A taxonomic revision of Otomantis Bolivar, 1890 (Mantodea: Hymenopodidae, Acromantinae) with description of five new species

Lombardo, Francesco; Stiewe, Martin B. D.; Ippolito, Salvatrice; Marletta, Alessandro

doi:10.11646/zootaxa.3797.1.13

Cited by 565 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our specimen sampling was primarily based on the frozen tissue and pinned collections held at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, but we supplemented specimen numbers and sexes to account for morphological variability by visiting collections or taking loans from the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, the California Academy of Science, the Natural History Museum, British Museum, the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris, and the Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University, Utah. We verified specimen identifications using primary literature (Sjöstedt, 1924;Giglio-Tos, 1927;Beier, 1954;Roy, 1972Roy, , 1979Roy, , 2009Roy, , 2013aKaltenbach, 1990Kaltenbach, , 1996Kaltenbach, , 1998Lombardo, 1995a;Roy & Svenson, 2007;Ehrmann & Roy, 2009;Mukherjee et al, 2010;Stiewe & Roy, 2010;Roy & Stiewe, 2013Lombardo et al, 2014;Svenson & Vollmer, 2014). In addition, we compared specimens with determined material in the aforementioned museums as well as with imaged type specimens deposited at http://specimens.mantodearesearch.com.…”

Section: Taxon Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As in Oxypilinae (see below), 'boxing' behaviour has been described for Anasigerpes, Oxypiloidea and Chrysomantis (Edmunds, 1972(Edmunds, , 1976 and is known to be present in Otomantis from captive breeding. Otomantis has characteristic conical eyes that are pointed and oriented sideways (see Lombardo et al, 2014).…”

Section: 2b Otomantini* # Gigliomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, the first mantis described, Gryllus ( Mantis ) gongylodes Linnaeus [today Gongylus gongylodes (Linnaeus)], was a plant‐mimicking mantis and subsequent work in mantis systematics has placed disproportionate weight on plant‐mimicking mantises. Over the last several decades taxonomic revisions have been conducted on the plant‐mimicking mantis genera Anasigerpes Giglio‐Tos (Roy, ), Ceratomantis Wood‐Mason (Roy & Svenson, ), Chrysomantis Giglio‐Tos (Roy, ), Ephestiasula Giglio‐Tos (Mukherjee et al ., ), Galinthias Stål (Roy & Stiewe, ), Junodia Schulthess‐Rechberg (Roy, ; Stiewe & Roy, ), Majangella Giglio‐Tos (Svenson & Vollmer, ), Otomantis Bolivar (Lombardo et al ., ), Oxypiloidea Schulthess‐Schindler (Roy, ), Oxypilus Serville (Roy & Stiewe, ), Pachymantis Saussure (Roy, ) , Parahestiasula Lombardo (Lombardo, ) and Phyllothelys Wood‐Mason (Ehrmann & Roy, ). In light of this intense interest, a classification scheme that accurately reflects the history of evolutionary divergence is especially important.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Of flowers and twigs: phylogenetic revision of the plant‐mimicking praying mantises (Mantodea:Empusidae and Hymenopodidae) with a new suprageneric classification

Svenson

Hardy

Wightman

et al. 2015

Systematic Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a suprageneric revision of the plant‐mimicking mantis families Empusidae and Hymenopodidae on the basis of a total‐evidence phylogenetic analysis with complete generic representation. We coded 124 characters from external morphology and used these together with a DNA dataset comprising ten gene fragments for an aligned matrix with 7514 nucleic acid sites to estimate phylogenetic relationships. We recovered largely congruent topologies across molecular, morphological and total evidence analyses. Empusidae and its assigned subfamilies were recovered as monophyletic. Hymenopodidae was recovered as paraphyletic with respect to Sibyllidae and Phyllothelyinae (Mantidae) whereas a small assemblage of hymenopodid taxa (Galinthias Stål, Congoharpax La Greca, Pseudoharpax Saussure and Harpagomantis Kirby) were recovered outside the family. The Caribbean genus Epaphrodita Audinet‐Serville was also recovered far from the rest of the hymenopodid subfamily Epaphroditinae, in which it is traditionally classified. The nonmonophyly of Acromantinae was recovered with some species nested within Oxypilinae and others found within Hymenopodinae. We present a new classification scheme that includes an elevated family and subfamily (Galinthiadidae and Phyllocraniinae), two reinstated tribes (Anaxarchini and Otomantini), a family demoted to subfamily rank (Sibyllinae), a newly assigned subfamily to Hymenopodidae transferred from Mantidae (Phyllothelyinae), and new generic assignments to existing higher‐level groups. We used our morphological characters to produce extensive re‐descriptions of all suprageneric groups as well as character diagnoses. We provide a dichotomous key to genera supported by example illustrations of important morphological features as well as dorsal habitus images of representative specimens.

show abstract

Section: Taxon Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%