Dystopia Kasalo & Skejo 2025, n. gen.

Genus Dystopia Kasalo & Skejo, n. gen. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: EF5CBBFC-D304-4AA0-988D-B69040F65C7D TYPE SPECIES. — Nesotettix cheesmanae Günther, 1938. COMPOSITION. — Monotypic, including only D. cheesmanae n. comb. DISTRIBUTION. — Known only from New Caledonia. ETYMOLOGY. — The name refers to the word “dystopia”, the antonym of “utopia”, and is of feminine gender. The name symbolizes the morphological disparity within the genus. DIAGNOSIS. — Small species (female around 7 mm long). Pronotum moderately raised in anterior third, lowering caudad. Anterior margin of pronotum triangular. Vertex strongly triangular in dorsal view. Middle part of vertex in frontal view elevated in form of narrow rectangular protrusion. Internal carina of pronotum slightly inturned at base of hind femur. Pronotal apex wide and straight. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NEW GENUS The species Dystopia cheesmanae n. comb. was until now placed in the genus Nesotettix Holdhaus, 1909. Günther (1938a) doubted this taxonomic placement, but later (Günther 1972) changed his mind and claimed that there are no discernible differences between Nesotettix samoensis Holdhaus, 1909 and the present species, except for the shape of the scutellum and the length of antennae. While these species are similar, N. samoensis bears some further significant differences (compare with the diagnosis below): it has the anterior margin of pronotum weakly rounded, vertex rounded in dorsal and anterior view, strongly incurved internal carina at base of hind femur, and pronotal apex bilobate. Considering these differences and the spatial separation coupled with the lack of dispersal ability, it seems likely that these species have been separate for a significant amount of time. REMARK Günther (1972) suggested that the genus Nesotettix could be related to Vingselina Sjöstedt, 1921 and Diotarus Stål, 1877. These genera differ considerably in size and in the shape of the vertex, to name only the most obvious differences. The general structure of the pronotum and legs does appear similar between them, but no simple inference about the degree of their relatedness can be made based on this. For analysis of the issues with speculating on the phylogeny based on morphology see Kasalo & Skejo (2024).