Brasil
Zoologia (Curitiba)
Sumário Anterior Atual Seguinte
Sumário
Research Article: Taxonomic Catalog of the Brazilian Fauna • Zoologia (Curitiba) 40 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-4689.v40.e22060 linkcopy

Open-access The taxonomic catalog of the Brazilian fauna: Dermaptera and Phasmatodea (Insecta), with commentaries on species list, types, authorship and distribution

AuthorshipSCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

A checklist of Dermaptera and Phasmatodea from Brazil is presented, from the Catalog of the Brazilian Fauna project, an online platform available at http://fauna.jbrj.gov.br, which gathers taxonomic information (valid species, distribution, synonymies, depository location, etc.) from species recorded in the country. The patterns of known type locations, biome distribution, and rate of new species descriptions in Brazil are discussed. There is a great number of lost types and few numbers of secondary types, indicating that collecting activities focused on Dermaptera and Phasmatodea followed by taxonomic treatments have not been many. The best-known biome in terms of species of Dermaptera and Phasmatodea is the Atlantic Forest, followed by the Amazon Forest. There are significantly less species recorded for the other biomes. This bias may be explained by the colonization of Brazil, which started in areas of Atlantic Forest, and the several expeditions that occurred in the Amazon region in the last century. As for the rate of new species descriptions, a steady and slow pattern of new species described through time is characteristic of Dermaptera, while large gaps of time without any new taxon followed by clusters of many described species is characteristic of Phasmatodea.

KEY WORDS:
Biodiversity; checklist; earwigs; Hexapoda; Insecta; stick insects

INTRODUCTION

Dermaptera general information

Dermaptera, also known as earwigs (in Brazil, they are popularly known as tesourinhas), can be easily recognized by the pincer-shaped, modified cerci. They are relatively small, ranging from 3 to 85 mm (generally ranging from 10 to 15 mm) and have a uniform morphology across the entire order, which includes a cordiform head, elongated body, and body varying from dark brown to black (Haas 2012). Earwigs inhabit a diversity of environments, from the litter at ground level, under loose bark of fallen trees, to the highest canopies (Haas 2012). They have adopted different feeding strategies: some species are mostly predators of other small arthropods, while there are more generalist species that feed on decomposing organic matter (Haas 2012). Currently, this insect order includes over 2,200 species described worldwide, distributed in 12 families: Anisolabididae, Apachyidae, Arixeniidae, Chelisochidae, Diplatyidae, Forficulidae, Haplodiplatyidae, Hemimeridae, Karschiellidae, Labiduridae, Pygidicranidae, and Spongiphoridae (Hopkins et al. 2022). Out of the total species, 303 have been recorded from South America (Hopkins et al. 2022). Currently, there is strong support for the hypothesis that Dermaptera and Zoraptera are sister groups, mostly based on molecular evidence (Misof et al. 2014, Wipfler et al. 2019).

The New World checklist of Dermaptera species was presented in a series of publications by Reichardt: 1968a - Pygidicranoidea; 1968b - Anisolabididae I; 1970 - Anisolabididae II and Spongiphoridae; 1971a - Chelisochidae, Forficulidae and Labiduridae; and 1971b - Amendments, additions and bibliography. These were followed by the World Catalog of Steinmann (1989a) and his taxonomic works (1986 and 1989b - Catadermaptera; 1990 and 1993 - Eudermaptera) and Srivastava (1995 - Spongiphoridae; 1999 - Anisolabididae). The works of Reichardt, Srivastava, and Steinmann complement one another: Srivastava and Steinmann updated the checklist with species that were described after Reichardt’s checklist; further, there are species cited by Reichardt and Srivastava that are not mentioned by Steinmann. An important reference is Domenico (2005), a Brazilian author who published the type catalogue of Dermaptera housed at the Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo (São Paulo, Brazil).

