Abstract
Comparison of morphological and genetic data from New Zealand forest cave wētā suggests we should recognise the genus Miotopus proposed by Hutton (1898). A new species within this genus is described (Miotopus richardsi sp. nov.). Both Miotopus diversus (Hutton, 1898) and Miotopus richardsi sp. nov. are common in native forests and widespread in New Zealand. Here we provide their known distributions and key traits
Highlights
Identifying cave wētā to genus level is made difficult by a limited number of accessible morphological and diagnostically informative characters and very brief descriptions for many of the nineteen genera of New Zealand Rhaphidophoridae (Cook et al 2010). Hutton (1897) described the New Zealand rhaphidophorid genus Pleioplectron including four species
We examined the relationships of putative Miotopus mtDNA COI haplotypes with respect to Pleioplectron and other representatives of the New Zealand cave wētā (Allegrucci et al 2010) using phylogenetic reconstruction using Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian inference algorithms implemented in Geneious ‘ver.’ 9
Using combinations of apical leg spines and general appearance (Table 1) we identified cave wētā that could be assigned to Miotopus diversus, Pleioplectron hudsoni Hutton, 1896 and P. simplex Hutton, 1896
Summary
Identifying cave wētā to genus level is made difficult by a limited number of accessible morphological and diagnostically informative characters and very brief descriptions for many of the nineteen genera of New Zealand Rhaphidophoridae (Cook et al 2010). Hutton (1897) described the New Zealand rhaphidophorid genus Pleioplectron including four species. Identifying cave wētā to genus level is made difficult by a limited number of accessible morphological and diagnostically informative characters and very brief descriptions for many of the nineteen genera of New Zealand Rhaphidophoridae (Cook et al 2010). Hutton (1897) described the New Zealand rhaphidophorid genus Pleioplectron including four species. A year later, he transferred one of these, Pleioplectron diversum to the new genus Miotopus as Miotopus diversus (Hutton 1898). Hutton cited the presence of the fore femoral retrolateral spine and the subapical inferior pair of spines on the hind tibia as evidence of sufficient differentiation. Richards (1959) disagreed and returned Miotopus diversus to Pleioplectron stating that the differences in spination identified by Hutton (1898) to establish Miotopus represented congeneric variation.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
