Genus Morphnodes Hebard, 1930

Type species: Epilampra vasta Walker, 1868, by original designation.

Remarks: The genus Morphnodes was described as closely related to Morphna, but differs from it as follows: “Pronotal disk with a weak to moderately developed impression latero-cephalad. Tegmina showing distinct distal truncation. Hind metatarsus biseriately spined ventrad.” (Hebard, 1930: 93). Later, Morpnodes was synonymized with Pseudophoraspis Kirby, 1903 by Princis (1958). It was argued that the type species of Morphnodes, E. vasta, belongs to the genus Pseudophoraspis as stated by Shelford (1910). It must be noted that Shelford (1910: 12) did not discuss the taxonomical position of E. vasta, but only listed this species under the genus Pseudophoraspis. In 1967 Princis listed E. vasta in the genus Rhabdoblatta Kirby, 1903 and placed Morphnodes in the synonymy of that genus without giving reasons (Princis, 1967).

Morphnodes goliath (Shelford, 1906), redescribed below, is similar to Morphna maculata, but differs from this and other representatives of the genus Morphna in the structure of the hind tarsi – a character mentioned by Hebard in the original description of the genus Morphnodes. Morphnodes goliath differs from Rhabdoblatta praecipua (Walker, 1868), the type species of the genus Rhabdoblatta (see redescription in Anisyutkin, 2014), and other species of this genus (Anisyutkin, 2000, 2003) in the presence of a well developed “dorsal outgrowth” of the apical part of sclerite L2D (Figs 56-61) and in the structure of fore and mid tarsi: presence of large euplantulae and absence of any spines (Figs 46-47). In all representatives of Rhabdoblatta known to the author all metatarsal euplantulae are small and apical. Morphnodes goliath is similar to representatives of the genus Pseudophoraspis in the presence of a “dorsal outgrowth” on the apical part of sclerite L2D, but differs from species of Pseudophoraspis in the shape of the “dorsal outgrowth”. In M. goliath the “dorsal outgrowth” is short and directed upward (Figs 56-61, d.o.), in contrast to the long and cranial-directed “dorsal outgrowth” of Pseudophoraspis species (see Anisyutkin, 1999; Wang et al., 2013). The head structure is also different: in species of Pseudophoraspis the facial part of the head has a distinct longitudinal impression (see Anisyutkin, 1999; Wang et al., 2013). The apical part of sclerite L2D in Pseudophoraspis fruhstorferi Shelford, 1910 and P. tramlapensis Anisyutkin, 1999 have no “dorsal outgrowth” (Anisyutkin, 1999; Wang et al., 2013), but these species probably belong to another genus.

Taking into account the aforementioned, I prefer to restore the genus Morphnodes from synonymy. To clarify the status of the genus Morphnodes, it is necessary to redescribe the type species, Epilampra vasta.

The genera Morphna and Morphnodes are similar in appearance and in the structure of the male genitalia. They are probably sister-groups with the following synapomorphies: (1) wide costal field of tegmina; (2) fore and mid tarsi with large euplantulae; (3) fore and mid tarsi with reduced spines; (4) “dorsal outgrowth” of apical part of sclerite L2D large and directed upward (large and directed cranially in Pseudophoraspis).

A species with a similar venation of the tegmina was described from the Paleocene (Vršanský et al., 2013).

In the catalogues of Princis (1967) and Beccaloni (2014) the date of publication of Hebard’s paper is incorrectly given. Volume 81 of the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia for the year 1929 was in fact published in 1930, as stated on the first page of the issue.

Included species: Morphnodes vasta Walker, 1868, M. imperatoria (Stål, 1877), M. goliath (Shelford, 1906), M. miranda (Shelford, 1906).