Phasmatodea general information

The Phasmatodea are known as leaf or stick insects (in Brazil, they are popularly known as bicho-pau). They can be recognized by their leafy body or by the slender body in the case of those species that resemble sticks. However, there are several cases (e.g., Pseudophasmatidae) that do not follow these two patterns. In these cases, phasmatodeans can be recognized by the prognathous mouth parts coupled with the elongated body, with or without tegmina and posterior wings, all leg pairs without adaptations, and cerci simple (Zompro 2012). Phasmatodea are terrestrial and herbivorous, mostly active during night (Zompro 2012). There are about 3,300 valid species worldwide, out of which over a thousand are recorded from the New World (Brock et al. 2022). In the Americas, Agathemeridae, Diapheromeridae, Heteronemiidae, Phasmatidae, Prisopodidae, Pseudophasmatidae, and Timematidae are present (Brock et al. 2022). Phylogenetically, Embioptera is the sister group of Phasmatodea (Misof et al. 2014, Beutel et al. 2017). The most updated catalogue of the World Phasmatodea is the ongoing Phasmida Species File project (Brock et al. 2022), an international collaboration among authors from all major regions of the globe. Special references should be made to Zompro and Domenico (2005), who published a catalogue of the type material of Phasmatodea deposited in Brazilian museums, and Araújo and Garraffoni (2012), who published a list of species originally described from Brazil.

Taxonomic Catalog of the Brazilian Fauna

The Taxonomic Catalog of the Brazilian Fauna (Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil - CTFB) is an online platform for the scientific names applied to the animals recorded from Brazil, including valid names, synonyms, homonyms, unavailable names, geographical records, etc. It is constantly updated to include new published or new recorded data. This paper continues the series of updtates of the information on Brazilian species, which started with Trichoptera by Santos et al. (2020). Herein, lists of valid species of Dermaptera and Phasmatodea recorded from Brazil are presented, together with the type locality and depository of the types of these species. Discussions on distribution, authorship, and estimations are also provided.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The CTFB is available at http://fauna.jbrj.gov.br. The data on Dermaptera species were obtained from original descriptions, from the Dermaptera World Catalogue of Reichardt (1968a, 1968b, 1970, 1971a, 1971b), and from Steinmann (1990). For the Phasmatodea, the data were acquired also in original descriptions and from the Phasmida Species File Online (Brock et al. 2022, available at http://phasmida.speciesfile.org/HomePage/Phasmida/HomePage.aspx). The present list was updated until 26 April 2022. The species lists provided are taxonomically ranked and the tables are alphabetically ranked, and both are available as Supplementary Material S1 and S2. Species considered endemic are those so far recorded only from Brazil. In the tables, species with the “Biome” field filled with a dash (-) are those known only from “Brazil”, without further information on the specific location. Graphs and charts were made using the R software. Synonym lists of Dermaptera and Phasmatodea are also provided. These lists are alphabetically organized and the names are separated by family, with the valid taxon name being placed at the left margin, followed by their synonyms in subsequent lines; the synonyms are marked by indentation.

List of institutional acronyms: ANSP - Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA; CEIOC - Coleção Entomológica do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; CUMZ - Cambridge University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, England; CZIICT - Centro de Zoologia do Instituto de Investigação Científica Tropical, Lisboa, Portugal; CZMA - Coleção Zoológica do Maranhão, Caxias, Maranhão; DZUP - Coleção Entomológica Pe Jesus Santiago Moure, Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil; ETHZ - Zurich Entomological Collection, Zurich, Switzerland; FMNH - Finnish Museum of Natural History, Helsinki, Finland; HMNH - Hungarian Museum of Natural History, Budapest, Hungary; INPA - Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Manaus, Brazil; MDG - Musei di Genova, Genova, Italy; MELQ - Museu de Entomologia “Luiz de Queiroz”, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil; MHNG - Museum d’histoire naturelle Genève, Geneva, Switzerland; MLUH - Martin Luther Universität, Halle, Germany; MNHN - Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, France; MNMS - Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain; MNRJ - Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; MNRS - Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali di Torino, Turin, Italy; MPEG - Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém, Brazil; MSNG - Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “Giacomo Doria”, Genova, Italy; MVMA - Museum Victoria, Melbourne Museum, Melbourne, Australia; MZSP - Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; NHM - Natural History Museum, London, England. NHRS - Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm, Sweden; NMNH - Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., USA; NMW - Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria; PAS - Museum and Institute of Zoology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; RBINS - Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium; RMNH - Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, Netherlands; SMF - Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum Senckenberg, Frankfurt, Germany; SMNS - Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany; SNH - Senckenberg Natural History Collections, Museum of Zoology, Dresden, Germany; UFLA - Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras, Brazil; UFRPE - Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Camaragibe, Brazil; UFV - Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil; UMO - Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Oxford, England; UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Rio Claro, Brazil; ZIN - Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia; ZMHB - Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Berlin, Germany; ZMUH - Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Species number and types

