already confirmed that nymphs of Euscelimena spp. have higher pronotal projections than adult animals.

Conclusion. Euscelimena hardi Gupta et Chandra, 2018 syn.nov. is junior subjective synonym of Euscelimena

harpago (Serville, 1838).

Taxonomy

Euscelimena harpago (Serville, 1838)

(Figures 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D)

Tetrix harpago: Serville 1838: 763 (types from India: Maharashtra: Bobbay [=Mumbai] should be deposited in MNHN Paris,

but JS did not find them);

Euscelimena harpago: Günther 1938: 363;

Scelymena contracta: Walker 1871: 841 (holotype female from Hindustan deposited in BMNH London), synonymyzed with

Scelymena uncinata (Serville, 1838) by Kirby (1914);

Gryllus (Locusta) femoratus Stoll 1813: 31 (type locality unknown), synonymized with Scelymena harpago (Serville, 1838) by

Bolívar (1887).

Tetrix uncinata Serville, 1838: 763 (female type from India: Maharashtra: Bobbay [=Mumbai] should be deposited in MNHN

Paris, but JS did not find them), synonymized with Euscelimena harpago (Serville, 1838) by Blackith (1992) (but he

didn’t see the types).

Euscelimena hardi Gupta et Chandra, 2018: 44 (holotype male nymph from India: Chhattisgarh: Raipur: Barnawapara Wildlife

Sanctuary: Hardi Nala deposited in NZSI Calcutta) syn. nov. of Euscelimena harpago (Serville, 1838).

How to reliably distinguish pygmy grasshopper nymphs from adults?

Since the first papers on pygmy grasshoppers’ taxonomy (e.g. Walker 1871, Bolívar 1931) (e.g. Liang 1990, Zheng

2005), there has been a consistent confusion in distinguishing pygmy grasshoppers nymphs from adults, especially

SKEJO ET AL.94 · Zootaxa 4418 (1) © 2018 Magnolia Press

FIGURE 1. A–F. A—Euscelimena harpago (Serville, 1838) adult male dorsal view B—E. harpago adult male lateral view (A

and B photograph by H. Song), C—holotype of E. hardi syn. nov. of E. harpago lateral view (photograph by S. K. Gupta),

D—E. harpago hind femur (photograph by H. Song), E—drawing of the nymphal hind femur in Tetrigidae, F—drawing of the

adult hind femur in Tetrigidae (E and F J. Tumbrinck), G—holotype of Abbasia subserrata Kirby, 1914, synonym of E. gavialis

(Saussure, 1862) (photograph by J. Tumbrinck).

Zootaxa 4418 (1) © 2018 Magnolia Press · 95EUSCELIMENA HARDI AND TETRIGIDAE NYMPHS

adults of brachypronotal, apterous taxa. There are four general rules one must keep in mind when identifying

pygmy grasshoppers, specifically:

8 Adult pygmy grasshoppers (Tetrigoidea: Tetrigidae) always have a groove (Figs. 1D, 1F) on the dorsal margin

of the hind femora, directly before the knee. This groove separates two teeth—antegenicular tooth, just before the

knee, and genicular tooth—on the knee. In nymphal instars there are no grooves (Figs. 1C, 1E), thus antegenicular

and genicular teeth are not defined, and the dorsal margin of the hind femora is continuous. This is the only

definite feature to separate nymphs from adults in brachypronotal or micropronotal wingless species.

9 In the last moulting, the grasshoppers’, crickets’, and bush-crickets’ (insects of the order Orthoptera, including

pygmy grasshoppers), fore (= tegmina) and hind wings (= alae) swap their position. Before the swap, alae cover the

tegmina (Fig. 1G). Therefore, in winged pygmy grasshopper species, tegmina are visible for the first time only in

the adult state (Fig. 1B).

10 Alae of the nymphs have radial venation, without cross-veins (Fig. 1G). Fully developed alae of adults have

rich cross-venation between the main veins, which are not radial as in nymphs.

11 Nymphs are smooth, soft and can be easily mashed. Adults have tougher integument. This feature is applicable

to identifying living nymphs, but is not always reliable and should be taken with caution.

When dealing with potential new species of pygmy grasshoppers one should be familiar with Tetrigidae fauna

(diversity) of the studied area. The best way is by making ‘preliminary lists’ of potential genera and species.

