Bioacoustics of Gryllus (Gryllus) locorojo

Figs 14–16 , 54 , 62, Table 1 2012 Gryllus locorojo Weissman & Gray. Zootaxa 3504: 67–88. Type locality: USA : California , Los Angeles Co. , Compton , Rainbow Mealworms. Type deposited in CAS , Entomology type #18657. Distribution. Known only from pet food stores and commercial cricket farms in North America, Europe, and western Asia. Original locality still unknown, but most likely somewhere in South America, perhaps Ecuador ( Weissman et al. 2012 ). Recognition characters and song. Body size medium-large, long or short hind wings, reddish/brownish colored ( Fig. 14 ), head frequently with three or four longitudinal stripes. Song variable ( Figs 15 , 16 ; R 12–3 ), usually 2 (range 1–3) p/c, less than 1 chirp/second, PR 25–42 at 25°C. Discussion. We repeat here the same concerns as under G. bimaculatus . As discussed in Weissman et al . (2012) , this is one of two non-native Gryllus (the other being G. bimaculatus ) that was being commercially raised in the US , in 2012, and shipped to US pet food stores for sale to the general public. Such activities will invariably result in the release, either by accident or on purpose, of this species into the environment, similar to what has probably occurred with Acheta domesticus (Weissman et al. 1980) . The effect of such releases is unknown, as is whether or not these crickets can survive and multiply outside of commercial farms. We discussed ( Weissman et al . 2012 ) why oversight by federal and state regulatory agencies is inadequate and suspect that such surveillance has only gotten worse, since 2012, given continued tightening US federal budgets and malaise from both state and federal regulators. Additionally, we have no idea what the current commercial status is for these two non-native species because they are more aggressive and cannibalistic than the replaced A. domesticus , and tend to bite the lizard they are being fed to. Thus, the pet-food industry may be voluntarily replacing G. locorojo with the ecologically preferred ( Weissman et al . 2012 ) Gryllodes sigillatus . We present G. locorojo here in case they establish feral populations encountered by inquiring biologist. Similar concerns were presented by Barranco (2012) , who discussed the possible invasive situation of “ G. assimilis ” , which was being sold for pet food in Spain . As discussed in Weissman et al . (2012) , this is probably G. locorojo , although inquiries to P. Barranco, in 2013 and 2014 , as to the number of p/c in the calling song of their cricket, which would easily distinguish true G. assimilis from G. locorojo , went unanswered. G. locorojo has been used for studies on calling song and phonotactic selectivity ( Rothbart & Hennig 2012 ) as well as courtship song ( Vedenina & Pollack 2012 ). DNA. Multilocus G2159, from a commercial pet food store, maps ( Fig. 6 , p. 28 ) this species closest to G. assimilis and G. multipulsator , despite very different calling songs between G . locorojo and the other two species. However, as noted in Weissman et al. (2019) , courtship songs of these three species are similar in having a doubletick structure unlike any other US Gryllus for which courtship song is known to us.

Remarks. Biology unknown. No apparent diapause when raised under commercial conditions of 28°C, 40% relative humidity, and an 11 hour light/13 hour dark cycle. In Europe this previously unrecognized cricket has long been known as “ G. assimilis ” or the “brown silent cricket.” In Denmark , it is called the “Steppe cricket” (T. Valentin pers. comm. to DBW, January, 2012). In Russia , it is called the “banana cricket” ( Shestakov & Vedenina 2012 ). Its DNA ( Fig. 6 ) and song are very different from true G. assimilis (see above). According to Varvara Vedenina, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow (pers. comm. to DBW, January, 2012): “The cricket culture under the name “ Gryllus assimilis ” came to the Moscow Zoo from the Berlin Zoo in the beginning of the 1990s. No details are known. A bit later, in 1997, the cricket eggs under the name “ Gryllus argentinus ” came from Paris Museum of Natural History to St. Petersburg. These eggs definitely originated from Ecuador , since French colleagues returned from an expedition there. Both cultures appear to be identical.” Unfortunately, Dr. Vedenina was unable to get more information from the Paris Museum of Natural History about the origin of their eggs.