Dermaptera: we recorded 117 valid species distributed in 43 genera and six families. There are 44 synonyms for species and 29 for genera (see Supplementary Material S1). The number of endemic species is 71 and the number of species that are not endemic is 46. Dermapteran species are distributed in Brazil as follows: there are 136 biome records for 108 species, while eight species lack biome records (Fig. 1A). The Atlantic Forest leads the rank with 81 records, followed by the Amazon Forest with 23, Caatinga with 15, Cerrado and Pantanal with nine each and Pampas with seven (Fig. 1A). The depository location of 78 types is known, whereas 39 types cannot be located (Appendix 1 , Supplementary Material S1). In the case of species that had their types located, 62 are holotypes and 16 are syntypes. Among the species represented by holotypes, 17 also had designated paratypes, which is also the number of recorded paratypes (Appendix 1, Supplementary Material S1). However, out of these 17 recorded paratypes, six are considered lost, meaning that only 11 Dermaptera paratypes are known (Appendix 1, Supplementary Material S1). The type specimens of Dermaptera are largely deposited and distributed among 15 European collections (totaling 62 species), followed by three Brazilian institutions (totaling 15 species), and two North American institutions (two species) (Appendix 1, Supplementary Material S1). The Brazilian MZSP houses the greatest number of Brazilian Dermaptera types in the world, with 12 species (Appendix 1, Supplementary Material S1).

thumbnail of Figure 1
Figure 1
Number of species by biome: (A) Dermaptera; (B) Phasmatodea.

Phasmatodea: we recorded 231 valid species distributed in 68 genera and five families (see Supplementary Material S2). There are 178 synonyms for species and 30 for genera. The number of endemic species is 190, while 41 species are not endemic. Phasmatodean species are distributed in Brazil as follows: there are 190 biome records for the 231 species, (Fig. 1B). Among the biome records, 106 are from the Atlantic Forest, 62 from the Amazon Forest, 21 from the Caatinga, 16 from the Cerrado, eight from the Pantanal, and two from the Pampa (Fig. 1B). The depository of types is known for 200 Brazilian Phasmatodea species, while 31 types cannot be located. Out of the species with located types, 143 are represented by holotypes, 42 by syntypes, and three by neotypes (Appendix 2 , Supplementary Material S2). Furthermore, 47 of these species also have secondary types: 17 are paralectotypes and 30 are paratypes (Appendix 2, Supplementary Material S2). Phasmatodea type-specimens are also largely deposited in European museums, with a total of 20 institutions housing types from 148 species, especially the NMW, which houses types from 48 species, and the NHM, with types from 23 species (Appendix 2, Supplementary Material S2). There are ten Brazilian institutions with Phasmatodea type specimens (totaling types from 58 species), with MELQ and MZSP leading with types from 24 and 31 species, respectively. In North America, the ANSP houses types of four species and the NMNH, one (Appendix 2, Supplementary Material S2).

