The Orthoptera (Ensifera) from the Santana formation (Early Cretaceous, Northeast Brazil): A statistical and paleoecological approach, with description of new taxa Author Martins-Neto, Rafael Gioia Author Tassi, Lara Vaz text Zootaxa 2009 2080 21 37 journal article 10.5281/zenodo.187344 229e851e-7107-4628-b823-7bf467cc98ad 1175-5326 187344 Cearagrylloides previstus Martins-Neto , n. comb. ( Fig. 2 F) 1. Cearagryllus previstus Martins-Neto, 1999 Holotype . RGMN-T021, Martins-Neto Collection, housed at Sociedade Brasileira de Paleoartropodologia, SBPr, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil . Locus and Stratum typicum. As for Notocearagryllus dutrae Martins-Neto. Specimens included. Just the holotype . FIGURE 2. Fore wing (A-C), ovipositor (D-G) and hind legs (H-K) details of the Santana Formation Cearagryllinae (females). A, D, H) Cearagrylloides perforatorius n. gen. et n. comb., drawn from the specimen RGMN-506 (A), CV- 6015 (D, H); B, E) Cearagrylloides microcephalus n. gen. et n. comb., drawn from the specimen RGMN-508 (B), and GP/1T-1680 (E); C, G, K) Paracearagryllus poliacanthus n. gen. et n. comb., drawn from the specimen RGMN-338 (C, G), and from holotype (K); F) Cearagrylloides previstus n. gen. et n. comb., drawn from holotype. Scale bar 1 mm. Remarks. The wing venation remains unknown for this species, which differs from the others in the genus (females) in having a smaller body and ovipositor. The body is oval, about as long as wide. Some other differences, such as a wing length greater than the body length and about as long as the ovipositor, and the ovipositor length/body length ratio of around 1.20 are characteristics that sustain C. previstus as a different species. It is interesting to note that in plotting body length x ovipositor length ( Fig. 4 ) for the C. perforatorius specimens, the trend line is straight. Including C. previstus , the trend line curve remains straight (but would not for C. microcephalus ). C. previstus could be the direct ancestor of C. perforatorius (or vice versa?) or sibling species both derived from an unknown common ancestor?. This presents an ecological problem (see further discussion below), a similar situation to that seen with two species of the Caelifera Cratoelcana (see Martins-Neto, 1995 ).