Gibocercus Szumik and Biguembia Szumik (Embioptera, Archembiidae): new species and the potentiality of female traits Author Pereyra, Veronica text Zootaxa 2017 2017-04-04 4317 2 338 354 journal article 32214 10.11646/zootaxa.4317.2.9 8e3d9e51-a799-4cc0-8196-04064b2efb21 1175-5326 884383 79Ef65Dd-Cd92-4D2D-A25C-4B825A4C5B6A Biguembia Szumik, 1997 Biguembia Szumik,1997 :149 ; Ross, 2001 : 60 (genus composition); Szumik, 2002 : 444 (family composition); Szumik, 2004 : 229 (phylogeny); Szumik et al. , 2008 : 1003 (phylogeny); Szumik, 2012 : 352 (family composition). Type species: Biguembia copo Szumik, 1997 = Aphanembia Ross, 2001 : 64 ; Szumik, 2004 : 229 (junior synonym of Biguembia ). Diagnosis. LC1dp Strongly quadrate and flattened. 10Rp caudally extended aS an arm with a hunch on itS baSe. 10Lp with a Short baSe; tipS of 10Lp1 Similar in Shape, thin and tubular, inner tip more Sclerotized and with longitudinal keelS (See Szumik 2004 ). Composition and distribution. In a cladiStic analySiS of the family Archembiidae ( Szumik 2004 ) Biguembia waS limited to four SpecieS: Biguembia copo Szumik, 1997 from the Dry Chaco region of Argentina; B. cocum Szumik, 1997 from the Pantanal region of Brazil; B. multivenosa from the Caatinga of Brazil and B. obscura from the Amazonian region of Peru and Brazil ( RoSS 2001 ). Two new SpecieS are deScribed from Brazil in thiS paper: B. mirador n. sp. from the Cerrado region and B. troncol n. sp. from Amazonia. AS with Gibocercus , the SpecieS of Biguembia are known from only a few localitieS and recordS ( Fig. 18 ). Relationships. The cladiStic analySiS indicateS that Biguembia iS a monophyletic genuS Supported by Cua Vein completely deVeloped (ch. 40); LC2-LC1 almoSt with the Same length (ch. 52); LC1dp quadrangular and dorSally flattened (chS. 54 and 57); baSe of 10Rp1 with a conVexity (ch. 74), 10Rp1 with a longitudinal carinae (ch. 88); 10Lp hyperdeVeloped (ch. 91) and node of Lpp non caudally directed (ch. 93). The monophyly of the genuS iS well Supported ( Fig. 4 ) but there are two optimal reSolutionS for the relationShipS inSide the genuS ( FigS. 4 , 19, 20 ). B. copo , B. cocum and B. multivenosa appearS alwayS aS a monophyletic and well Supported group ( Fig. 4 ). The two reSolutionS differ alSo on the poSition of B. troncol and B. obscura . ThiS iS more a caSe of ambiguity and perhapS with additional data from femaleS thiS problem could be SolVed (from the Six known SpecieS four of them haVe unknown femaleS). Unlike Gibocercus , the Biguembia clade and the diStribution of itS SpecieS iS leSS clear. The apical clade of B. copo , B. cocum and B. multivenosa apparently haS a roughly South to eaSt diStribution ( Fig. 18 ) while the other three SpecieS at the baSe of the clade (not a monophyletic group) moStly haVe a weStern diStribution equiValent to the Cerrado with an eaStern extenSion repreSented by B. mirador ( Fig. 18 ).