Nocticola Bolivar 1892

GenusNocticolaBolívar, 1892 Nocticola Bolívar, 1892: 29. Type species. Nocticola simoni. First used as Nocticolidae Brunner 1915. Roth (1988) diagnosed and discussed Nocticolidae. Diagnosis. The following description is in accordance with the traits proposed by Roth (1988) and the diagnosis of Andersen and Kjaerandsen (1995). Habitus small and delicate. Eyes well developed, variably reduced or absent; ocelli present or absent. Male wings are either reduced or well developed; front and hind wings are similar if well developed, membranous hyaline with minute pubescence and with few, essentially straight veins. Anteroventral margin of front femur with a row of piliform setae only, terminating at one or more large spines (= Type C); arolia and pulvilli absent; tarsal claws very small, simple, and symmetrical. Left and right phallomeres of the male genitalia are complex, always with a hook. Modification of the male abdomen tergal gland divides Nocticola into two groups: the simoni species group (male terga unspecialized) and the uenoi species group (male fourth abdominal terga specialized). Differential diagnosis. Gravely (1910) compared the wing veins of Alluaudellina himalayensis and Cardacus willeyi, and concluded that the wing veins cannot be an important feature to distinguish these two genera. He distinguished the two genera by the presence or absence of ocelli, and whether the head is exposed or covered by the pronotum. Karny (1924) distinguished Cardacopsis, Alluaudellina and Cardacus by the degree of eye development, wing venation, and the presence or absence of ocelli, but he did not include Nocticola in the discussion. Roth (1988) considered that Chopard (1946) established the genus Typhloblattodes using a nymph specimen, questioning the validity of this genus. Chopard (1932, 1946, 1966) believed that there was polymorphism in the wing veins of Alluaudellina himalayensis, and, in Nocticola, polymorphism in wings and eyes development, making these features of questionable value in generic diagnosis. Consequently, he was unable to distinguish Nocticola from Alluaudellina and believed that they may be synonyms. The genus Nocticola can be distinguished from Typhloblatta and Pholeosilpha by the following characteristics: anteroventral margin of front femur Type C, in contrast forefemoral spination type B 2 in Typhloblatta and Pholeosilpha. The genus Nocticola can be distinguished from Spelaeoblatta by the following characteristics: 1) anteroventral margin of front femur Type C, in contrast fore femoral spination type B 1 in Spelaeoblatta; 2) abdominal terga are unspecialized or have a gland on the fourth segment, while in Spelaeoblatta tergal glands on the second and third abdominal tergum; 3) female apterous, whereas female of Spelaeoblatta lack hind wings but have reduced lateral tegminal pads; 4) male tegmina membranous, with distinctive venation, while in Spelaeoblatta tegmina corneous, with poorly defined veins. The genus Nocticola can be distinguished from Helmablatta by the following characteristics: 1) anteroventral margin of front femur Type C, in contrast fore femoral spination type intermediate between A 1 and B 1 in Helmablatta; 2) abdominal terga are unspecialized or have a gland on the fourth segment, while in Helmablatta third to fifth abdominal tergum form a composite gland, and eighth abdominal tergum is specialized. The genus Nocticola can be distinguished from Metanocticola by the following characteristics: abdominal terga are unspecialized or have a gland on the fourth segment, while in Metanocticola male has a sex gland on the metanotum. According to current molecular analysis research, it has been shown that Nocticola is polyphyletic (Kovacs et al. 2024). The three new species are placed in the genus Nocticola based on features of the eyes, male wings, anteroventral margin of front femur type, arolia, pulvilli, abdomen tergal, and male genitalia.