Orthoptera Species File (shortened OSF, Cigliano et al. 2018) has many search options and one can search taxa by

geographic area, availability of images and sound recordings, synonyms etc. Complex search within OSF is

available at the link http://orthoptera.speciesfile.org/Common/editTaxon/SearchForTaxon.aspx. Complex

Tetrigidae browsing by area can be performed quickly by 1) entering ‘desired’ taxon (it can be a family-group

name, a genus-group name or a species-group name) in Scope of search and 2) entering ‘desired’ locality name (it

can be a continent, a country or an even lower geographic level) in Place name from geographic hierarchy (one

must additionally click Find place button), 3) submit search and 4) examine the morphology of listed species in

relevant literature. For example, if one wants to check Cladonotinae of Sri Lanka (Search imput: Scope of search

Cladonotinae, Geographic level 4 Sri Lanka), 7 species are enlisted within 4 genera (Cladonotus Saussure, 1862,

Deltonotus Hancock, 1904, Gignotettix Hancock, 1909, Tettilobus Hancock, 1909) (Cigliano et al. 2018 accessed

20 February). In this way, researchers can make preliminary lists and compare whether their new material is similar

to any known material, thus critically approaching Tetrigidae taxonomy.

Acknowledgements and authors’ contribution

Holger Braun shared with members of the Facebook group ‘SIGTET—Special Interest Group Tetrigidae’ the paper

by Gupta & Chandra (2018) with note ‘Happy New Year! First new pygmy grasshopper from 2018, Euscelimena

hardi.’ JS and JT recognized that Gupta and Chandra (2018) dealt with E. harpago nymph and instantly wrote this

commentary. JS and JT are authors of equal contribution to this commentary. SKG was informed about the true

identity of his new species and afterwards he checked the type specimens again, confirming that the alleged species

was a synonym of E. harpago. JS and JT found it important to include the species’ author, who agrees with its

synonymy, as a coauthor of this commentary. Thanks to Sara Stermšek and Holger Braun for checking the early

version, and to Fran Rebrina for checking English in the final version of the manuscript. Thanks to Hojun Song for

providing good photos of E. harpago adults. Thanks to reviewers for their comments that made the paper more

understandable.

References

Blackith, R.E. (1992) The Tetrigidae (Insecta; Orthoptera) of South-East Asia; an annotated catalogue with partial translated

keys and bibliography. Japaga Press, Dublin, LIV + 249 pp.

Bolívar, I. (1887) Essai sur les Acridiens de la tribu des Tettigidae. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 31,

175–313, pls. 4–5.

SKEJO ET AL.96 · Zootaxa 4418 (1) © 2018 Magnolia Press

Bolívar, I. (1931) Nuevo acridino del grupo Discotettigiae. Archivio Zoologico Italiano, 15, 29–33.

Cigliano, M.M., Braun, H., Eades, D.C. & Otte, D. (2018) Orthoptera species file. Version 5.0/5.0. Available from: http://

Orthoptera.SpeciesFile.org (accessed 20 February 2018)

Gupta, S.K. (2016) Records of Orthoptera (Insecta) fauna from Surguja District, Chhattisgarh, India. Journal of Entomology

and Zoology Studies, 4 (2), 258–263.

Gupta, S.K. & Chandra, K. (2017) Diversity of Orthoptera (Insecta) fauna of Achanakmar Wildlife Sanctuary, Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh, India. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity, 10 (1), 91–103.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2016.05.003

Gupta, S.K. & Chandra, K. (2018) A new species of genus Euscelimena Bolivar, 1887 (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae: Scelimeninae)

from central India. Munis Entomology & Zoology, 13 (1), 43–49.

Günther, K. (1938) Revision der Acrydiinae, I. Sectiones Tripetalocerae, Discotettigiae, Lophotettigiae, Cleostrateae,

Bufonidae, Cladonotae, Scelimenae verae. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin, 23, 299–437.

Hancock, J.L. (1915) V. Indian Tetriginae (Acrydiinae). Records of the Indian Museum, 11, 55–137.

Kirby, W.F. (1914) Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Orthoptera (Acrididae). Taylor & Francis, London,

276 pp.

https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.109305

Liang, G.-Q. (1990) Eine neue Gattung und neue Art der Tetrigidae von China (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae). Entomologische

Nachrichten, 34 (5), 213–214.

Serville, J.G.A. (1838) [1839] Histoire naturelle des insectes. Orthoptères. Librairie encylopédique de Roret, Paris, XVIII +

776 pp., 14 pls.

https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.95609

Stoll, C. (1813) Représentation exactement colorée d'après nature des spectres ou phasmes, des mantes, des sauterelles, des

grillons, des criquets et des blattes. J. Sepp, Amsterdam, 31 pp.

Walker, F. (1871) Catalogue of the Specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria in the Collection of the British Museum. Part V.

Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), London, 40 pp. [pp. 811–850]

https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.8149

Zheng, Z.-M. (2005) Fauna of the Tetrigoidea from Western China. Science Press, Beijing, 501 pp.

Zootaxa 4418 (1) © 2018 Magnolia Press · 97EUSCELIMENA HARDI AND TETRIGIDAE NYMPHS