Bioacoustics of Amynthas tokioensis

Remarks. These clearly parthenogenetic specimens resemble part of the Amynthas tokioensis (Beddard, 1892) species-complex as described by Blakemore (2003 ; 2010; 2012f). In the latest revision by Blakemore (2014) Amynthas tokioensis (Beddard, 1892) has the following synonyms:? schizopora ,? irregularis , levis,? parvicystis ;? verticosa all by Goto & Hatai, 1898 / 1899 ;? gucheonensis Song & Paik, 1970; jiriensis Song & Paik, 1971; surcata and verticosa Ishizuka, 1999;? paiki Hong in Hong, Lee & Kim, 2001;? yongshilensis ,? eastoni and? boletiformis by Hong & James, 2001 ; A. sonjaesiki Hong & James, 2009 (these last nine synonyms as per Blakemore, 2003 b: 43; 2006; 2008; 2010; 2012f; 2012g ); plus Amynthas conferticurtus Hong & James, 2009: 1241 species inquirendum and possible syn. nov.? Amynthas conferticurtus types (IV0000120468 H & 479 P) are not traceable in NIBR (pers. obs.) but it appears to be misdescribed in several key characters: e.g., the spermathecal pores are said to be on 7 and 8 (thus allegedly qualifying for an A. pomellus species group) however, they are shown in their fig. 7 to be in 6/7/8! Moreover the supposed genital markings on 7 and 8 are not shown in their fig. 7 (?). Its description appears indistinguishable from their subsequent A. sonjaesiki Hong & James, 2009 that was placed in synonymy of A. tokioensis by Blakemore (2010). Seemingly the A. conferticurtus name also belongs there. According to the description, it also appears to be similar to A. paiki Hong, 2001 or to A. fasciiformis Hong & James, 2001 and both are probably in an A. tokioensis species-group, if not also synonyms. The types of the other synonym, A. sonjaesiki Hong & James, 2009: 1243 ( types IV0000120469 H & 480 P) are also not traceable in NIBR (pers. obs.) but its markings resemble those claimed for A. conferticurtus . These authors need to fix these issues before they erect any further “new” names. Regarding the current specimens, it is surprising that the nearest BLAST similarity is only 88% for Metaphire vesiculata ( AB542689 from Tokyo , Okutama) or 88% for the M. soulensis matches noted above. Fig. 1 shows separation from taxa under consideration here. It may seem precipitous to put a new name to these specimens despite the lack of a genetic match, however it will hopefully provide an unambiguous starting point for conscientious resolution of all the earliest taxa noted above progressively by any concerned workers. Repeated searches by the senior author of the Tokyo environs for new topotypic material of Amynthas tokioensis have thus far been unsuccessful, although a record from nearby Hachioji is claimed in Genbank (accession AB542558 by Minamiya et al ., 2010, unpublished). If their identification is correct, this may provide the closest match to a topotype’s DNA. However, the current specimen HY8 vs. AB542558 of Hachioji=523/614 (85%) which is far removed and questions the close identity of either or both with “ Amynthas tokioensis ” proper (see Fig. 1 ).