Studies on neotropical Phasmatodea XVIII: Four new species of Lobolibethra Hennemann & Conle, 2007 from Peru and Ecuador (Phasmatodea: “ Anareolatae ”: Diapheromeridae) Author Hennemann, Frank H. 651FCCFA-271B-48A3-A58E-A30FDC739493 Reiboldstrasse 11, 67251 Freinsheim, Germany hennemann@phasmatodea.com Author Conle, Oskar V. D2712C02-7973-4FAA-A186-5F8540A66691 Am Freischütz 16, 47058 Duisburg, Germany conle@phasmatodea.com text European Journal of Taxonomy 2018 2018-07-12 449 1 33 journal article 10.5852/ejt.2018.449 ffdb0ed8-25ff-4126-a775-21936773c125 2118-9773 3814177 67BA0676-36C0-4261-B9FE-3B81C2230DBE Genus Lobolibethra Hennemann & Conle, 2007 Lobolibethra Hennemann & Conle, 2007: 90 . Libethra Stål, 1875: 75 (in part). Ocnophila Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1907: 309 (in part). Lobolibethra – Conle, Hennemann & Gutíerrez 2011: 54 . Ceroys – Westwood 1859: 61 , pl. 4 , fig. 7. Libethra – Giglio-Tos 1898: 27 . — Kirby 1904: 345 (in part). — Caudell 1918: 6 . — Günther 1940: 496 , fig. 19. – Otte & Brock 2005: 175 , 176 (in part). Dyme – Caudell 1918: 10 . Rugosolibethra – Zompro 2003: 33 . Ceroys ( Ceroys ) – Zompro 2004: 180 . Ocnophila – Giglio-Tos 1910: 30 . — Otte & Brock 2005: 229 (in part). Type species Lobolibethra panguana Hennemann & Conle, 2007: 98 , by original designation. Comments The original generic description and differentiation presented by Hennemann & Conle (2007) is very detailed and requires no additions. As previously pointed out, females of Lobolibethra are easily distinguished from those of the closely related Libethra Stål, 1875 by the more convex, strongly keeled and posteriorly entire, rounded or truncate subgenital plate and males are readily distinguished by the small unspecialized cerci. It is, however, noteworthy that the subgenital plate of females has the apex gently concave and excavated in L. mainerii ( Caudell, 1918 ) and L. ramale ( Giglio-Tos, 1898 ) , but not as deeply incised as in Libethra . The eggs differ by the less elongate capsule, which is almost circular in lateral aspect, and comparatively longer micropylar plate. Like numerous species of the related Libethra , females of several species are very polymorphic and show strong intraspecific variability, which concerns the sculpturing of the body and armature of the extremities. Consequently, the presence or absence of strumae and lobes on the abdominal tergites, degree of thoracic nodes or tubercles, as well as the size and shape of teeth or lobes on the legs of females are only of limited value for species distinction. This is very well shown by the large type series of L. panguana Hennemann & Conle, 2007 , which includes 82 females and allows a fairly good overview of the range of intraspecific variability in the genus. Genital characters, like the shape of the anal segment (= abdominal tergum X), subgenital plate and the praeopercular organ on abdominal sternum VII, as well as length relations of body segments, have proven by far more reliable for distinguishing and characterizing species. Characters such as the sculpturing of the body and armature of the legs are here only used as key features if they represent extreme states, e.g., are strongly developed or almost to completely lacking. Distribution Moist tropical rain forests below 2000 m in southeast Ecuador , southeast Colombia , eastern and central Peru , central Brazil and central Bolivia . According to Morrone (2006: 472–473) the known distribution refers to the Amazonian subregion of the Neotropical region (biogeographical Provinces Yungas, Napo, Varzea, Ucayali and Madeira) and to the eastern sections of the South American Transition Zone (biogeographical Province Puna). The currently known records of Lobolibethra clearly show that the genus is still poorly known and the distribution is believed to cover most of the northern tropical lowlands and Amazon basin of South America. Species included 1. Lobolibethra acheloa ( Günther, 1940: 496 ) [ Libethra ] (Southeast Colombia , Dept. Amazonas, Río Tacana) 2. Lobolibethra boliviana Hennemann & Conle, 2007: 93 , figs 1, 3–6 (Central Bolivia , Chapare Prov., Río Chapare, Villa Tunari, 320 m a.s.l.) 3. Lobolibethra carbonelli sp. nov. (East Peru , Dept. Huánuco , Tingo Maria, 660 m a.s.l.) 4. Lobolibethra ignava ( Westwood, 1859: 61 , pl. 4, fig 7) [ Ceroys ] (Northeast Brazil , Pará State , Río Tapajós) 5. Lobolibethra mainerii ( Giglio-Tos, 1910: 30 ) [ Ocnophila ] = Libethra peruana Caudell, 1918: 6 = Dyme iconnicoffi Caudell, 1918: 10 . syn. nov. (Southeast Peru : Dept. Junín , San Ramón, 770 m a.s.l. and Dept. Junín , Río Carhuamayo) 6. Lobolibethra mutica Hennemann & Conle, 2007: 96 , figs 2, 7–10 (North Peru ) 7. Lobolibethra panguana Hennemann & Conle, 2007: 98 , figs 11–23, 32–33, 38–40 (East Peru , Dept. Huánuco , Rio Yuyapichis, Panguana, 260 m a.s.l.; Dept. Tambopata, Tambopata Nature Reserve, Río Madre de Dios ; Dept. Madre de Dios , Manú National Park) 8. Lobolibethra pozuzoae sp. nov. (East Peru , Dept. Pasco , Pozuzo, 800 m a.s.l.) 9. Lobolibethra ramale ( Giglio-Tos, 1898: 27 ) [ Libethra ] (Southeast