A new species of Jeremia Redtenbacher (Phasmatodea: Phasmatidae: Cladomorphinae), a stick insect from the northern Brazilian Amazon Basin Author Lima, Sheila Pereira De Programa de Pós-Graduação em Entomologia, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Campus II, Av. André Araújo, 2936, 69060 - 001, Manaus, Brazil Author Oliveira, Ismael Barreto De Laboratório de Entomologia, Universidade Federal de Roraima, Avenida Brasília, s / n, Campus Paricarana, CEP, 69310 - 000, Boa Vista, Roraima, Brazil Author Filho, Francisco Felipe Xavier Coleção de Invertebrados, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Campus II, Av. André Araújo, 2936, 69060 - 001, Manaus, Brazil Author Heleodoro, Raphael Aquino Programa de Pós-Graduação em Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Instituto de Biologia, Minicampus, Av. Rodrigo Otávio, s / n, 69080 - 900, Manaus, Brazil text Zootaxa 2024 2024-01-15 5399 4 433 445 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5399.4.8 journal article 285357 10.11646/zootaxa.5399.4.8 dc7a190c-f6a7-48e7-a28e-03d5a1057bac 1175-5326 10517192 3942DA26-6B9F-416E-9C5A-4051FB32AA14 Jeremia megaplax Heleodoro , Lima & Oliveira sp. nov. ( Figs 1A–D , 2A–C , 3A–C , 4A–C , 5A–C , 6A–F , 7 ). Type material. Holotype . ♀ ( INPA ). Brasil , Roraima , Cantá , Serra Grande / 2°32’53”N 60°47’13”W 4.vi.2022 / (reared in laboratory until 12.vi.2022 ) / coleta manual, I.B.Oliveira & A.A.Camacho . Paratypes . 1 ♁ ( INPA ). Same data as holotype, except for: 6.vii.2022 S.P.Lima , I.B.Oliveira / P.F.Viana & F.F.Xavier. 1 ♀ ( INPA ) Brasil , Roraima , Alto Alegre , / Floresta Nacional de Roraima / 2°56’18”N 61°37’27”W , 17–22.xii.2018 / coleta manual, F.F. Xavier & F.S. Barbosa . FIGURE 2. Jeremia megaplax sp. nov. Female holotype habitus. A. Lateral view, B. Dorsal view, C. Ventral view. Scale: 5 mm. FIGURE 3. Jeremia megaplax sp. nov. female holotype, head and prothorax. A. Lateral view; B. Dorsal view; C. Ventral view. Scale: 5 mm. Holotype condition. Right antenna, left anterior tarsus and left anterior leg glued at paper card, pinned along specimen. Etymology. Derived from the Greek mega and plax , meaning “large plate”, in reference to the great size of the female subgenital plate of this species. Feminine. Diagnosis. Female thorax with several conspicuous large spines; mesothorax dorsally armed with four prominent spines and having a line of six spines on the pleura. Female tergite 6 with nearly indistinct crest-like projection. Female subgenital plate (or operculum, sternites 7+8) 2.4 times longer than tergites 8–10 combined (measured in lateral view); dorsally surpassing the length of gonapophysis 8 by two times. Differentiation. The new species is easily recognizable by the length of the female subgenital plate, as it is possible to see in a quick look that the plate surpasses the abdomen by several centimeters. In J. grossedentata and J. gymnota , the subgenital plate also surpasses the apex of the abdomen, but only by a few centimeters. More specifically, the subgenital plate of both J. grossedentata and J. gymnota both are 1.5 times longer than tergites 8–10 combined. Other features might also aid the differentiation of these three species. J. grossedentata has at least four spines on mesonotum, as in J. megaplax sp. nov. , but these spines when compared with the new species are much more subtle. Furthermore, the new species has a conspicuous line of spines at the pleura, a feature lacking in J. grossedentata . As for Jeremia gymnota , it does not have spines on the brown mesonotum and the mesepimeron is pale; the spines of the sternum have a conspicuous brown halo marking at the base. In Jeremia megaplax sp. nov. , the mesonotum has spines and is concolor to mesepimeron, while the spines on sternum some have a thin pale halo marking at base and some do not have such marking. Description: Holotype female ( Figs 1A–B , 2A–C , 3A–C , 4A–C ). General color brown with light brown speckles and markings throughout the whole body. Head with six prominent brown (greenish in live specimens) longitudinal, parallel lines. Base of anterior femur, ventral spines of mesonotum and ventral spines of mid leg distinctly greenish-blue; remaining anterior femur reddish-brown. Compound eyes light yellow in live specimen, dark brown when dried. FIGURE 4. Jeremia megaplax sp. nov. Female holotype terminalia. A. Dorsal view; B. Lateral view; C. Ventral view. Scale: 5 mm. Head: ( Fig. 3A–C ). Smooth, globose, vertex roundly convex laterally; with six longitudinal brown lines from vertex to frons and from vertex to compound eye. Antenna thin, surpassing thorax, with 73 segments; gradually decreasing in length from segment 1–73, but from 1–15 segments are fairly long, from 16–30 a little shorter than previous, from 31–53 segments are visibly shorter than previous ones, from 53–73 segments are very petite and visually inconspicuous. Thorax: ( Fig. 3B ). Pronotum smooth. Mesonotum 5.5 times longer than pronotum, smooth with four parallel spines forming a rectangle in dorsal view. Mesepimeron with seven lined spines. Prosternum smooth. Mesosternum with 13 zigzagged spines. Metanotum distinct from tergite 1. Metaepimeron with five lined spines. Metasternum with six zigzagged but nearly parallel spines. Median segment 1.5 times shorter than mesonotum. FIGURE 5. Jeremia megaplax sp. nov. Male paratype habitus. A. Lateral view, B. Dorsal view, C. Ventral view. Scale: 5 mm. Legs: ( Fig. 2B–C ). Anterior leg without spines, 1.2 longer than thorax (dorsally) + tergite 1. Spines from all legs rose-like spines. Anterior femora and tibiae laterally expanded, with a keeled aspect. Midleg conspicuously shorter than remaining legs. Mid femur with dorsal, lateral and ventral longitudinal carinas; ventrally with seven medial spines that gradually decrease in length from base to apex. Mid tibiae the same, but ventral spines increase in length from base to apex. hindleg the same as midleg, but slightly longer than foreleg. Abdomen: ( Fig 4A–C ). Tergites smooth, shiny; tergites 2–6 with nearly the same length; tergites 1–8 rectangular, longer than wide. Tergite 6 with crest-like projection nearly indistinct. Tergite 9 trapezoidal, wider than long. Tergite 10 scoop-shaped, laterally gently curving, lateroapically conspicuously converging into truncated apex. Sternites 1– 6 smooth, rectangular, with nearly the same length except for sternite 1, shorter. Sternites 7–8 indistinctly connected. Subgenital plate (sternites 7+8, also called operculum) slender, spear-shaped, with lateral margin slightly sinuous; 2.4 times longer than tergites 8–10 combined (measured in lateral view); dorsally distinctly having two times the length of gonapophysis 8; ventrally with conspicuous longitudinal medial keel. Cercus robust, wide at anterior half and then narrowing, short, somewhat triangular. Male ( Figs 1C–D , 5A–C , 6A–F ). Based on a subadult specimen and therefore requires attention when being compared. Same as in females, but more slender and thinner; body lacking projections, unarmed, except for very minute and small spines at carinas on mid and posterior leg. Coloration similar, but closer to greenish. Antenna with 23 segments, but broken. Tergites 1–7 longer than wide, gradually shortening. Tergite 6 lacking inconspicuous projections. Tergites 8 and 9 trapezoidal, wider than long. Tergite 10 with posterior margin gradually curving. Cercus long, slender, ellipsoidal, gently curving inward. Eggs . Important to highlight that the presently described eggs are not fully developed. They were removed from the female paratype’s abdomen. Rugose, nearly barrel shaped in dorsal view, with slightly deep and subtriangular micropilar plate; plate having approximately 1/3 of egg length ( Fig. 7A ). In lateral view drop-shaped, with frontal area conspicuously larger than posterior area ( Fig. 7B, C ). Operculum distinct, with a sulcus circuiting a small rounded and elevated central area ( Figs. 7D ). TABLE 1. Measurements (in millimeters) from holotype and paratype specimens, measured with a digital caliper ruler.

