a2275ff2f8e9703d727d80116d5218d73e8c
a2275ff2f8e9703d727d80116d5218d73e8c
a2275ff2f8e9703d727d80116d5218d73e8c
doi: 10.3897/BDJ.11.e102637
Citation: Greyvenstein B, van den Berg J, du Plessis H (2023) Documenting Mantodea species in South African
museum collections and an updated species list. Biodiversity Data Journal 11: e102637.
https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.11.e102637
Abstract
Background
The previous species list of South African Mantodea, published in 1998, was largely
compiled from the literature and did not incorporate data from the many insect museum
collections available in the country. It is estimated that approximately 120 species of
Mantodea occur in South Africa; however, since no historical museum records were
previously incorporated, the current information is considered to be outdated and not a true
reflection of the Mantodea fauna within this region. A checklist of species is an important
benchmark for any insect group, especially in light of the worldwide declines of insect
diversity reported over the last decade. Checklists that provide accurate information on
insect diversity, especially for groups, such as the Mantodea which could be under threat
and thus could provide important information that can be used in determining the threat
status of species, as well as to aid in their conservation in general.
New information
This paper provides an updated checklist of the praying mantids (Insecta, Mantodea)
species of South Africa. While 120 species were previously reported to occur in South
© Greyvenstein B et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source
are credited.
2 Greyvenstein B et al
Africa, this paper reports 157 species in 64 genera that represent eight different
superfamilies, 14 families and 22 subfamilies. Additionally, five species are reported for the
first time to occur in South Africa. This species list was generated from the approximately
4000 specimen records of which 3558 records reside within South Africa. The remaining
732 records represent 14 other African countries. Occurrence records from two citizen-
science platforms (iNaturalist and Gbif.org), were also incorporated in this study, adding
1880 species records in South Africa. The low number of specimens in the national
collections indicate that this group of insects is poorly collected and highlights the lack of
knowledge about South Africa’s mantid fauna, as well as a lack of taxonomic expertise as
1532 museum specimens remain unidentified to species level.
Keywords
diversity, mantids, museum, species and South Africa
Introduction
Until recently, the Mantodea Order consisted of approximately 24 families with 2400
species (Wieland and Schutte 2012, McMonigle 2013, Wieland 2013, Green 2014). The
classification system has recently been revised and the Mantode Order now composed of
16 superfamilies, 29 families and 436 different genera (Schwarz and Roy 2019).
Approximately 120 species of Mantodea were reported to occur in South Africa (Schoeman
1985a, Schoeman 1985b), when the previous species list was compiled between 1996 and
1998 (Kaltenbach 1996, Kaltenbach 1998). Kaltenbach (1996) estimated that there were
approximately 131 Mantodea species in South Africa and that 19% of these species were
endemic. Ehrmann (2002) estimated a total of 125 species within the region. Beyond the
abovementioned checklist information, very little is known of South African Mantodea
biology and ecology. A 2023 Scopus (www.scopus.com) internet search of published
scientific papers indicated that between 1927 and 2023, 792 papers were published on
Mantodea worldwide. However, only 15 of these publications were from institutions in
South Africa, seven of which belong to the authors of this paper and two papers were the
previous checklist from Kaltenbach (1996), Kaltenbach (1998). The remaining papers
conducted on Mantodea in South Africa all addressed molecular and genetic aspects and,
in some of these cases, it was actually Blattodea that were investigated. Studies on the
biology and distribution of mantids throughout the world are limited and, in South Africa,
largely absent.
It is possible that many mantid species in the southern African region have not been
documented yet. The only surveys of Mantodea in South Africa were done by Kaltenbach
(1996) and the Mantodea Project which was done in collaboration with the Cleveland
Museum of Natural history in Ohio, USA (Svenson et al. 2012). However, no species list
from the latter survey was published. The latter survey was done during 2005 and only
Documenting Mantodea species in South African museum collections and an ... 3
included three regions within South Africa (Cape floristic region, Richards Bay in KwaZulu-
Natal Province, and the Kruger National Park in Mpumalanga Province).