It is important to note that the information assembled about dermapteran types has not been thoroughly verified since Reichard’s works. By “thoroughly verified” we mean that due to the inadequate number of specialists working with Dermaptera, especially from the 1990’s on, there is no recent confirmation of whether the types are in the same place as the alleged type location provided in original descriptions and catalogues. More recent contributions, such as those of Steinmann and Srivastava, for instance, reproduce data from the literature, as we do in the present work. It is likely that some data is outdated and authors should consider this when engaging in Dermaptera research. The list of Phasmatodea, on the other hand, is much more precise, due to the Phasmida Species File (Brock et al. 2022), a large collaboration of Phasmatodea taxonomists from around the world, presenting updated and verified information from specialists who have visited museums recently. However, our list shows some discrepancies with respect to the species listed in the Phasmida Species File.

In our Phasmatodea section, we list Creoxylus spinosus (Fabricius, 1775), Dinelytron grylloides Gray, 1835, and Parastratocles multilineatus (Rehn, 1904), which were recorded from Brazil by Heleodoro and Rafael (2019, 2020) and Heleodoro et al. (2017), respectively. Brock et al. (2022) stated that the distribution of D. grylloides is unknown. They provided distribution data for C. spinosus in Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana, and French Guiana and for P. multilineatus in Costa Rica and Panama. Furthermore, the Phasmida Species File (Brock et al. 2022) does not include the recently described Isagoras sobraliHeleodoro, 2022, which is listed herein. We deliberately excluded from our list species listed by Brock et al. (2022), namely Eurycnema versiruba (Audinet-Serville, 1838), Hermagoras hosei Kirby, 1896, Paradiacantha acanthocephala (de Haan, 1842), and Phobaeticus serratipes (Gray, 1835). These are all Asian species that were erroneously recorded from Brazil. Also, the Phasmida Species File lists Isagoras phlegyas as recorded from Brazil; however, the information on the species collection is “Brazil: Mte. Video” (Westwood 1859), which is much more likely to be an error. It is possible that the correct location is Montevideo, Uruguay. Hence, after considering these discrepancies, our list includes 231 species, whereas Brock et al. (2022) include 229.

Biomes

Both insect orders have a similar pattern of geographical records from Brazil: the Atlantic Forest represents 59.5% of the total geographical records for Dermaptera and 49.3% for Phasmatodea, followed by the Amazon Forest (16.9% Dermaptera, 28.8% Phasmatodea), Caatinga (11.0%, 9.7%), Cerrado (6.6%, 7.4%), Pantanal (6.6%, 3.7%), and Pampas (5.1%, 0.9%). This clear predominance of Atlantic Forest records may be explained by the distribution of research resources and institutions across Brazil. Brazil was discovered and colonized by Europeans starting from Atlantic Forest areas at the Northeast. Gradually, colonization expanded towards the Southeast. This trend prevailed and can be traced until present days. Marques and Lamas (2006) reported that 47.7% of the taxonomists from Brazil were settled in southeastern institutions, followed by 20.7% in the South, 14.2% in the Northeast, 13.3% in the North, and 4.1% in the Midwest. Consequently, collecting activities have been more intense in the Atlantic Forest since the colonial days, leading to a greater amount of collected specimens from this biome and thus to more described species.

The Amazon Forest coming second in number of records may be explained by the several expeditions that happened in this biome, led by European naturalists. A notorious example is the great adventure of Henry Walter Bates and Alfred Russel Wallace, who spent nearly eleven years collecting in the Amazon region in the mid-19th century. These expeditions brought several species to our knowledge, although their numbers were not comparable with the numbers of species from the previous decades of collecting in the Atlantic Forest. Surprisingly, even though 20.7% of the taxonomists who were working in Brazil back in 2006 were from sounthern institutions (Marques and Lamas 2006), the Pampas, a southern biome, is the least known for Dermaptera and Phasmatodea. Cerrado and Pantanal are in a similar situation.