Specimen / measurement (mm.)	Female holotype	Female paratype	Male paratype
Body length (exlusive of anntena for ♀ and ♁, including subgenital plate for ♀	126.23	126.1	66.42
Head length	7.51	7.44	3.08
Pronotum length	5.32	5.2	2.56
Mesonotum length	27.12	27.03	15.84
Metanotum length	18.33	18.25	13.44
Anterior femur length	27.44	27.4	18.39
Anterior tibia length	29.54	29.44	20.03
Mid femur length	20.16	20.15	13.58
Mid tibia length	18.26	18.23	13.31
Posterior femur length	23.68	24.51	14.28
Posterior tibia length	24.59	24.51	12.26
Tergites 8–10 length	15.48	15.4	-

TABLE 2. Egg measurements (in millimeters), measured digitally with Leica Studio.

Measurement	Value (mm.)
Length (in dorsal view, exclusive of operculum)	2.8
Width (in dorsal view)	1.9
Height (in frontal view)	1.78
Operculum height	1.3
Operculum width	1.22
Micropylar plate length	0.95
Micropylar plate width	0.64

FIGURE 6. Jeremia megaplax sp. nov. Male paratype head and prothorax A–C, and terminalia D–F. A. Lateral view; B. Dorsal view; C. Ventral view; D. Lateral view; E. Dorsal; F. Ventral view. Scale: 5 mm. FIGURE 7. Eggs of Jeremia megaplax sp. nov. , removed from the female paratype abdomen. A. Dorsal view; B. Frontal view; C. Right lateral view; D. Left lateral view. Eggs are not fully developed and this should be taken in consideration when trying to identify or compare with other specimens. Scale: 1 mm. FIGURE 8. A. Distribution map of Jeremia and B. photo of the Serra Grande habitat. Comments. As we only have one single male, we could not provide a proper differentiation with other congeneric species, especially because the only comparison ever made ( Hennemann & Conle, 2010 ) between them mostly takes in account the posterior wing length, which is missing in our specimen because it is a subadult. Further provided characters are a smooth anteroventral carina of the mid and posterior and a lobed basitarsus ( J. grossedentata ) vs. a dentated anteroventral carina and smooth basitarsus ( J . gymnota ). As for the smooth vs dentated carina, the male of J . megaplax sp. nov . is closer to J . grossedentata , while it is closer to J . gymnota in regard to the smooth basitarsus. Thus, further males of all species are needed to elucidate the differences among them, specially to dissect and describe the male genitalia. However, the lack of spines along the body of J . megaplax sp. nov may be a possible character to differentiate the new species to the other congeneric. Distribution. Brazil ( Roraima ) ( Fig. 8A ).