This paper, compiled from museum records and previous checklists by Kaltenbach (1996),
Kaltenbach (1998), contributes to the information on Mantodea in South Africa and
identifies the knowledge gaps with regards to mantids in South Africa.
Figure 1.
An example of Mantodea museum specimens in a collection which were identified (including
genitalia plates if applicable per species) by various taxonomists. These specimens were
amongst those used to compile the species list in this paper.
Furthermore, a small subset of South African Mantodea were identified by Nicolas Moulin,
Honorary Associate at Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle in France, during 2019.
Unidentified specimens that were encountered in the abovementioned museums were
4 Greyvenstein B et al
identified by means of the literature and through assistance from a taxonomist who
specializes in African Mantodea (Nicolas Moulin). Many Mantodea specimens in South
African collections have only been identified to genus level. These "ignota specimens"
(approximately 1600) were, therefore, not included in this checklist. However, they are
included in the database itself (available in Suppl. material 1).
In order to compile this database, all of the Mantodea specimens and distribution labels
were photographed and the label information documented. This database contains the
following information for each specimen record: genus and species name, collector’s
details, collection date, if available, and locality. The website mantodeaspeciesfile.org (Otte
et al. (2022) as well as other literature on specific species, such as those by Ehrmann
(2002), Roy (2004), Roy (2006), Roy (2009), Roy (2010), Roy (2013), Roy (2018), Roy
(2022) were used to determine the current nomenclature. The reclassification of the Order
Mantodea by Schwarz and Roy (2019) was also applied during the updating of this
checklist. The updated species list was compared to that provided in publications by
Kaltenbach (1996), Kaltenbach (1998) after which similarities and differences were
highlighted.
To our knowledge, this paper provides the most comprehensive list of Mantodea in South
African collections. Since only a limited number of Mantodea specimens of 14 other African
countries were present in South African museum collections, these records were not
included in this paper. The scope of this study, did however not allow for vistits to museums
residing outside of South Africa, which is required when the latter information is used to
compile comprehensive Mantodea species lists for these African countries. However, to
increase the comprehensiveness of this checklist, various European and American
museum collections were contacted and provided information on South African Mantodea
in their collections. These museums were: The Natural History Museum, (Italy);
Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (USA), Museum für Naturkunde
(Germany), Natural History Museum (UK), Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde (Germany),
Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (Belguim) and the Muséum national d’Histoire
naturelle (France). Data from Mantodea specimens in a private collection in Germany
(Christian Schwarz), as well as records relevant Gbif.org records within South Africa were
also included in this study.
This species list includes information on the taxonomists who identified the species in the
South African museum collections and is indicated for each species by the “ID” tag, as well
as the year in which the specimen was identified (if available). Furthermore, the hosting
museum collection of each specimen is also included in brackets (). A list of abbreviations
for the various institutions and collections are provided in Table 1. Specimens that are not
held locally, or for which only literature records exist, are indicated under the ID tag column
in the checklist as with the abbreviation "Lit" with the reference to the relevant publications.
The number of records in the various collections in South Africa, as well as the number of
Research Grade observation records of the species listed on the two citizen-science
platforms, are provided in Suppl. material 1. It should be noted that no details of the
persons who provided identifications of species listed on the citizen-science platforms are
listed in the checklist. This will be addressed in the Discussion section of the paper.
Documenting Mantodea species in South African museum collections and an ... 5
Table 1.
List of abbreviations for the museums and collections in which the Mantodea specimen are hosted.
Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Tartu, EMÜ
Estonia
Table 2.
Abbreviations of country names listed in the section describing the distribution of different
Mantodea species recorded in South Africa.
Results
This updated checklist includes information on species of the Mantodea that were not
previously listed in South African checklists. The known species richness has increased
from approximately 120 species in 1998 to 157 species (this report). The South African
Mantodean fauna have eight superfamilies, 14 families, 22 subfamilies, 19 tribes, 14
subtribes and 15 genera (Suppl. material 2). A summation of the number of records and
species within these 14 families is presented in Fig. 2.