There are several species recorded for “Atlantic Forest/Caatinga”, meaning that these records are dubious. In these cases, we only know the name of a general collection site that has both Atlantic Forest and Caatinga within their range. For instance, there are some species recorded from “Bahia”, one of the largest states of Brazil that encompasses different biomes. Thus, if some species can be more precisely located, it is possible that the number of records from the Atlantic Forest and Caatinga will change.

Species authorship

In the case of Dermaptera, the types of nearly one-third (39) of the species recorded from Brazil are missing. This can potentially hinder taxonomic research (descriptions of new taxa) and identification of Dermaptera species. The fact that not enough lectotypes have been designated for Dermaptera is a consequence of the shortage of specialists on the Brazilian fauna, which can be confirmed by the demography of taxonomists in Brazil. Dermaptera species were described by 34 authors, out of which only four were Brazilians. Brazilians were responsible for the description of 21 species (17.9%), whereas authors from other nationalities described 96 species (82.01%) (Fig. 2A). Surprisingly, the author who described the greatest number of Brazilian Dermaptera species was a Brazilian, Carlos Moreira, with 13 species described, followed by Malcom Burr and Carl August Dohrn tied in second place (ten species), Alan Brindle in third (eight species), Jean Guillaume Audinet-Serville, Alfredo Borelli, Samuel Scudder, Carl Stål, and Henrik Steinmann tied in fourth (six species), and Auguste de Bormans, William Kirby, and Joaquim Machado Filho tied in fifth (five species) (Fig. 2B).

thumbnail of Figure 2
Figure 2
Data on species authorship of Dermaptera: (A) demography in relation to nationality; (B) ranking of authors who described the highest numbers of earwig species, from first to last: Carlos Moreira in first place; Malcom Burr and Carl August Dohrn tied in second; Alan Brindle in third; Jean Guillaume Audinet-Serville, Alfredo Borelli, Samuel Scudder, Carl Stål, and Henrik Steinmann tied in fourth; Auguste de Bormans, William Kirby, and Joaquim Machado Filho tied in fifth.

Considering the Phasmatodea recorded from Brazil, the types of 31 species out of 231 described species are considered lost. This is a less complicated scenario when compared with Dermaptera. Lecto- and paralectotypes have been designated for 13 species, indicating a relatively high interest in the taxonomy of Phasmatodea species. This interest is evidenced by the significant number of authors working on the group, 62, out of which 12 are Brazilians and 50 are not. The Brazilian authors were responsible for the descriptions of 66 species (28.5% of the total) versus 164 proposed by non-Brazilians (Fig. 3A). Two Brazilians are also among the top five authors who described the greatest numbers of phasmatodean species (Fig. 3B); this ranking is as follows: Ludwig Redtenbacher (48 species), Salvador de Toledo Piza Jr. (42), John O. Westwood (19), Karl Brunner-von Wattenwyl (17), and Raphael A. Heleodoro (13).

thumbnail of Figure 3
Figure 3
Data on species authorship of Phasmatodea: (A) demography in relation to nationality; (B) ranking of authors who described the highest numbers of walking-sticks species, from first to last: Ludwig Redtenbacher, Salvador de Toledo Piza Jr., John O. Westwood, Karl Brunner-von Wattenwyl, and Raphael A. Heleodoro.

The numbers above are politically important for Brazilian scientists, because they may be taken as evidence to demonstrate that researchers from other countries have produced more knowledge about our fauna than we have. Brazilians have been responsible for less than 30% of the described species of Brazilian Phasmatodea and Dermaptera and are not amongst the most productive taxonomisits in these groups. Brazil needs to invest more on local research on these groups, and we suggest that our data is taken into account when evaluating grants that aim to study our Phasmatodea and Dermaptera fauna in more depth.

