Some taxonomic and nomenclatural changes in American Mantodea (Insecta, Dictyoptera) — Part I Author Agudelo, Antonio A. Author Rivera, Julio text Zootaxa 2015 3936 3 335 356 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.3936.3.2 a4827e36-2f9e-4ef5-bc4d-78a5d9c84036 1175-5326 239047 D91E40F5-C602-4EAF-A4B1-86593A33BDA2 Chopardiella Giglio-Tos, 1914 Uromantis amazonica and Uromantis paraensis were both simultaneously described by Jantsch (1985) . However, at the time of their description, Jantsch ignored the fact that Uromantis , as well as other similar genera created by Giglio-Tos (1917) , were all already placed under synonymy with Stagmomantis Saussure, 1869 by Hebard (1923) , an action that Rehn (1935) and subsequent authors later followed. Accordingly, Terra (1995) formally transferred both amazonica and paraensis to Stagmomantis , a procedure he likely undertook under the “safe” assumption that Jantsch had correctly assigned his two new species to Uromantis . We examined the holotypes of both of Jantsch’s species deposited at INPA and recognized that those characters Jantsch used to justify both individuals as separated species, such as relative body length, relative density of the minute denticles on the pronotal edges, and wideness of the costal area of the mesothoracic wings, are all of no use. Fortunately, both specimens have their genitalia intact and they proved to be virtually identical upon close examination ( Fig. 10 a–b, d–e). Therefore, we regard U. amazonica and U. paraensis as conspecifics ( Fig. 10 c–f). Furthermore, we compared the external morphology and male genitalia of Jantsch’s species to that of Chopardiella latipennis ( Chopard, 1911 ) ( Fig. 11a –b) and could not find any relevant difference that may justify the validity of all these names, as they are all clearly conspecifics. Thus, we establish both U. amazonica and U. paraensis as synonyms of C. latipennis . The following taxonomic changes now apply: Chopardiella latipennis ( Chopard, 1911 ) = Uromantis amazonica Jantsch, 1985 n . syn. = Uromantis paraensis Jantsch, 1985 n . syn. Chopard (1911) described his new species Pseudoxyops latipennis based on a single female from Nouveau- Chantier, in French Guiana . However, Giglio-Tos (1914) considered that this species should be included in its own genus and thus created Chopardiella Giglio-Tos, 1914 to accommodate it, using simply Chopard’s illustration to justify his new taxon while acknowledging the fact that he had not seen specimens of P. latipennis . We consider that those characters used by Giglio-Tos to justify Chopardiella represent interspecific rather than intergeneric differences, particularly in regard to the small distal lobes on the mid- and hind femora, which are absent in Pseudoxyops . It was not until Lombardo (1994) described the male of P. latipennis that sexual differences in the degree of lobe development became notorious; whereas the female does exhibit a conspicuous distal lobe on both mid and hind femora, such a lobe is almost nonexistent in males, in which it is barely indicated by a slight undulation of the cuticle. We have observed this same feature in various male specimens from museums and in material obtained from French Guiana . Another feature that Giglio-Tos used to separate Chopardiella from Pseudoxyops was the shape of the compound eyes, which are spherical in Chopardiella but conical in Pseudoxyops . We also regard this character as invalid for making such distinction because eye shape and other ocular modifications (e.g. apical spurs and non-visual elongations) are known for exhibiting wide variation among congeners and even intraspecifically, as observed in representatives of various genera, such as Ameles , Heterochaeta , Compsothespis , among many others ( Wieland 2013 ). On the other hand, the shape of both the pronotum and the mesothoracic wings of the female, and similarities in the shape of male genitalia (see Lombardo 1994 , Lombardo & Agabiti 2001 , Battiston & Picciau 2008 for comparison), suggest that C. latipennis ( Fig. 11a ), C. poulaini Lombardo & Agabiti, 2001 and Pseudoxyops are all closely related, most likely representing a single evolutionary line. Pseudoxyops includes five species from which very little is known, except perhaps for the Amazonian Pseudoxyops perpulchra (Westwood, 1889) ( Fig. 11 b), the most commonly cited and collected species. Battiston & Picciau (2008) recently identified and described the miniaturized male of this highly dimorphic species. We suggest that the two species currently included in Chopardiella should be transferred to Pseudoxyops and the former put under synonymy with the latter. Unfortunately, all other species of Pseudoxyops ( P. diluta , P. boliviana , P. minuta , P. borelli ) are mostly known only from their original descriptions, and even though their morphology differs in many respects from that of P. perpulchra , we refrain from establishing such synonymy, since Pseudoxyops , as currently conceived, is in need of re-evaluation to verify the taxonomic status of its less-known species. We will leave this question open to consideration, pending future studies.