The Mantodea of Albertus Seba

The Mantodea of Albertus Seba Kris Anderson Abstract. The Mantodea figures published in Albertus Seba’s Thesaurus are reviewed with emphasis on their historical context, artistic execution, and subsequent taxonomic interpretation. Each plate depicting mantises is analyzed for accuracy and correspondence to known species. Descriptive text and later designations by historical authors are evaluated for nomenclatural validity. The study clarifies Seba’s contribution as the first visual record of Mantodea and assesses its impact on early systematic entomology. _________________________ Albertus Seba (c. 1665–1736) was a Dutch apothecary and pharmacist who formulated medicinal treatments for doctors and patients. In his professional capacity, he specialized in preparing medicines from both local and exotic materials, collecting plants, animals, and minerals from around the world to use in his pharmacological work. Living in Amsterdam, the era’s center of European trade with the rest of the world, Seba benefited from the city’s constant flow of goods and natural history material arriving through the ports. What began as a practical extension of his pharmaceutical work soon grew into a personal fascination. Beyond his professional pursuits, Seba developed a deep passion for collecting natural curiosities, expanding his holdings through purchases and auctions. Over several decades, he amassed an extensive and celebrated assemblage of shells, minerals, taxidermy animals, and exotic insects. Although his early acquisitions were tied to his role as an apothecary, gathering biological materials for medicinal use, this enterprise gradually evolved into a parallel and deeply personal pursuit of scientific inquiry and aesthetic wonder. Seba’s collection eventually grew into one of the most famous cabinets of curiosities in Europe, attracting the attention of researchers across the continent and beyond. His second major collection (after selling the first to Peter the Great of Russia in 1717) was groundbreaking for its scale and ambition, prompting Seba to immortalize its contents through art. To that end, he commissioned skilled illustrators and engravers to produce detailed images of his specimens. He published a remarkable collection of these images entitled Locupletissimi rerum naturalium thesauri accurata descriptio et iconibus artificiosissimis expressio per universam physics historiam (or “A detailed description and representation with the most skillful illustrations of the richest treasury of natural things, through the entire history of physics”), commonly known as the Thesaurus. This work was available in multiple editions, including Latin-French and Latin-Dutch translations. It was primarily printed in black and white format but commissioned artists later 69 added color to the figures, offering this enhanced version at a premium to book buyers. The Thesaurus was published in four volumes, with the first two volumes released during Seba’s lifetime and the latter two published posthumously. The first volume was published in 1734, followed by the second volume in 1735. After Seba’s death in 1752, the project was continued by a group of collaborators who utilized Seba’s notes and illustrations to complete the last two volumes of the Thesaurus. The third volume was published in 1758, and the final fourth volume was released in 1765. Issued in imposing large folio format, the Thesaurus provided ample space for its hundreds of figured plates, yet the same scale that made the work visually spectacular also magnified the differences between the illustrations produced by Seba’s artists and the figures rendered by his engravers. Both the artists and engravers responsible for depicting Seba’s specimens worked directly from the actual material. However, the results of their efforts differed markedly. The artists produced detailed and visually appealing illustrations that conveyed a high degree of anatomical fidelity, while the engravers often introduced distortion through less precise execution. The resulting figures sometimes appeared exaggerated, implausible, or crudely rendered, reflecting not artistic interpretation but the engravers’ limited technical precision compared to the skill and accuracy of the illustrators. This disparity in quality suggests that Seba employed illustrators of considerable skill but relied on engravers of more variable ability, possibly due to time constraints, cost, or availability. Skilled artists would have been expensive and in high demand, while engravers offered a faster and more affordable means of production. Seba may also have intentionally prioritized certain specimens for depiction by illustrators to emphasize their scientific or aesthetic importance, while delegating others to engravers for the sake of efficiency. The result is a body