The rate of species descriptions of Dermaptera from Brazil followed a somewhat steady rhythm (Fig. 4). The first two species described were Forficula auricularia Linnaeus, 1758 and Labia minor (Linnaeus, 1758), followed by Labidura riparia (Pallas, 1773). There were few long-time gaps of no species described, with the longest gap (49 years) from the third species to the fourth - Doru lineare (Eschscholtz, 1822). Afterwards, the steady rhythm of new species descriptions was settled, with the longest gap with no new species from 2002 to 2017 (15 years), followed by the period 1918-1930 (12 years), 1937-1947 and 1992-2002 (both 10 years) (Fig. 4). The gaps of the 90’s and early 2000’s together represent a total of 25 years with no new species described, a worrying scenario since this is the period when the internet became gradually available to the general public (Fig. 4). The fact that data on Dermaptera species has become more easily accessible has not been enough to raise the interest of Brazilian taxonomists. The most significant period of new species descriptions for Dermaptera happened from 1838 to 1937, with an increase from 14 to 91 species, totaling 77 species described throughout nearly 100 years and representing almost two-thirds of all described species from Brazil. The pattern of species descriptions in Brazil may be explained by the few numbers of Dermaptera specimens collected over time. There are no specific methods for collecting earwigs efficiently (except for few specific cases, such as high amounts of Anisolabididae on pitfalls). Therefore, collecting efficacy depends on the active effort and experience of the collector. Due to their thigmotaxic tendency, these insects are very reclusive and often hide under tree bark, fallen trees, and rocks, or inside flowers or small holes along the height of a tree. Furthermore, having mastered the art of fleeing, when earwigs are uncovered from their shelters, they tend to quickly run and hide. Hence, collecting efforts on these insects generally lead to few numbers of collected specimens.

thumbnail of Figure 4
Figure 4
Distribution of the publications of Dermaptera species across time. Time gap* = period of time that had no descriptions of species.

The descriptions of new Phasmatodea species from Brazil were marked by large gaps of time with no publications at all, as well as large amounts of species being described in “short” periods of time (Fig. 5). The oldest Phasmatodea descriptions from Brazil are from Creoxylus spinosus Fabricius, 1775 and Paraphasma laterale (Fabricius, 1775). The longest time gap without new species being described happened from 1947 to 1973 (26 years), followed by other eight large gaps (chronologically): 1775-1792 (17 years), 1796-1812 (16), 1812-1827 (15), 1842-1859 (17), 1875-1889 (14), 1889-1904 (15), 1920-1936 (16), and 1985-2001 (16) (Fig. 3C). Between these gaps there were six periods of high amounts of new species described, chronologically: 1831-1838 (22 species), 1842-1875 (38), 1904-1920 (72), 1936-1947 (38), 1973-1985 (eight), and 2001-2022 (34). The pattern of Phasmatodea species descriptions in Brazil may be linked to several expeditions that brought specimens to European museums. This material was studied mainly by Redtenbacher (1906, 1908) and Brunner von Wattenwyl (1907), who together were responsible for the description of 65 species in two years.

thumbnail of Figure 5
Figure 5
Distribution of the publications of Phasmatodea species across time. Time gap* = period of time that had no descriptions of species; species cluster** = high amounts of species described clustered in a short period of time, between time gaps.

