The Wharton Lab

Neurogenia Roman, 1910: 179-180. Type species: Prionopoda testacea Szépligeti, 1908. Original designation.

Silavoga Cameron, 1911: 190. Type species: Silavoga longicornis Cameron, 1911. Monobasic. Synonymized by Townes (1970).

Perilissoides Uchida, 1932: 213. Type species: Perilissoides cubitalis Uchida, 1932. Monobasic and original designation. Synonymized by Townes (1970).

Additionally, the monobasic Incurvarion Kasparyan, 2008, originally described in the Mesochorinae, was indirectly moved here when the type species was transferred to Neurogenia by Reshchikov et al. (2014). We agree that the figures in Kasparyan (2008) show a typical Asian Neurogenia (see discussion on species groups in diagnosis section), but a formal transfer should be done through a peer-reviewed publication.

Yu et al. (2012) list 11 valid species and three new species were added by Reshchikov et al. (1914) and they also transferred another species, bringing the total to 15.

Neurogenia appendiculata (Tosquinet, 1896)
Neurogenia cubitalis (Uchida, 1932)
Neurogenia fujianensis He, 1985
Neurogenia hunanensis He and Tong, 1992
Neurogenia kamapura Reshchikov, 2014
Neurogenia kapuri Jonathan, 1974
Neurogenia laticeps Benoit, 1955
Neurogenia longicornis (Cameron, 1911)
Neurogenia ocellaris Benoit, 1955
Neurogenia shennongjiaensis He, 1985
Neurogenia testacea (Szepligeti, 1908)
Neurogenia tuberculata He, 1985
Neurogenia sayama Reshchikov, 2014
Neurogenia auco Reshchikov and van Achterberg, 2014
Neurogenia gorochovi (Kasparyan, 2008)

The collections in AEIC, CNC, and BMNH contain numerous individuals of this genus, representing several undescribed species. Some of these undescribed species were used in the expanded description given on this page since they have certain features not detailed in previously published descriptions Neurogenia.

Neurogenia is clearly defined as monophyletic on the basis of the peculiar fore wing venation (spur or tubercle on M+Cu, see Figs 1-3) and it may be possible to define distinct species groups on the basis of wing vein modifications. Townes (1970) stated that the modification of M+CU was located distad the middle, but subsequent discovery of additional species reveals that placement is variable, though always at or near the middle. The male parameres of some (though not all) species are distinctive (Fig. 4) and reminiscent of those in the Mesochorinae.

Two primary species groups are evident, one Asian and one Afrotropical. Asian Neurogenia have 1M bowed strongly towards the distal end of the wing (Figs 2, 3), whereas this is only rarely seen in Afrotropical species where the vein is straight (Fig. 1) or variously sinuate. A third species group is represented by Neurogenia kapuri in which the head sculpture is remarkably fine relative to other species of the genus. Neurogenia kapuri is also noteworthy for the presence of a distinct, dorsal, subapical notch on the ovipositor. It is the only known species with this feature. Otherwise, the cerci are shorter in the Asian and kapuri species groups than in the Afrotropical species group; the longest hind tibial spur is relatively longer in the Asian species group than in the other two groups, and there are also more subtle differences in the length of the parameres, the origin of the radial sector from the stigma and the shape of the first subdiscal cell in these three species groups.

Perilissoides is an available name for the Asian species with strongly bowed and often thickened fore wing 1M, should subgenera eventually be recognized. We do not advocate subgenera at this time because there are a few species that seem to be intermediate between the more typical Afrotropical Neurogenia and the distinctive Asian species and also because there are a large number of undescribed species.

The defining feature traditionally used for Neurogenia, the modified M+Cu, is quite variable. In the type species, as well as in several other species from the Afrotropical Region, the modification is in the form of a distinct spur, as shown in Fig. 1. Nearly all of the Asian species and at least a few of the Afrotropical species lack a distinctive spur and instead the vein is thickened into a tubercle as in Figs 2 and 3. The tubercle is often thickened and somewhat elevated, but in some species it is more linear. In some of the undescribed Afrotropical species that we have seen, the thickening is barely indicated and these species are therefore not readily differentiated from Lathrolesthes.