Documenting Mantodea species in South African museum collections and an ... 7
Figure 2.
Summary of the number of species and number of records per Mantodea family recorded in
South Africa.
This checklist encompasses 157 Mantodea species that occur, or are reported to occur in
South Africa, including the first report of five species within the region (indicated with two
asterisks ** in the notes section of each species). However, some anomalies were
recorded (indicated by # in the notes section of each species). These anomalies are
addressed in the Discussion section of this paper.
Distribution: MOZ
8 Greyvenstein B et al
Distribution: ZIM
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, A. Kaltenbach 1992;1989. (DNMNH, IZIKO)
Distribution: CA, LS
Documenting Mantodea species in South African museum collections and an ... 9
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925 & A. Kaltenbach 1982. (BOLD, DNMNH, IZIKO)
Distribution: ZIM
Notes: ID: Dep. H.D. Brown 1963, M. Beier 1963. (ARC, DNMNH)
Distribution: LS
Notes: ID: Dep. A. Kaltenbach 1989 & A.J. Hesse. (DNMNH, IZIKO)
Distribution: NAM
Notes: ID: Dept. A. Kaltenbach 1989, M. Beier 1925, R. Erhmann & F. Werner.
(DNMNH, NRM, SMNK)
10 Greyvenstein B et al
Distribution: MOZ, TZ
Distribution: LS
Distribution: TZ
Distribution: ZIM
Notes: ID: Dep. A. Kaltenbach 1984;1991 & M. Beier 1952. (ARC, DNMNH, IZIKO)
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952, A. Kaltenbach 1985 & N. Moulin 2018. (DNMNH, NRM)
Distribution: NAM
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952 & A. Kaltenbach 1985. (DNMNH, IZIKO)
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, M. Beier 1952, R. Roy 1977, A. Kaltenbach 1984,
R. Erhmann & N. Moulin 2018. (ARC, DNMNH, IZIKO, NMSA, SMNK, PC_CS)
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, A. Kaltenbach 1989, A.J. Hesse, C. Schwarz & R.
Erhmann. (DNMNH, IZIKO, SMNK, PC_CS)
Distribution: ZIM
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952, A. Kaltenbach 1989, R. Ehrmann 1991 & A. Kaltenbach
1992 (ARC, DNMNH)
14 Greyvenstein B et al
Notes: ID: Dep. R. Roy 1977, A. Kaltenbach 1984, A.J. Hesse, M.B.D. Stiewe 2003 &
R. Ehrmann. (ARC, DNMNH, IZIKO, SMNK)
Distribution: DRC, TZ
Notes: ID: Dep. M.B.D. Stiewe & N. Moulin 2018. (ARC, NMSA, NMB) **
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952, R. Roy 1962, A. Kaltenbach 1984 & F. Werner. (ARC,
DNMNH, IZIKO, NRM)
Distribution: NAM
Distribution: TZ
Distribution: NAM
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, A. Kaltenbach 1984, R. Ehrmann 1991 & A.
Kaltenbach 1992. (ARC, DNMNH, IZIKO, NRM).
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952 & A. Kaltenbach 1984; 1992. (ARC, DNMNH)
Distribution: ZIM
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952, A. Kaltenbach 1989, A.J. Hesse, N. Moulin 2018 & R.
Ehrmann. (DNMNH, IZIKO, NRM, SMNK)
Distribution: DRC, TZ
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, A. Kaltenbach 1991, R. Erhmann 1991, H.D.
Brown. (ARC, DNMNH, SMNK)
Notes: ID: Dep. A. Kaltenbach 1991, A.J. Hesse, B.P. Uvarov, R. Ehrmann & F. Werner.