of work in which exquisite illustrations coexist with coarser engraved images—an outcome reflecting both the practical limitations and the dual scientific and artistic ambitions that defined Seba’s Thesaurus. It is within the fourth volume of the Thesaurus the Seba included his personal descriptions of and commissioned engravings of his collection of Mantodea. Remarkably, the figured plates of the depicted Mantodea within this volume demonstrate both the dorsal and ventral aspects of the featured specimens. However, the ventral figures of most species are largely redundant, appearing nearly identical to the dorsal views and lacking diagnostic maculation or detail. Even in species where strong maculations on the anterior surface of the forecoxae or forefemora remain salient in preserved material, Seba’s ventral renderings reveal none of these distinctions. This holds true across both colored and uncolored variants of the figures. The inclusion of such repetitive ventral renderings must have required considerable additional effort from the engravers, yet yielded little scientific or even aesthetic value. Nonetheless, this approach represents a historical first: Seba’s Thesaurus not only introduced Mantodea to the visual record of natural history, but also stands as the earliest known work to depict their ventral surfaces. This imaging standard would not reappear for more than a century in subsequent entomological literature. Only the single ventral figure (Plate 69, Figure 8) that demonstrates a significant aspect apart from its corresponding dorsal image is reproduced here. Seba did not specify the places of origin for the depicted Mantodea within the fourth volume of the Thesaurus. It is reasonable to assume, however, that he obtained these specimens chiefly through the extensive global trade network of the Dutch East India Company (VOC), which 70 dominated the circulation of exotic natural history materials during his lifetime. Although there were multiple European colonies and trading posts across Africa by the early 18th century, the Dutch presence was particularly concentrated in West Africa and at the Cape of Good Hope in present-day South Africa. The Cape, established by the VOC in 1652 as a refreshment station, had by Seba’s time grown into a crucial colony supplying VOC fleets bound for Asia, and it became a well-documented source of natural history specimens shipped back to Europe. In West Africa, the Dutch West India Company (WIC) maintained forts and trading posts along the Gold Coast, including Fort Elmina, Fort Nassau, and Fort Amsterdam, which not only functioned as hubs for the slave and gold trades but also facilitated the circulation of natural curiosities. Yet Africa was only one part of the network from which Seba’s collection drew. The VOC’s primary focus lay in the East Indies, where the Dutch held vast territories across present-day Indonesia—Java, Ambon, Banda, Malacca—and also Ceylon (Sri Lanka, under Dutch rule from 1658). These regions, together with Dutch trading factories in India such as Pulicat, Nagapattinam, and Cochin, provided a wealth of exotic flora and fauna that entered European collections through VOC channels. Dutch Suriname in South America, established in 1667, likewise became an important colonial outpost supplying sugar, enslaved labor and natural specimens that collectors like Seba would have prized. As a wealthy Amsterdam apothecary at the heart of global trade, Seba was uniquely positioned to acquire specimens from this wide network of Dutch colonial holdings. His prominence and resources ensured that specimens from Africa, the East Indies, India, Sri Lanka, and South America all had pathways into his Thesaurus, making his collection of Mantodea the most globally representative of its time. Seba’s reputation as a serious naturalist is complicated by his simultaneous fascination with the marvelous. Among the thousands of legitimate specimens illustrated in the Thesaurus, Seba is also known to have included fantastical creatures—chimeric, mythic, or outright fabricated forms assembled from disparate animal parts. These composite Frankenstein taxidermies, blending anatomical elements of different species into wholly implausible configurations, reflected the curiosity culture of the 18th century and the tension between natural history and spectacle. The presence of such fabrications within Seba’s collection was not unusual for his time; collectors often prized the extraordinary over the authentic, and Seba’s cabinet stood as both a scientific archive and a theater of wonder. While chimeric creatures are most famously represented in his serpents, fishes, and marine specimens, such as multi-headed reptiles or impossible hybrid monsters, the phenomenon also extended to his depictions of Mantodea. Several engravings of mantises in the Thesaurus exhibit anatomical distortions and combinations that cannot be reconciled with any known species, past or present: the most notable examples of which are the extraordinary depictions of several different specimens as having three distinct pairs of wings. Given the high cost and technical supervision surrounding the production of Seba’s volumes, it is highly improbable that a professional engraver would have invented such details independently. These artisans were paid to replicate the specimens presented before them with precision, and Seba himself oversaw and approved the final engravings. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the engravers depicted the specimens as they appeared—fanciful or otherwise—rather than fabricating them from imagination. The grotesque or impossible features recorded in these plates therefore likely reflect the condition of the actual specimens Seba possessed. How, then, could such impossible insects have come to exist within his collection? We know that breakage 71 between the prothorax and mesothorax is extremely common in preserved Mantodea, as the thoracic junctions are brittle and easily fractured once dried. A plausible reconstruction scenario can therefore be proposed: one specimen, perhaps with its pronotum and forewings intact but body broken at the mesothorax, was fused with another whose abdomen and hindwings remained undamaged. This would have produced the illusion of a mantis bearing three pairs of wings—a feature faithfully, if erroneously, captured by Seba’s engravers. It is unlikely that Seba himself mounted or prepared any of his Mantodea specimens. His vast collection was assembled through agents, merchants, and naturalists operating across the global trade networks of the VOC. These intermediaries gathered and shipped specimens en masse, often dried, salted, or stored in alcohol. Seba was known to pay premiums for exotic material and to receive shipments rather than hand-selecting them. Fragile insects were almost never shipped mounted because of vibration, humidity, and breakage during long voyages. Instead, they were shipped dried or in cotton-filled boxes, occasionally in spirits, as Anderson (2022a) noted. Mounting was almost always done after arrival in Europe by trained preparators or dealers, often not by the collector himself. As a successful apothecary, Seba’s professional time was devoted to his trade and later to organizing and documenting his collection. He had both the means and incentive to employ intermediaries and artisans rather than personally handling delicate preparation work. It is within this chain of custody that the creation of chimeric specimens most plausibly occurred. Preparators, seeking to impress wealthy buyers such as Seba or to increase the value of exotic wares, may have reconstructed shipment-damaged mantis specimens using mismatched parts from multiple individuals. The resulting specimens, though biologically absurd, would have appeared “complete” and more aesthetically striking to the untrained eye. It is equally conceivable that some intermediaries deliberately fabricated hybrids (e.g. attaching forewings from one species to the abdomen of another) to produce rarities capable of commanding higher prices. Whether Seba was complicit in this deception or himself a victim of it remains uncertain. It is possible that he knowingly perpetuated these marvels to astonish his audience and heighten the theatrical appeal of his cabinet. Yet the more plausible interpretation is that Seba was deceived by his suppliers, as he was presented with specimens already mounted and prepared in this distorted form. Enthralled by their apparent rarity and desirous to include them among his catalogued wonders, he likely had them engraved as-is, unaware (or unconcerned) that they were taxidermic fabrications. Seba provided only brief descriptions of his depicted Mantodea specimens and his work lacked the systematic naming approach that Linné developed just one year prior to Seba’s death. Hodacs et al. (2007) documented that Linné visited Seba’s collection in Amsterdam during his European journey in 1735, where he was impressed by its breadth. While this visit clearly influenced Linné’s thinking in taxonomy and natural history, there is no direct evidence that he employed Seba’s insect specimens in his own species descriptions. It is possible that Linné drew inspiration from seeing such a massive assemblage, but a definitive link between specific specimens in Seba’s collection and Linné’s published taxa has not been established. As a result, Seba’s Mantodea went unnamed for decades. This lack of structure led later naturalists to attempt retroactive order of Seba’s depicted Mantodea. Jean-Baptiste-René Robinet (1735–1820), who prepared the French edition of the Thesaurus in 1765, was first to take such an interpretive role