The details of the shape of the petiole and glymma plus the nature of the relationship between the occipital and hypostomal carina ventrally align Neurogenia with Lathrolestes and other related genera within the Perilissini.

Clypeus somewhat elliptic, weakly separated from face by broad, shallow, indistinct epistomal sulcus (Figs 3-5); nearly flat in profile; apical margin thickened and weakly convex to more or less truncate over medial 0.4-0.6, outer margin of thickened portion with an irregular row of low, rounded bumps (Figs 3, 4); apical margin thin and recurved laterally (Figs 3, 4). Anterior tentorial pits large, elliptical, with narrow, distinctly impressed groove from lateral margin of pit to base of mandible. Mandible (Figs 3-5) distinctly longer than broad; outer face flattened basally, curved apically with apical portion somewhat reflected so that the dorsal margin is angled towards the clypeus relative to the ventral margin; ventral tooth about twice length of dorsal tooth, both well-developed. Malar space (Figs 3, 4) short, sometimes absent, interspecifically variable because eye in male often larger than eye in female (Figs 6, 7); when malar space present, malar sulcus absent. Occipital carina complete dorsally, extending ventrally to mandible as a well-defined ridge; hypostomal carina appears widely separated from occipital carina at base of mandible, but actually curves along base of head capsule to join occipital carina usually at ventral condyle of mandible (Fig. 2). Antenna at least as long as body, often distinctly longer; flagellomeres distinctly longer than wide; first flagellomere 1.2-1.35 times longer than second, with distinct patch of tyloids at extreme base on outer side. Ocelli variable in size, with maximum diameter of lateral ocellus less than, equal to, or much greater than distance between ocellus and eye margin. Frons weakly depressed medially between bases of antennae and median ocellus, without median vertical projections. Pronotum dorsally with broad, transverse groove; pronotal collar with posterior margin indented mid-dorsally due to strongly protruding, chevron-shaped anterior margin of mesoscutum; pronotum laterally with anterior margin thin, sharp, and straight or nearly so, not obviously sinuate; not or only very weakly inflated below mesoscutal suture; epomia varying from long and distinct throughout (Fig. 8) to short, not extending in either direction much beyond vertical groove (Fig. 7). Notaulus at most represented by a faint impression anteriorly. Scutellum carinately margined basally, but usually only at extreme base. Epicnemial carina well-developed, dorsal end distant from and not curved towards anterior margin of mesopleuron; mesopleuron with groove extending from mesopleural fovea to dorsal end of epicnemial carina; subtegular ridge thin, sharp throughout, protruding at a right angle from mesopleuron; posterior margin of mesopleuron crenulate above and below mesopleural fovea. Metapleuron as in Fig. 14. Propodeum (Figs 14, 15) completely carinate in most species; lateral longitudinal carina complete from apex to base; lateromedian carina often complete but occasionally effaced or greatly weakened medially and/or anteriorly, in which case areola incomplete; median apical area often with an additional median carina; basal and apical transverse carinae usually well defined (basal transverse carina absent medially in a few species), extending between fully developed pleural carinae; surface of propodeum varying from rugulose to polished and unsculptured; trough along anterior margin wide, narrowing slightly but remaining deep and distinct between apices of median and lateral longitudinal carinae (anterior rim of propodeum thus distinctly separate from posterior rim of metanotum in this area). Legs, including hind femur, slender; hind tibial spurs unequal, longest spur slender, 0.25-0.45 times length of basitarsus; apex of hind tibia posteriorly with dense comb of setae; apex of mid tibia lacking distinct tooth characteristic of anterior tibia; tarsal claws sparsely but distinctly pectinate. Fore wing stigma wedge-shaped to nearly hemi-elliptical, RS+2r arising near midpoint (position varying among species); M+CU near its middle either tuberculate (with a thickened bulge) or with a short, anteriorly-directed spurious vein; basal vein (1M) either evenly bowed distally, and usually thickened, or straight to weakly sinuate, never evenly bowed basally as in most other ctenopelmatine genera; areolet nearly always (95%) present, petiolate, with 3rs-m bowed; second recurrent vein (2m-cu) with a single bulla, often occupying most of anterior half of vein; 1cu-a usually postfurcal, more rarely antefurcal; 1A straight throughout; 2A rarely a discrete vein, usually represented only by a broad basal smudge. Hind wing M+CU weakly arched; first abscissa of CU1 commonly very distinctly shorter than 1cu-a; 1cu-a reclivous, rarely vertical when very short. T1 with spiracle at midlength; heavily sclerotized portion of sternum extending to end of deepest portion of glymma but not to spiracle, weakly separated from but not fused to tergum; glymma deep and broad within basal third of petiole, the two sides of the pit separated by a thin, translucent sclerite, glymma tapering anteriorly to base and posteriorly to ventral margin, the groove subtended by a carina terminating posteriorly about level of spiracle; extreme base of petiole flat dorsally, without depression; dorsal-lateral margin very sharp from base to middle of dorsal margin of glymma, from there gradually rounding to spiracle; dorsal-lateral carina absent posteriorad spiracle. T2 and T3 not or only indistinctly punctate, otherwise unsculptured; T2 thyridium and gastrocoeli absent; epipleura of T2 and most of T3 usually separated by a sharp crease from the median tergite. Cercus about 2-3 times longer than wide. Subgenital plates of male and female with apical margins simple. Dorsal notch of ovipositor nearly always a broad, weak depression that is somewhat indistinct (Fig. 19); only very rarely with a distinct notch. Male parameres long (Fig. 17), often very long and narrow (Fig. 18); aedeagus rounded, knob-like apically.