(DNMNH, IZIKO, NMSA, SMNK, NRM)
Notes: ID: Dep. A. Kaltenbach 1984; 1991 & C. Schwarz. (ARC, DNMNH, PC_CS)
Distribution: DRC
Distribution: MOZ
Distribution: ZIM
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, A. Kaltenbach 1989 & B.P. Uvarov. (DNMNH,
IZIKO, NMSA)
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952, R. Roy 1977 & A. Kaltenbach 1989. (ARC, DNMNH,
IZIKO, NMSA)
Documenting Mantodea species in South African museum collections and an ... 19
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952 & F. Werner. (DNMNH, IZIKO, NRM)
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952 & A. Kaltenbach 1992. (DNMNH, IZIKO, NRM)
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, R. Roy 1976, R. Ehrmann 1991 & N. Moulin 2018.
(ARC, DNMNH, IZIKO, NRM)
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952, H.D. Brown 1963, A.J Hesse & R. Erhmann. (ARC,
DNMNH, IZIKO, SMNK)
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925 & H.D. Brown 1953. (ARC, DNMNH)
Notes: ID: Dept. R. Roy 1976 & A.J.Hesse. (DNMNH, IZIKO, NMB)
Notes: ID: Dep. R. Roy 1976, A.J.Hesse, C. Schwarz & R. Erhmann. (DNMNH, IZIKO,
SMNK, PC_CS)
Documenting Mantodea species in South African museum collections and an ... 21
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, R. Roy 1977, A. Kaltenbach 1984, R. Erhmann
1991, C. Schwarz & B.P. Uvarov. (AMG, ARC, CMNH, DNMNH, IZIKO, PC_CS)
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, M. Beier 1952, A. Kaltenbach 1985 & A.J. Hesse.
(NRM, IZIKO, DNMNH, ARC)
Notes: ID: Dept. M. Beier 1952 & A Kaltenbach 1985; 1991. (ARC, DNMNH)
Distribution: NAM
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925 & A. Kaltenbach 1989. (DNMNH, IZIKO)
Distribution: AL, AG, BF, CAM, ET, KN, LI, MDG, NAM, SM, TZ, CD, TU, IN
Notes: ID: Dep. R. Roy 1977, A. Kaltenbach 1998, M.B.D. Stiewe, R. Erhmann, C.
Schwarz, A.J Hesse, H.D. Brown. (ARC, DNMNH, IZIKO, NMB, SMNK, PC_CS)
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1916, R. Roy 1977, B.P. Uvarov & A.J. Hesse. (AMG,
DNMNH, DNSM, IZIKO, NMSA, NRM)
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925 & R. Roy 1976. (DNMNH, IZIKO)
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952, R. Roy 1966; 1976, A. Kaltenbach 1984 & B.P. Uvarov.
(ARC, DNMNH, IZIKO, NMSA)
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, M. Beier 1952, R. Roy 1966 & A. Kaltenbach 1984.
(DNMNH, IZIKO)
24 Greyvenstein B et al
Distribution: ZAM
Distribution: AG, DRC, ET, KN, MAL, MOZ, TN, ZB, ZAM, ZIM
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925 & A. Kaltenbach 1998. (ARC, AMG, DNMNH, IZIKO,
NRM)
Documenting Mantodea species in South African museum collections and an ... 25
Distribution: AG, CAM, DRC, ET, GH, GU, KN, MDG, MOZ, NAM, SM, SU, TZ, TG,
UG, ZIM
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, M. Beier 1952, R. Roy 1977, A. Kaltenbach 1985;
1988 & B.P. Uvarov. (AMG, ARC, DNMNH, IZIKO, NMSA, NRM)
Distribution: DRC, ET, ES, KN, MAL, NAM, SM, TZ, UG, ZIM
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, M. Beier 1952, R. Roy 1977, M.B.D. Stiewe & B.P.
Uvarov. (ARC, DNMNH, NMSA, IZIKO, NMSA, NRM)
Distribution: AG, CAM, DRC, GH, GN, MOZ, NAM, TG, ZIM
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, R. Roy 1977, B.P. Uvarov, & F. Werner. (AMG,
DNMNH, IZIKO, EMÜ, NMSA, NMB, NRM)
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1923, H.D. Brown 1963, A. Kaltenbach 1991 & M. Beier.