LITERATURE CITED

  • Araújo FF, Garraffoni ARS (2012) Synopsis of Phasmatodea (Insecta) Described from Brazil. EntomoBrasilis 5(3): 232-237. https://doi.org/10.12741/ebrasilis.v5i3.229
    » https://doi.org/10.12741/ebrasilis.v5i3.229
  • Beutel RG, Yavorskaya MI, Mashimo Y, Fukui M, Meusemann K (2017) The phylogeny of Hexapoda (Arthropoda) and Evolution of Megadiversity. Proceedings of Arthropodan Embryological Society of Japan 51: 1-15. http://aesj.co-site.jp/Vol51/2017_Vol.51_1.pdf
    » http://aesj.co-site.jp/Vol51/2017_Vol.51_1.pdf
  • Brock PD, Büscher T, Baker E (2022) Phasmida species file online. Version 5.0/5.0, 0, http://Phasmida.SpeciesFile.org [Accessed: 14/09/2022]
    » http://Phasmida.SpeciesFile.org
  • Brunner von Wattenwyl K (1907) Die Insektenfamilie der Phasmiden. Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, vol. 2, 340 pp.
  • Domenico FC (2005) Lista de tipos de Dermaptera e Orthoptera (Insecta) depositados no Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 45(7): 69-75. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0031-10492005000700001
    » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0031-10492005000700001
  • Haas F (2012) Dermaptera. In: Rafael JA, Melo GAR, Carvalho CJB, Casari SA, Constantino R (Eds) Insetos do Brasil: diversidade e taxonomia. Holos Editora, São Paulo, 297-305.
  • Heleodoro RA (2022) The first two cases of antisymmetry in the male genitalia of Phasmatodea reveal a new species of Isagoras Stål, 1875 (Phasmatodea: Pseudophasmatidae: Xerosomatinae) from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Zoologischer Anzeiger 296: 161-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2021.12.006
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2021.12.006
  • Heleodoro RA, Andreazze R, Rafael JA (2017) Redescription of Malacomorpha cancellata (Phasmatodea: Pseudophasmatidae): a geographically misplaced Neotropical species. Zoologia 34: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3897/zoologia.34.e20476
    » https://doi.org/10.3897/zoologia.34.e20476
  • Heleodoro RA, Rafael JA (2019) Is the Phasmatodea male genitalia useful for systematics? A case study in Creoxylus and Prexaspes (Insecta: Phasmatodea) from the Brazilian Amazon Basin. Zoologischer Anzeiger 278: 66-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2018.11.003
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2018.11.003
  • Heleodoro RA, Rafael JA (2020) Review of the genus Dinelytron Gray (Prisopodidae: Prisopodinae: Prisopodini), with a phylogenetic analysis of the genera of the Prisopodini, including the description of a new genus. Zoologischer Anzeiger 285: 37-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2020.01.005
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2020.01.005
  • Hopkins H, Michael DM, Fabian H, Lesley SD (2022) Dermaptera Species File. Version 5.0/5.0. http://Dermaptera.SpeciesFile.org [Accessed: 14/09/2022]
    » http://Dermaptera.SpeciesFile.org
  • Marques AC, Lamas CJE (2006) Taxonomia zoológica no Brasil: estado da arte, expectativas e sugestões de ações futuras. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 46(13): 141-174. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0031-10492006001300001
    » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0031-10492006001300001
  • Misof B, Liu S, Meusemann K, Peters RS, Donath A, Mayer C, et al. (2014) Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern of insect evolution. Science 346(6210): 763-767. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257570
    » https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257570
  • Redtenbacher J (1906) Die Insektenfamilie der Phasmiden . Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig , vol. 3, 180 pp.
  • Redtenbacher J (1908) Die Insektenfamilie der Phasmiden . Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig , vol. 3, 589 pp.
  • Reichardt H (1968a) Catalogue of New World Dermaptera (Insecta) Part I: Introduction and Pygidicranoidea. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 21(19): 183-193.
  • Reichardt H (1968b) Catalogue of New World Dermaptera (Insecta) Part II: Labioidea, Carcinophoridae. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 22(5): 35-46.
  • Reichardt H (1970) Catalogue of New World Dermaptera (Insecta) Part III: Labioidea, Labiidae. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 23(10): 83-109.
  • Reichardt H (1971a) Catalogue of New World Dermaptera (Insecta) Part IV: Forficuloidea. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 24(12): 161-184.
  • Reichardt H (1971b) Catalogue of New World Dermaptera (Insecta) Part V: Additions, Corrections, Bibliography and Index. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 24(18): 221-257.
  • Santos APM, Dumas LL, Henriques-Oliveira AL, Souza WRM, Camargos LM, Calor AR, Pes AMO (2020) Taxonomic Catalog of the Brazilian Fauna: order Trichoptera (Insecta), diversity and distribution. Zoologia 37: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3897/zoologia.37.e46392
    » https://doi.org/10.3897/zoologia.37.e46392
  • Srivastava GK (1995) On the classification of Spongiphoridae (= Labiidae) with a list of species. Zoological Survey of India 95(1-2): 71-105.
  • Srivastava GK (1999) On the higher classification of Anisolabididae (Insecta: Dermaptera) with a check-list of genera and species. Zoological Survey of India 97(1): 73-100.
  • Steinmann H (1986) H. Das Tierreich. In: Schultz FE (Ed.) Dermaptera. Catadermaptera I. Pygidicranidae. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, vol. 102, 1-336.
  • Steinmann H (1989a) World catalogue of Dermaptera. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 934 pp.
  • Steinmann H (1989b) Das Tierreich. In: Schultz FE (Ed.) Dermaptera. Catadermaptera II. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, vol. 105, 1-504.
  • Steinmann H (1990) Das Tierreich. In: Schultz FE (Ed.) Dermaptera. Eudermaptera I. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, vol. 106, 1-558.
  • Steinmann H (1993) Das Tierreich. In: Schultz FE (Ed.) Dermaptera. Eudermaptera II. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, vol. 108, 1-711.
  • Wipfler B, Letsch H, Frandsen PB, Kapli P, Mayer C, Bartel D, et al. (2019) Evolutionary history of Polyneoptera and its implications for our understanding of early winged insects. PNAS 116(8): 3024-3029. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817794116
    » https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817794116
  • Zompro O (2012) Phasmatodea. In: Rafael JA, Melo GAR, Carvalho CJB, Casari SA, Constantino R (Eds) Insetos do Brasil: diversidade e taxonomia . Holos Editora, São Paulo, 289-295.
  • Zompro O, Domenico FC (2005) Catalogue of the type material of Phasmatodea (Insecta) deposited in Brazilian museums. Iheringia, Série Zoologia 95(3): 255-259. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0073-47212005000300005
    » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0073-47212005000300005

