Now according to my research, there are only two species of Hyporhicnoda in Panama. One, H.humilior, has adult females with very rugose, textured exoskeletons, and a very obvious ridge going down the middle of the pronotum and remaining thoracic segments. This does not match the appearance of the female sp. "Panama" in the hobby at all.
The second species, Hyporhicnoda litomorpha, has females that are rather smooth in comparison (according to the original description), they lack the distinct ridge (carina) that species like H.humilior and H.reflexa have, and overall seems like the perfect match for the sp. "Panama" currently in culture.
See this sighting of a presumed H.litomorpha female from Panama, and compare to the below images of the H.sp. "Panama":
Male and female Hyporhicnoda sp. "Panama" ©Alan Jeon |
Female Hyporhicnoda sp. "Panama" ©Alan Jeon |
Male Hyporhicnoda sp. "Panama" ©Alan Jeon |
Additionally, I'd like to address the identity of the two Hyporhicnoda "reflexa" localities, both of which are most commonly cultured in Europe. One strain is simply labeled as "Hyporhicnoda reflexa", and the other is labeled "Hyporhicnoda reflexa - Venezuela". Both are very similar to each other in appearance, but apparently exhibit slight behavioral differences, so they may actually be two different species, I'm not sure.
Anyway, according to the original description of Hyporhicnoda reflexa adults, the pronotum and mesonotum have a medio-longitudinal carina, this continued on metanotum in the females, (so basically a pronounced ridge going down the middle of their pronotum and upper back). Female with caudal margin of pronotum, mesonotum, metanotum, and dorsal abdominal segments minutely but conspicuously beaded. Both sexes a uniform brown color, males lighter than females.
Here's a line drawing from that paper, figure 8 is an adult male, figure 9 is an adult female:
However, the females in that reflexa description appear to have been collected in Panama, and I believe they actually became the type specimens for H.humilior... (I'd know for sure if I could access this paper). The adult male was collected in Costa Rica however, and appears to have actually been reflexa.
On the other hand, the male type specimen, (which the above paper states is obviously a nymph, as adult males have fully developed tegmina), quite obviously has a distinct carina and beaded abdominal segments, and seeing as it's the TYPE specimen, and the adult male from Costa Rica also has a carina going down the pronotum and mesonotum, I think we can safely conclude that the adult females of H.reflexa likely also have a carina, beaded abdominal segments, and are probably quite similar to the male nymph type specimen in morphology:
©Cockroach Species File |
Hyporhicnoda sp. "reflexa" female ©Cafarnarium |
Hyporhicnoda sp. "reflexa" male ©Cafarnarium |
Hyporhicnoda sp. "reflexa - Venezuela" female ©Cafarnarium |
Hyporhicnoda sp. "reflexa - Venezuela" male ©Cafarnarium |
Also, see this subadult male of the captive "reflexa" stock here, it clearly looks nothing like the type specimen nymph above.
These are clearly some other Hyporhicnoda species, of that I'm sure, and while we still don't know what adult female H.reflexa look like, the description of the adult male and the holotype male nymph make it quite clear that these two Hyporhicnoda stocks are not Hyporhicnoda reflexa. As for their true identities beyond Hyporhicnoda spp., I'm not sure...
Anyways, that's gonna do it for this post everyone, special thanks to Alan Jeon and Nicolas Rousseaux (of the Cafarnarium) for the use of their pictures! I hope you all found this post informative, thanks for reading, I'll see you all next time! 😉
No comments:
Post a Comment