davisdamaledo's Favorites

When I was looking through all my mantis photos, I initially just assumed that it was the same as my previous one, Hierodula 'venosa'. But then when it actually came to identify that one, I realised that it was actually a bit different. It's not super obvious from the photos but it is notably smaller - it has a tegmen length around 50-60mm, as opposed to 70mm+ for my previous individual. More easily seen, it's a bit greener, a bit skinnier, there are some more obvious black markings on the forefemur, the stigma is edged in black, and the underside of the thorax is a much richer red (although that's not visible on my previous one). Where have we heard all that before??

In the description of H. dolichoptera (translated) of course! It's not a 100% match, but it's very close, and I can accept that the differences are due to intraspecific variation and the fact that Werner was presumably working with a dead specimen (and only one specimen at that). But let's go through each character to make sure I'm not just making stuff up. Firstly, most of the general details seem to fit - it is within both size and geographic range, and the description of the body and wings is more or less correct (especially the distribution of opaque and hyaline patches on the forewings, although this is not unique just to H. dolichoptera). The elytra don't extend that far beyond the end of the abdomen, but he does look very well fed and the size of the abdomen can change quite a lot (especially after death). The forecoxae have 10-11 white spines, which is slightly more than the 9 given in the description, but should be well within the expected variation. The large spines on the inner forefemur and at least the inner surfaces of the discoidal spines are completely dark. And yes, there is a large dark spot just distal to the claw groove. This spot is one of a few, but the largest and darkest one is just in front of the claw groove, and I can see the others fading with death. Weirdly though it seems like my angles and lighting can make the spots seem like they are absent in some views. Good thing I take lots of photos! And finally, yes, the stigma is edged in black - that was actually the first thing I noticed when comparing the photos of this and my previous Hierodula.

So then, is this H. dolichoptera? In short, I don't know. It seems a very close match, but there are also clearly a couple of differences. There are likely to be a great many undescribed 'Hierodula' still out there, and this could well be one of them. But it's certainly not any other described Bornean species, and I think it is surely a close relative of H. dolichoptera if it's not quite that one. For the purposes of iNat though, I think it's acceptable to tentatively call this H. dolichoptera, pending further research. If I ever get back to Borneo, I'll for sure be taking some closeups of the external genitalia for when all of these species finally get reviewed!

My first Bornean phasmid! Now I can finally get some use out of that book I bought :P

So then, looking at Seow-Choen (2016), it's clearly a male in Lonchodini, and we can confidently rule out at least the following genera: Baculofractum, Phenacephorus, Stheneboea, Carausius (no wings, no occipital tubercles, mesofemur shorter than mesonotum, mesofemur with dorsal lobe).

So that leaves us with only Lonchodes (9 species), Staelonchodes (6 species), Hermagoras (5 species), and Mnesilochus (3 species) to look at. So let's go look at the individual genus keys. From the key we can rule out all Mnesilochus species except M. rusticus (head not raised, no cream margins on segments), and comparing with the image of M. rusticus, this is clearly not a match. It is much too elongate and the head is a fairly different shape. So, Mnesilochus is out.

In Hermagoras, from the key we can rule out H. hosei, H. cultratolobatus, H. sigillatus, and H. imitator (no spines or hump on metathorax). Unfortunately the males of the remaining species, H. matangensis, are unknown, so we cannot conclusively rule it out. However, it is only known from the western side of Borneo and I would imagine that, like the other males of the genus, it has spines or at least a small hump on the metathorax. So I am happy to discard it for now, provided that we find a match in Staelonchodes or Lonchodes.

In Staelonchodes, the key rules out all species (body colour brown, head without median transverse ridge, body not tuberculate, with small lobe on dorsal mesofemur), so on to Lonchodes we go.

From the key, we can rule out L. auriculatus, L. spinulosus, L. modestus, L. abbreviatus, *L. chani, L. sanguineoligatus, and L. mirabilis (no spines or crests on head, posterior mesonotum not raised and swollen). That leaves us with L. jejunus or L. everettii, however the colour does not seem to match either and to be honest they do not look right.

So where have I gone wrong? As I was flicking through I did notice it. As it turns out, the males of H. sigillatus and H. imitator can have the metathorax only very slightly arched, which appears to be the case here. So is it one of them then? It does seem like it. Comparing the end of the abdomen (and the abdominal tergites in general), it is not H. sigillatus but is a good match for H. imitator. The colour matches well (I can see a vague hint of red on the posterior metafemur), and it seems a good fit for the specimen pictured on PSF. Which, by the way, informs me that the species has now been transferred back to Mnesilochus. So I am happy to call this a male Mnesilochus imitator!