(ARC, DNMNH, IZIKO)
Notes: ID: Dep. Rehn 1926, A. Kaltenbach 1992, G.A.K. Marshall, A.J. Hesse, B.P.
Uvarov, R. Erhmann & R. Roy. (DNMNH, IZIKO, NMSA, NRM, SMNK)
Distribution: Afro-Eurasia
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, A. Kaltenbach 1985 & N. Moulin 2018. (ARC,
BOLD, DNMNH, IZIKO, NMB, NHMUK)
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, A. Kaltenbach 1985, M.B.D. Stiewe & B.P. Uvarov.
(ARC, DNMNH, IZIKO, DNSM, NMSA, NRM)
Notes: ID: Dep. R. Roy 1966 & A. Kaltenbach 1984. (DNMNH, NRM)
Documenting Mantodea species in South African museum collections and an ... 27
Distribution: CAM, UG
Notes: ID: Dep. R.Roy & A. Kaltenbach 1991. (DNMNH, IZIKO, NRM)
Notes: ID: Dep. A. Kaltenbach 1984; 1988, N. Moulin 2018 & B.P. Uvarov. (ARC, AMG,
DNMNH, NMSA, IZIKO, NMSA, NRM)
Distribution: AG, CAM, CV, DRC, ET, GB, GN, KN, LB, MDG, NAM, SY, TZ, UG, ZB,
ZIM
Notes: ID: J.A.G. Rehn 1925, M. Beier 1952, R. Roy 1977, Dep. A. Kaltenbach 1985;
1988, M.B.D. Stiewe & B.P. Uvarov. (ARC, BOLD, DNMNH, IZIKO, NMSA, NRM)
Distribution: ZIM
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, R.Roy 1977 & C. Schwarz. (AMG, DNMNH,
PC_CS)
Distribution: AG, DRC, ET, KN, MAL, MOZ, UG, TZ, ZIM
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952 & A. Kaltenbach 1992. (ARC, DNMNH, IZIKO)
Distribution: AG, AZ, CAM, DRC, ET, GB, GH, GN, IN, JV, KN, LB, MAL, MOZ, NAM,
NG, SG, SM, SD, TZ, TG, UG, ZAM, ZB
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952 & A. Kaltenbach 1985. (DNMNH, IZIKO)
Notes: ID: Dep. Rehn 1925, A. Kaltenbach 1985, A.J. Hesse, J.A.G. J.A.G. Gain, R.
Ehrmann, B.P. Uvarov & R. Roy. (DNMNH, IZIKO, NMSA, NMB, SMNK, PC_CS)
Documenting Mantodea species in South African museum collections and an ... 29
Distribution: EW, NZ
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, A. Kaltenbach 1992, R. Roy & C. Schwarz.
(DNMNH, PC_CS)**
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, M. Beier 1952 & A. Kaltenbach 1988. (DNMNH,
IZIKO)
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, M. Beier 1952 & A. Kaltenbach 1988. (DNMNH,
IZIKO)
30 Greyvenstein B et al
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925, A. Kaltenbach 1988 & B.P. Uvarov. (ARC, DNMNH,
IZIKO, NMSA, NMB, NRM)
Notes: ID: Dep. J.A.G. Rehn 1925 & A. Kaltenbach 1988. (DNMNH)
Distribution: MOZ
Distribution: EG, BF, GH, CAM, KN, MOZ, NG, SG, TG, TC, UG, ZIM
Distribution: CAM
Notes: ID: Dep. A. Kaltenbach 1988; 1992, R. Ehrmann 1991, B.P. Uvarov & F. Werner.