in reshaping the work. A French natural philosopher and translator best known for his speculative writings on the continuity of 72 nature (De la nature, 1761–1768), Robinet was only thirty when he became involved with Seba’s project. His contribution went far beyond that of a simple translator; while he preserved Seba’s Latin text, he rendered it into French with greater literary flourish, sometimes elaborating on the descriptions to engage readers less familiar with natural history. More significantly, he aligned Seba’s material with the Linnaean system, which by the mid-18th century had become the prevailing taxonomic framework. For instance, Seba had described one specimen simply as “brown in color and marked with veins and blackish spots, entirely resembling withered leaves,” but Robinet reinterpreted it as a “brown walking leaf, veined with black… a species of Gryllus (Mantis) Linné,” effectively classifying it as a new species within Linnaean taxonomy. Through such interventions, Robinet acted as both interpreter and mediator: he preserved the descriptive richness of Seba’s cabinet-of-curiosities style while overlaying it with systematic classification, ensuring that the Thesaurus was received within the Enlightenment’s intellectual climate of order, taxonomy, and natural history. While Robinet translated and expanded Seba’s work into French, another figure soon advanced it further within the Linnaean system. Johann August Ephraim Goeze (c. 1731–1793), a German zoologist and pastor, published Entomologische Beyträge zu des Ritters Linné zwölften Ausgabe des Natursystems (“Entomological Contributions to Knight Linnaeus’ Twelfth Edition of the Natural System”) in 1778. In this work, Goeze focused on entomology and sought to classify various insects according to Linnaeus’s framework, introducing Latin binomials for many mantis species that Seba had described and figured in the Thesaurus but left unnamed. Goeze thus transformed some of Seba’s engravings into properly designated species, aligning them with the conventions of scientific taxonomy. However, it is important to recognize that Seba’s original descriptions, though based on firsthand examination of specimens, often used vague or generalized language that could apply to multiple Mantodea species. Goeze, working decades later, lacked access to Seba’s actual material and instead relied solely on Seba’s Latin descriptions and the crude engravings that emphasized fantastical or exaggerated features. As a result, correlating Seba’s illustrations with Goeze’s Latin names—and by extension with modern species—is highly problematic. Goeze also compounded this confusion by grouping multiple, morphologically distinct and anatomically incompatible Mantodea figures under a single Latin binomial. In doing so, he established a flawed precedent that later authors perpetuated without scrutiny, uncritically repeating Goeze’s taxonomic assignments. This unexamined inheritance resulted in a cascade of misidentifications, with wholly dissimilar forms repeatedly cited as belonging to the same species. The crude and inconsistent nature of Seba’s engravings, coupled with their fantastical or composite qualities, ensured that such taxonomic interpretations were fundamentally unsound and scientifically unreliable. Seba’s collection was well known and attracted the attention of many researchers, so it is possible that he may have shared or loaned specimens with fellow collectors, though the extent of this is not clear from the available literature. After his death in 1752, Seba’s insect specimens, along with the rest of his extensive natural history holdings, were auctioned off to private collectors. Very little information survives on the specific whereabouts of these insect specimens following the auction, effectively rendering Seba’s engravings the only enduring iconotypes of his Mantodea specimens. Yet these figures are notably imprecise and coupled with vague descriptions that lack the detail needed for reliable species identification, making it difficult to confidently assign them to any known taxon, and in most cases not even to a genus. The reliability of these figures is further complicated by the production process itself. In the 18th 73 century, engravers typically worked directly from the specimens themselves, incising their designs by hand into copper plates. Once etched, these plates were inked and pressed onto paper to produce black-and-white impressions. Some of these impressions were left uncolored, while others were later hand-colored with watercolors by separate artisans working on individual copies. Because the coloring was applied manually and without strict standardization, considerable variation emerged between copies of the same folio, differences in hue, shading, and even patterning, such that two versions of the same figure