ADDITIONAL NOTES

  • ZooBank register
    https://zoobank.org/7E51416A-733D-475D-85D7-DEF072672C01
  • How to cite this article
    Heleodoro RA, Rafael JA (2023) The taxonomic catalog of the Brazilian fauna: Dermaptera and Phasmatodea (Insecta), with commentaries on species list, types, authorship and distribution. Zoologia (Curitiba) 40: e22060. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-4689.v40.e22060
  • Published by
    Sociedade Brasileira de Zoologia at Scientific Electronic Library Online (https://www.scielo.br/zool)

Supplementary material 1

Supplementary S1. List of species and synomyms of the Dermaptera occurring in Brazil.

Authors: RA Heleodoro and JA Rafael

Data type: Species data.

Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.

Link: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-4689.v40.e22060

Supplementary material 2

Supplementary S1. List of species and synonyms of the Phasmatodea occurring in Brazil.

Authors: RA Heleodoro and JA Rafael

Data type: Species data.

Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.

Link: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-4689.v40.e22060

Appendix 1

Thumbnail
Appendix 1
Recorded species of Dermaptera in Brazil, alphabetically ordered. Records considered updates available until March 31, 2022.

Appendix 2

Thumbnail
Appendix 2
Recorded species of Phasmatodea in Brazil, alphabetically ordered. Records considered updates available until March 31, 2022.

Edited by

  • Editorial responsibility
    Gabriel L.F. Mejdalani

Publication Dates

  • Publication in this collection
    08 Dec 2023
  • Date of issue
    2023

History

  • Received
    28 Dec 2022
  • Accepted
    15 July 2023
Creative Common - by 4.0
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
location_on
Sociedade Brasileira de Zoologia Caixa Postal 19020, 81531-980 Curitiba PR Brasil, Tel./Fax: (55 41) 3266-6823 - Curitiba - PR - Brazil
E-mail: sbz@sbzoologia.org.br
rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS
Reportar erro