(ARC, DNMNH, IZIKO, NMSA, NRM)
Distribution: MOZ, SM
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1952 & A. Kaltenbach 1988; 1992. (DNMNH, IZIKO, NRM)
Notes: ID: Dep. R. Roy 1967 & & R. Erhmann. (DNMNH, SMNK)
Distribution: ZIM
Distribution: ZIM
Notes: ID: Dep. M. Beier 1953 & A.J. Hesse. (BOLD, DNMNH, IZIKO, NRM)
Distribution: ZIM
Analysis
This checklist was compiled from a database that has been generated after recording all
the available details of specimens (approximately 4000 records over 170 years) in eight
South African museum collections. An additional 1945 Mantodea records from private
collections, several museums outside of South Africa, and two citizen-science platforms
were included. Although all specimens were identified to family level, a large number
(1600) were only identified to genus level. All records within the database could, therefore,
be used to generate distribution maps for the 14 Mantodea families (Fig. 3). Despite only a
few distribution records being available for specimens of some of the families, distribution
patterns indicate that all families occur in the hotspots indicated in this study. These
hotspots are the north-eastern parts of the Savannah biome (towards the Kruger National
Park), along the eastern coast in the Indian Ocean coastal belt (KwaZulu-Natal province),
southern coastal region in the thicket biome (Eastern Cape – Gqeberha), and fynbos
biome in the south-western Cape region. The families with the lowest species richness and
the lowest number of records were Amorphoscelidae, Dactylopterygidae, Nanomantidae,
Rivetinidae and Toxoderidae (Fig. 3). The three most species-rich families were Mantidae,
Miomantidae and Eremiaphilidae (Fig. 3), which were also the families with the highest
numbers of specimen records. The latter three families made up 50.2% of the total number
of specimens in the surveyed collections, with those in the Eremiaphilidae having the
highest representation (853 specimens). The distribution maps do, however, elude that
some areas of the country have either been under-represented or the abundance of
mantids in these regions, for example the Northern Cape Region, is very low. Interestingly,
the distribution of Empusidae, which is only represented by seven species, indicates a
region-wide distribution and more than 200 records of this family were recorded during this
study.
Discussion
This paper illustrates the value of museum data, although it was only after the
documentation thereof, that these data allowed us to update the Mantodea species list of
South Africa. Historic data encompasses many years of collected specimens and, as
suggested by Hill et al. (2012), it remains as data that are invaluable and irreplaceable.
Although the more modern methods of observational data collection through citizen-
science platforms are easily accessible (Moulin 2020), it remains problematic as the
identification of these specimens are difficult, especially for groups such as arthropods.
This is due to the vast numbers of insect species and because, in many cases,
identification requires microscopic investigation of the genitalia and wing venation. Due to
these difficulties, as well as data only at genus level, records sourced from the citizen-
science platforms were only used to compile the distribution maps and they were not
included in the supplementary information. Although citizen-science platforms may provide
valuable information (Moulin 2020), care should be taken when data are used. For
example, 11 Miomantis species were recorded from the museum collections during this
study, while nine other species are also suggested to occur in South Africa (Kaltenbach
Documenting Mantodea species in South African museum collections and an ... 35
1996, Kaltenbach 1998). However, all 467 Miomantis observations from iNaturalist and
GBIF.org were listed as Miomantis caffra Saussure, 1871. Since no other Miomantis
species has been recorded on the latter platforms, it is highly likely that some of the
Miomantis species level identifications were incorrect. Despite this type of error, the data
recorded on citizen-science platforms can be helpful to determine distribution patterns.
These platforms are becoming increasingly important, but there is no substitution for
taxonomic expertise and investigation of specimens, especially for the many species of
Mantodea that have not yet been added to publicly accessible DNA databases. For
example, of the 157 species listed in this checklist, only 50 are represented on DNA
databases such as GenBank, NCBI and BOLD.
Figure 3.
Distribution maps of the Mantodea families that occur within South Africa. The number of
specimen records per family is provided in brackets.