can appear strikingly dissimilar. This inconsistency further compounds the interpretive challenges already posed by the imprecision of the engravings themselves. The present work does not seek to classify or correctively reorder Seba’s depicted Mantodea, which is a task rendered impossible by the loss of the original specimens and the imprecision of the engravings. Instead, the purpose of this study is to resolve the Latin binomials already introduced by Goeze and perpetuated by later authors. Many of these names have persisted in limbo: some have been entangled in complex synonyms, others misapplied or rejected outright, and two (surprisingly) remain in active usage. Because these names, derived from crude iconotypes, continue to circulate ambiguously within Mantodea taxonomy, their formal resolution is essential. This work therefore seeks to stabilize the nomenclature derived from Seba’s Thesaurus, bringing resolution to a body of literature that, though historically significant, was founded upon specimens that were at times chimeric and engravings that, however faithfully rendered, are too crudely executed and lacking in provenance to be associated with any known species. Even if Seba’s original Mantodea specimens were to resurface today, direct correspondence between the physical material and the published figures would remain highly uncertain. The situation would be further complicated by the near certainty that Seba’s specimens were unlabeled or bore only the most rudimentary notations, since he assigned no scientific names and provided few identifying details. Without any associated labels, locality data, or diagnostic features linking individual specimens to specific figures, any attempt to reconcile the surviving insects with the Thesaurus depictions would be speculative at best. Thus, even with the collection physically in hand, establishing reliable matches between Seba’s actual Manodea specimens and the published figures would remain exceedingly difficult. According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), type specimens must be identifiable, accessible for study, and able to serve as benchmarks for applying scientific names. When the original material is lost and only iconotypes remain, these must be sufficiently precise to serve that role. Seba’s Mantodea figures fail to meet these standards. Consequently, many of the names later assigned to these figures by Goeze are nomen dubium, since they are predicated on imprecise engravings, inconsistent coloring, and nebulous descriptions. As a result, the binomials suggested for them by Goeze lack concrete definition and, regrettably, are not scientifically useful. Despite the shortfalls in the data put forth in the Thesaurus regarding Mantodea taxonomy, Albertus Seba stands as the first and most foundational author among the three great Dutch Mantodea workers—Seba, Stoll, and de Haan—whose combined efforts defined the earliest corpus of entomological literature concerning this fascinating group of insects. Working in Amsterdam at the height of the Dutch Golden Age of global colonialism, trade, and scientific 74 inquiry, Seba’s cabinet of curiosities represented the confluence of commerce, exploration, and intellectual ambition that characterized the era. The reach of the Dutch colonial empire, extending from the West African forts and Surinamese plantations to the East Indies, Ceylon, and the Cape of Good Hope, supplied a continual influx of exotic specimens that transformed European understanding of natural history. Through the global networks of the Dutch East India Company (VOC), Seba and his successors were granted unprecedented access to the biodiversity of the tropics—specimens collected, preserved, and shipped from colonial outposts into the scientific salons and publishers’ workshops of Amsterdam and Leiden. These channels provided the very material upon which Stoll would later refine descriptive entomology and upon which de Haan, a century later, would use the formal foundations of Mantodea taxonomy. The Netherlands, through this colonial and mercantile machinery, became the intellectual gateway by which the earliest knowledge of Mantodea entered Western science. Seba’s Thesaurus thus stands as the starting point of a continuous Dutch legacy that transformed scattered curiosities from distant colonies into the structured science of Mantodea taxonomy. ~ ፨ ፨ ፨ ~ In the fourth volume of Seba’s Thesaurus, all original descriptions of Mantodea were written in Latin by Seba himself. The French natural philosopher Robinet contributed his own interpretive remarks within the Index Rerum Naturalium, a supplementary section that follows the Preface of Volume IV (1765). This index represents Robinet’s French translation and commentary on Seba’s Latin text rather than a standalone publication. His notes occasionally include