This description is greatly expanded from Townes (1970), and is based on both described and undescribed species, mostly from AEI, BMNH, CNC, and TAMU. An earlier version from this website was used by Reshchikov et al. 1914.

Old World: India, Vietnam, Japan, China (including Taiwan), and Afrotropical (Benin, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and South Africa) (Yu et al. 2012, Reshchikov et al. 1914). Additional specimens were examined during this study from Nigeria and Nepal (CNC: Canadian National Collection); Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Gambia, Madagascar, Nepal, Uganda, and Zambia (BMNH: The Natural History Museum, London); Malaysia, Sierra Leone, and Uganda (AEI: American Entomological Institute). AEI and BMNH also have specimens from other countries previously recorded in addition to those mentioned that are new country records.

Hosts unknown. Described Afrotropical species are pale in coloration and are thus likely to be nocturnal.

This page was assembled by Bob Wharton as part of a larger collaborative effort on the genera of Ctenopelmatinae, and as part of a study of this genus prepared by Heather Cummins and Bob Wharton. The work is based on specimens in the Texas A&M University collection as well as material borrowed from China, MRAC, CNC, BMNH, and AEI. We are particularly grateful to Xue-xin Chen for assistance in making the Chinese specimens available for examination as well as David Wahl, Andy Bennett, Gavin Broad, and Eliane De Coninck. This work would also not have been possible without the groundwork provided by Ian Gauld’s study of the Australian and Costa Rican faunas, and we are particularly grateful for his assistance in many aspects of this study. We thank David Wahl for useful feedback throughout our study and to Gavin Broad for exchange of information on Perilissini. Matt Yoder provided considerable assistance with databasing issues, and our use of PURLs (http://purl.oclc.org) in this regard follows the example of their use in publications by Norm Johnson. Heather Hendrickson, Lauren Ward, Mika Cameron, Danielle Restuccia, Aubrey Colvin, and Cheryl Hyde graciously assisted with image capture, processing, formatting, and literature retrieval. Page last updated November, 2014.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DEB 0328922 with REU supplements DEB 0723663 and number 1026618.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.