Another example which illustrates the value of data from citizen-science platforms (Gbif.org
in this case), as well as the caution needed in interpreting such data, is that of
Pseudocreobotra ocellata. This species, according to literature, is native to North Africa
and does not occur in South Africa (Ehrmann 2002). However, a DNA barcode of the latter
species was found on the BOLD database (Ratnasingham and Hebert 2007) during this
study which, according to the locality of the specimen used for the DNA analysis, it was
collected in KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa (Suppl. material 1). The sequence provided on
BOLD is 99.23% similar to that of an unpublished DNA sequence of Pseudocreobotra
36 Greyvenstein B et al
wahlbergi that is available on GenBank. The latter sequence has never been published
and should, thus, be treated with caution. The specimens identified as P. occellata on the
BOLD system could either be new distribution records or be due to a lack of reliable P.
wahlbergi sequences.
One of the species, Galepsus centralis, which has not previously been reported from South
Africa, was collected in the Grassland biome in the north-western region of South Africa
and identified by a mantid taxonomist (Nicolas Moulin) during this study. This species was
previously reported to occur only in Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It
could also be possible that this species has always occurred in southern Africa, but was
not detected or it has expanded its range to southern Africa, similar to what has been
reported for other mantid species in recent years (Schwarz and Ehrmann 2018).
Interestingly, Kaltenbach (1996) listed some species that may be endemic to southern
Africa, including Miomantis caffra. The latter species has expanded its range to New
Zealand and Australia (Ramsay 1984, Connors et al. 2022).
This species list indicates that the diversity of Mantodea in South Africa is high and that
approximately 6% of the known Mantodea species worldwide occurs in this region. A few
areas within South Africa seem to be “hotspots” or regions with high diversity and should
be investigated further. These areas may be related to the biomes within the country since
insect communities tend to be closely correlated to plant communities (Schaffers et al.
2008). It is, therefore, suggested that the “hotspot” areas identified in this study be priority
areas for future research. The conglomeration of distribution records on the maps in areas
such as Pretoria may be due to the ease of access (Grytnes and Romdal 2008) of this
museum as it resides within a large city with a large surrounding human population.
The current state of knowledge suggests that South Africa could have a high level of
Mantodea endemicity, i.e. 38% of the species from this study are suggested by Kaltenbach
(1996) to be endemic to southern Africa. Furthermore, "priority species" (for example, the
24 species of which only one record exists) were identified and should be investigated first
to address the severe lack of knowledge regarding these species. For example,
Calamothespis oxyops has a single distribution record (Baberton 1910), i.e. the Holotype
specimen in the Ditsong National Museum of Natural History. One other record of this
species was recorded on iNaturalist (which could indicate that it only occurs in South
Africa). This citizen-science record has, however, not been verified (not Research Grade)
and was, thus, not included in the Suppl. material 1. Lastly, the aim of this paper was not
only to update the Mantodea checklist of South Africa, but also to develop a dataset that
can guide future research on Mantodea diversity within the region. The absence of
taxonomic expertise to identify Mantodea in South Africa provided a challenge during the
compilation of this checklist. This was addressed through collaboration with the
international Mantodea scientist community who assisted with identifications, provided
taxonomic keys and shared old literature regarding the Mantodea of the region.
Documenting Mantodea species in South African museum collections and an ... 37
Acknowledgements
Dr. Nicolas Moulin, Entomologist in Montérolier in France (honorary associate to MNHN),
Dr. Frank Wieland from the Pfalzmuseum für Naturkunde in Germany, Dr. Martin Stiewe
from The Natural History Museum, London and Dr. Christian J. Schwarz from the Faculty
of Biology and Biotechnology, Conservation Biology Unit, Ruhr University Bochum in
Germany and all other researchers in the Mantodea community whom provided invaluable
assistance with identifications and other insights.
We would like to thank the following people at each of these institutions for allowing us to
access the collections: Audrey Ndaba and Tharina Bird at Ditsong museum of Natural
History (Pretoria), Vivienne Uys at the Agricultural Research Council (Biosystematic
Division in Pretoria), Ashley Kirk-Spriggs and Burgert Muller at the National Museum
(Bloemfontein), Helen James and Musa Mlambo at the Albany Museum (Makhanda),
Martin Hill and Thabisa Mdlangu at Rhodes University (Grahamstown), Kirstin Williams at
the Durban Natural Science Museum, Tricia Pillay at KwaZulu Natal Museum
(Pietermaritzburg), Simon van Noort and Aisha Mayekiso, as well as the persons of
communication at Iziko South African Museum (Cape Town). We also thank Simon van
Noort at Iziko Museums of South Africa, Entomology Specify6.
