Table 1.
Hebardina concinna specimens collected for morphological study.
Table 2.
Sequences used for DNA Barcode analysis.
Figure 1.
Dotplots of Tegmen length vs Pronotum length and body length in Hebardina concinna.
These correlated characters form statistically non-overlapping groups in macropterous vs. brachypterous individuals. A. Tegmen length vs pronotum length; B. Tegmen length vs body length. Remarks: Triangle for male macropterous; circle for female macropterous; box for male brachypterous; star for female brachypterous.
Figure 2.
Overview of Hebardina concinna morphology clearly showing differences in wing length.
A–D. Macropterous. A.♂, dorsal view. B. ♂, ventral view. C. ♀, dorsal view. D. ♀, ventral view. E–H Brachypterous. E. ♂, dorsal view. F. ♂, ventral view. G. ♀, dorsal view. H. ♀, ventral view. I–J. First abdominal tergum. I. ♂, macropterous. J. ♂, brachypterous. K–L. hypandrium, dorsal view. K. ♂, macropterous. L. ♂, brachypterous. M–N. supra-anal plate, ventral view. M. ♂, macropterous. N. ♂, brachypterous. O–P. male genitalia, dorsal view. O. macropterous, P. brachypterous. Remarks: Arrow (←) indicate the medial tergal gland on the first abdominal tergum.
Figure 3.
Hebardina cocinna: primary morphological characters and macropterous vs. brachypterous wings and tegmina.
Wings and tegmina differ in macropterous and brachypterous Hebardina concinna whereas tarsi and abdominal morphology do not. A. macropterous, tegmen. B. brachypterous, tegmen. C. macropterous, wings. D. brachypterous, wings. E. hind tarsus from outside. F. hind tarsus from below. G. supra-anal plate, ventral view. H. hypandrium, ventral view.
Figure 4.
Male genital structures of Hebardina concinna.
A. left phallomere, dorsal view. B. left phallomere, ventral view. C. right phallomere, dorsal view. D. right phallomere, ventral view. (R for right, L for left, v for ventral, d for dorsal).
Table 3.
Results of t-tests for quantitative morphology.
Figure 5.
Distance matrix/neighbor joining phylogenetic tree based on 658 bp of aligned cockroach COI nucleotide sequences.
The maximum likelihood tree was topologically identical, although with differing branch lengths. Numbers on branches represent support from 1000 non-parametric bootstrap replicates for distance matrix-NJ analysis and maximum likelihood analysis, respectively. Missing numbers indicate branches with less than 50% support. This analysis clearly supports grouping of the five H. concina individuals as a single species.
Figure 6.
Distance matrix/neighbor joining phylogenetic tree based on 306 bp of aligned cockroach COII nucleotide sequences.
The maximum likelihood tree was topologically identical, although with differing branch lengths. Numbers on branches represent support from 1000 non-parametric bootstrap replicates for distance matrix-NJ analysis and maximum likelihood analysis, respectively. Missing numbers indicate branches with less than 50% support. This analysis clearly supports grouping of the five H. concina individuals as a single species.