Ecuador , Zamora Chinchipe Prov. , San Jose, 1430 m a.s.l.) 10. Lobolibethra tricarinata sp. nov. (South Ecuador , El Oro Prov. , 5–9 km E of Piñas, 900–950 m a.s.l. and Zamora Chinchipe Prov. , El Salado, 1310 m a.s.l.) 11. Lobolibethra verruculosa sp. nov. (East Peru , Dept. Huánuco , San Luis de León Pampa) Keys to species of Lobolibethra Females* 1. Hind legs unarmed (at most with a single small sub-basal dorsal lobe on metatibiae) …………2 – All three pairs of legs with various lobes of variable sizes …………………………………………7 2. Mesofemora at least with small lobules ventrally; subgenital plate obtusely rounded apically …3 – Mesofemora entirely smooth; subgenital plate acutely pointed apically (S Ecuador ) ……………… ………………………………………………………………………………… L. tricarinata sp. nov. 3. Ventral lobes of mesofemora prominent and much wider than diameter of femur ………………4 – Ventral lobes of mesofemora small and no larger than diameter of femur ………………………5 4. Epiproct small and not considerably projecting over posterior margin of anal segment ………… ………………………………………………………………………… L. acheloa ( Günther, 1940 ) – Epiproct enlarged, triangular and projecting distinctly beyond apex of anal segment (NE Brazil ) …… ………………………………………………………………………… L. ignava ( Westwood, 1859 ) 5. Lateral margins of anal segment deflexed; subgenital plate convex, tub-shaped ………………6 – Lateral margins of anal segment not deflexed and converging towards posterior; subgenital plate fairly flat, scoop-shaped …………………………………… L mutica ( Hennemann & Conle, 2007 ) 6. Stocky insects; mesothorax 3.6× as long as prothorax; anal segment with a distinct triangular median indention …………………………………………………………… L. carbonelli sp. nov. – More slender insects; mesothorax>4× as long as prothorax; anal segment with posterior margin quadri-dentate ………………………………………………………………… L. pozuzoae sp. nov. 7. Anteroventral carina of metafemora at most with minute, rounded lobes; metatibiae without a subbasal ventral lobe; subgenital plate gently excavated apically ……………………………………8 – Metafemora with large foliaceous lobes on anteroventral carina; metatibiae with a distinct subbasal ventral lobe; subgenital plate with apex rounded …………………………………………9 8. Body length> 50 mm ; slender insects; mesothorax 4.3× as long as prothorax; abdominal segments III–V longer than wide; mesofemora with three small, rounded lobes on anteroventral carina (S Ecuador )…………………………………………………………… L. ramale ( Giglio-Tos, 1898 ) – Body length < 50 mm ; more stocky insects; mesothorax at most 3.4× as long as prothorax; abdominal segments III–IV wider than long; mesofemora with two prominent lobes on anteroventral carina (E Peru ) ……………………………………………………………… L. mainerii ( Giglio-Tos, 1910 ) 9. Stocky insects; mesothorax about 4.4× as long as prothorax; median segment about ¼ the length of metanotum; profemora longer than mesothorax ( Bolivia ) ……………………………………… ………………………………………………………… L. boliviana ( Hennemann & Conle, 2007 ) – More slender insects; mesothorax almost 5× as long as prothorax; median segment less than ¼ the length of metanotum; profemora about as long as mesothorax (E Peru ) ……………………………… ………………………………………………………… L. panguana ( Hennemann & Conle, 2007 ) Males** 1. Meso- and metathorax granulose, nodulose or verruculose ………………………………………2 – Meso- and metathorax smooth ( Peru ) ………………………………………… L. pozuzoae sp. nov. 2. Legs lobate …………………………………………………………………………………………3 – Legs unarmed, without lobes ………………………………………………………………………4 3. Very slender insects; mesothorax almost 7× as long as prothorax; mesonotum with irregularly dispersed small granules and nodules; mesofemora unarmed dorsally ……………………………… …………………………………………………………… L. panguana ( Hennemann & Conle, 2007 ) – More stocky insects; mesothorax <6× as long as prothorax; mesonotum with single enlarged yellow tubercles; mesofemora with 3–4 small lobules dorsally … L. mainerii ( Giglio-Tos, 1910 ) 4. Slender insects, abdominal segments III–V> 2× as long as wide; meso- and metathorax granulose or sparsely nodulose ………………………………………………………………………………5 – Stocky insects, abdominal segments III–V <2× as long as wide: meso- and metathorax densely and prominently verruculose ( Peru ) ……………………………………… L. verruculosa sp. nov. 5. Anal segment not longer than wide and distinctly deflexed medially; abdominal tergites II–V without carinae ( Peru ) ………………………………………………………………………………6 – Anal segment longer than wide and very weakly deflexed post-medially; abdominal tergites II–V carinate (S Ecuador ) ………………………………………………… L. tricarinata sp. nov. 6. Very slender insects; mesothorax 6.5× as long as prothorax; mesonotum only supplied with single nodes; poculum small and reaching only about half way along tergum IX ………………………… …………………………………………………………… L. mutica ( Hennemann & Conle, 2007 ) – More stocky insects; mesothorax only 5.5× as long as prothorax; mesonotum densely granulose; poculum large and reaching to posterior margin of tergum IX ………… L. carbonelli sp. nov. * Females of L. verruculosa sp. nov. are not known. ** Males of L. acheloa ( Günther, 1940 ) , L. boliviana Hennemann & Conle, 2007 , L. ignava ( Westwood, 1859 ) and L. ramale ( Giglio-Tos, 1898 ) are not known.