References
• Kaltenbach AP (1998) Unterlagen für eine Monographie der Mantodea (Insecta) des
südlichen Afrika: 2. Bestimmungstabellen für die höheren Taxa, Nachträge zum
Artenbestand. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 100: 19‑59.
• McMonigle O (2013) Keeping the praying mantis. Coachwhip Publications, Ohio, 200
pp.
• Moulin N (2020) When Citizen Science highlights alien invasive species in France: the
case of Indochina mantis, Hierodula patellifera (Insecta, Mantodea, Mantidae).
Biodiversity Data Journal 8 https://doi.org/10.3897/bdj.8.e46989
• Otte D, Spearman L, Stiewe M (2022) Mantodea Species file online. Version 5.0/5.0.
http://Mantodea.SpeciesFile.org.. Accessed on: 2023-2-12.
• Ramsay GW (1984) Miomantis caffra, a new mantid record (Mantodea: Mantidae) for
New Zealand. New Zealand Entomologist 8 (1): 102‑104. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00779962.1984.9722479
• Ratnasingham S, Hebert PN (2007) BARCODING: bold: The Barcode of Life Data
System (http://www.barcodinglife.org). Molecular Ecology Notes 7 (3): 355‑364. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x
• Roy R (1967) Contribution à la connaissance des genre Mantis Linne et Paramantis,
nov. [Mantidae]. Mantidae). Bulletin de l'Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire (IFAN),
Série A 29 (1): 126‑149.
• Roy R (2004) Rearrangements critiques dans la famille des Empusidae et relations
phylogenetique [Dictyopera, Mantodea]. Association des Amis du Laboratoire
d'Entomologie du Muséum, Paris 26: 1‑18.
• Roy R (2006) Deux nouvelles synonymies au niveau genre (Dictyoptera, Mantodea).
Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 111 (2): 195‑198. https://doi.org/
10.3406/bsef.2006.16310
• Roy R (2009) Nouvelles données sur le genre Junodia Schultess, 1899 (Mantodea,
Hymenopodidae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 114 (1): 119‑127.
https://doi.org/10.3406/bsef.2009.2774
• Roy R (2010) Mises au point sur le genre Sphodromantis Stål, 1871 (Mantodea,
Mantidae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 115 (3): 345‑366. https://
doi.org/10.3406/bsef.2010.2692
• Roy R (2013) Révision du genre africain Oxypiloidea Schulthess, 1898 (Dictyoptera,
Mantodea, Hymenopodidae). Zoosystema 35 (3): 277‑359. https://doi.org/10.5252/
z2013n3a1
• Roy R (2018) Le genre Tenodera Burmeister, 1838, généralités et présence en Afrique
(Mantodea, Mantidae). Bulletin de La Société Entomologique de France URL: https://
www.persee.fr/doc/bsef_0037-928x_2018_num_123_1_29451
• Roy R (2022) Révision du genre afrotropical Epitenodera Giglio-Tos, 1912 (Mantodea,
Mantidae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 127 (1): 69‑90. https://
doi.org/10.32475/bsef_2173
• Schaffers A, Raemakers I, Sýkora K, ter Braak CF (2008) Arthropod assemblages are
best predicted by plant species composition. Ecology 89 (3): 782‑794. https://doi.org/
10.1890/07-0361.1
• Schoeman A (1985a) Hottentotsgotte en Stokinsekte. De Jager-H.A.U.M, Pretoria, 46
pp.
• Schoeman A (1985b) Mantodea. In: Scholtz H, Holm E (Eds) Insects of Southern Africa.
Protea Boekhuis, Pretoria, 502 pp.
Documenting Mantodea species in South African museum collections and an ... 39
Supplementary materials