Linnaean associations or reinterpretations of Seba’s species descriptions, reflecting the growing influence of systematic taxonomy at the time. 75 Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 74, Plate 66, Figure 4 References to the species depicted on Plate 66 Figure 4 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 74 “brown in color and marked with veins and blackish spots, entirely resembling withered leaves” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 29 “brown walking leaf, veined with black… a species of Gryllus (Mantis) Linné” (new species) Remarks. This figure represents one of the more morphologically accurate Mantodea depictions within Seba’s Thesaurus. Unlike many of Seba’s exaggerated or composite engravings, the specimen shown here displays recognizable features that align closely with a female of the genus Acanthops Audinet-Serville, 1831. The specimen was likely obtained from Dutch Suriname, one of the principle sources of tropical fauna in Seba’s collection through VOC trade routes. Its relative anatomical accuracy suggests that this depiction was based on an authentic specimen rather than a reconstructed or embellished form. This figure was referenced only by Robinet; later authors ignored it, perhaps due to its obscurity among Seba’s many less reliable Mantodea depictions. 76 Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 74, Plate 66, Figure 6 References to the species depicted on Plate 66 Figure 6 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 74 “brown in color and marked with veins and blackish spots, entirely resembling withered leaves” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 29 “a variety of the preceding species” (new species) Remarks. This engraving appears to depict another female Acanthops, resembling the specimen illustrated in Figure 4. Whether these represent the same species cannot be determined with certainty, though Robinet’s reference to it as a “variety of the preceding species” suggests he viewed it as a form of intraspecific variation rather than a distinct species. As with Figure 4, the depiction is unusually coherent, albeit still crude, for Seba’s Thesaurus. Despite its relative anatomical accuracy, this figure was never mentioned again after Robinet. Later authors, including Goeze and his successors, appear to have overlooked it entirely, leaving both Figures 4 and 6 as somewhat isolated yet credible representations of true Mantodea among Seba’s otherwise inconsistent and often fantastical assemblage. 77 Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 75, Plate 67, Figure 7 References to the species depicted on Plate 67 Figure 7 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 75 “what is particularly unique about this species is that the outer wings lack spots, and their anterior edges are of a light greenish color” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 29 “a walking leaf of a pale yellowish color with green wing borders, without any wing spots; belonging to the same group as the preceding ones” Fabricius, 1775: 277 Mantis oratoria Linné, 1758 β Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 Goeze, 1778: 26 “the worshipper” Mantis precaria Linné, 1758 Villers, 1789: 431 Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 Villers, 1789: 432 Mantis oratoria Linné, 1758 84 Fabricius, 1793: 20 Mantis oratoria Linné, 1758 Manuel, 1797: 627 Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 Lichtenstein, 1802: 28 Mantis oratoria Linné, 1758 Ehrmann, 2002: 329 Stagmatoptera precaria (Linné, 1758) Remarks. Both Seba and Robinet recognized this figure as representing a distinct species. Seba emphasized its uniqueness, noting the absence of wing spots and the light greenish coloration along the anterior wing margins—features not shared with the preceding figures. Robinet similarly described it as a separate species but suggested that it belonged to the same general group as the preceding ones, which appear referable to Stagmatoptera. Despite these clear distinctions, Goeze nevertheless combined this engraving with Figures 3 and 5 under precaria, disregarding Seba’s and Robinet’s original observations. Subsequent authors perpetuated the confusion, oscillating between assigning the image to religiosa or oratoria—a misdirection that stemmed largely from Fabricius’ misguided and highly confusing decision in 1775 to synonymize the two names. The figure, however, corresponds to neither species, as it exhibits yellow tessellated hindwings, unlike religiosa wherein the hindwings are hyaline, or oratoria that possesses a distinctive maculations on the hindwings. Although Ehrmann correctly rejected the assignment of this image to religiosa or oratoria, his decision to revert to Goeze’s already flawed classification under precaria was equally mistaken. The specimen cannot be confidently attributed to any known species, or even genus, due to the crude and idealized nature of Seba’s engraving but the yellow tessellated hindwings suggest that it represents a New World lineage. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 75, Plate 67, Figure 9 References to the species depicted on Plate 67 Figure 9 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 75 “the smaller species is of a uniform color on top and below. Its outer wings are of a grayish ash color, marked with slightly darker spots, while the inner wings are red in the middle with a black border. The rest of their circumference remains transparent” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 29 “a walking leaf of a dirty grayish color, tinged with a darker color. Gryllus oratorius Linné sp. 6.?” Goeze, 1778: 24 “the African praying mantis” Mantis oratoria Linné, 1758 Fabricius, 1781: 348 Mantis oratoria Linné, 1758 Fabricius, 1793: 20 Mantis oratoria Linné, 1758 β Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 Lichtenstein, 1802: 29 Mantis oratoria Linné, 1758 85 Saussure, 1871: 299 Harpax tricolor (Linné, 1758) (female) Ehrmann, 2002: 195 Iris oratoria (Linné, 1758) Remarks. Robinet assigned this engraving to oratoria, but did so with a query to indicate his uncertainty regarding the identification. Despite this hesitation, Goeze uncritically adopted the assignment with full confidence, designating the figure as “the African praying mantis”, even though the depiction bears no resemblance whatsoever to oratoria and the specimen most likely did not derive from Africa. This unsubstantiated association was then repeated by Fabricius and Lichtenstein, each following Goeze’s flawed interpretation without scrutiny. In contrast, Saussure broke from this convention by reassigning the figure to tricolor, though he simultaneously applied the same name to the specimen depicted on Plate 73, Figure 9. The two engravings are completely dissimilar, with the present figure appearing to represent a species of Acontista Saussure & Zehntner, 1894—a genus native to South America, and thus likely originating from Dutch Suriname. The other depiction on Plate 73, Figure 9, by contrast, seems to genuinely represent tricolor from South Africa. Ehrmann continued the confusion by reassigning this engraving to oratoria, an error that reveals a lack of direct examination of Seba’s figures. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 76, Plate 68, Figure 7 References to the species depicted on Plate 68 Figure 7 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 76 “uniformly colored on both sides. Its body is black; its wings yellowish-brown, spotted with brown” 86 Robinet in Seba, 1765: 29 “a walking leaf of a dark color, spotted with a testaceous hue. Species of Gryllus (Mantis) Linné (new species) Genus 194” Goeze, 1778: 34 “the triprong. Tail with three teeth (tridentate)” Mantis tridens Manuel, 1797: 642 Mantis tridens Goeze, 1778 Ehrmann, 2002: 369 Mantis tridens Goeze, 1778 Remarks. Following Robinet’s indication that this figure represented a new species, Goeze officially named the depicted specimen Mantis tridens, describing it as “cauda tridentato” (“tail with three teeth”), referring to the prominent paired cerci flanking the supraanal plate, a defining feature of Angela Audinet-Serville, 1839. Despite this accurate observation, the name tridens gained no traction and vanished from the historical record after its last mention by Manuel in 1797. The distinctive patterning of the hindwings allows this figure to be confidently associated with Angela guianensis Rehn, 1906. This establishes tridens as a junior synonym of guianensis, with tridens representing a nomen oblitum and guianensis upheld as the nomen protectum under prevailing usage. It is particularly noteworthy that, unlike the numerous crude and fantastical depictions in Seba’s Thesaurus which were repeatedly reinterpreted and renamed by later authors despite their unreliability, this illustration stands out as one of the few that can be credibly linked to an identifiable genus and species. Paradoxically, tridens remained completely neglected, even though it was one of the few cases in which Seba’s artistry coincided with morphological reality. Ehrmann merely listed tridens without comment, effectively treating it as nomen dubium, yet this figure represents one of the rare instances where a definitive taxonomic resolution is possible. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 76, Plate 68, Figure 9 References to the species depicted on Plate 68 Figure 9 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 76 “this one, which is not winged, is yellowish-brown and has hind legs banded with black. It is called Podagrica due to the nodules of the joints” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 29 “species of wingless grasshopper, called the gouty grasshopper by the Dutch; similar to Gryllus Gongylodes Linné species 4” Fabricius, 1775: 275 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Goeze, 1778: 22 “the African mantis with hood covers” Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Fabricius, 1781: 346 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 87 Manuel, 1797: 627 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Lichtenstein, 1802: 21 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Schwarz, 1810: 5 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Saussure, 1871: 333 Gongylus gongylodes (Linné, 1758) (nymph) Ehrmann, 2002: 158 Gongylus gongylodes (Linné, 1758) Remarks. The term “podagrica” is utilized in the Latin rendition of Seba’s description of this figure to characterize the leaf-like extensions on the species’ meso/metathoracic legs. The word derives from podagra (“gout”), referring to the swollen joints associated with that ailment; podagrica therefore serves as an adjective meaning “gouty” or “swollen.” In Robinet’s French translation, the equivalent term goutteuse (“droplet-like”) was used, describing the same feature in reference to rounded, drop-shaped protrusions (gouttes) along the legs. This figure most plausibly depicts a nymph of gongylodes, as noted by every author who treated it after Robinet. Saussure later interpreted this illustration as representing an immature stage “Mantis podagrita Seba, 1765,” which he placed as a junior synonym of gongylodes. However, Seba’s use of podagrica was purely descriptive, not taxonomic. He never employed Latin binomials in his work, nor did he designate podagrica as a species name. Consequently, Mantis podagrita Seba, 1765 does not exist as a valid taxon. 88 Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 76, Plate 68, Figure 10 References to the species depicted on Plate 68 Figure 10 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 76 “another species similar to the previous one, but winged, with outer wings somewhat yellowish, and bordered with light green” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 29 “a walking leaf of a yellowish color, bordered with green. Gryllus bicornis Linné species 8?” Fabricius, 1775: 275 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Goeze, 1778: 27 “the Indian two-horned bush cricket” Mantis bicornis Linné, 1758 Fabricius, 1781: 346 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Manuel, 1797: 627 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Lichtenstein, 1802: 21 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Schwarz, 1810: 5 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Ehrmann, 2002: 368 Zoolea lobipes (Manuel, 1797) Remarks. This figure most plausibly depicts a female of pennata, rather than gongylodes, given the distinctive pronotal expansions of the latter that are conspicuously absent in this image (but present in the preceding engraving on Plate 68, Figure 9). This distinction is meaningful, since pennata had not yet been described by Thunberg until five decades following Seba’s publication and only gongylodes was known at the time. Robinet cautiously proposed that the engraving might correspond to bicornis, but marked this suggestion with a query, indicating uncertainty. Despite this, Goeze adopted the identification without qualification, referring to it bicornis, even though the engraving bears no resemblance to that highly distinctive species. Subsequent authors uncritically perpetuated the assignment to gongylodes. In a surprising departure, Ehrmann assigned this figure to lobipes without explanation. This is particularly curious, as Manuel himself, in the same 1797 work in which he described lobipes, explicitly assigned Seba’s Figure 10 to gongylodes—not to lobipes—and did not reference Seba’s illustration as an iconotype for his new species. 89 Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 76, Plate 68, Figure 11 References to the species depicted on Plate 68 Figure 11 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 76 “species quite different from the preceding ones, with wings of a beautiful green and light yellow: the body and legs are brown” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 29 “a walking leaf with partly green and partly yellow wings. Gryllus (Mantis) species of Linné (new species)” Fabricius, 1775: 275 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Goeze, 1778: 34 “the club-shaped praying mantis” Mantis clavata Fabricius, 1781: 346 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Manuel, 1797: 627 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Manuel, 1797: 642 Mantis clavata Goeze, 1778 90 Lichtenstein, 1802: 21 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Schwarz, 1810: 5 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Saussure, 1871: 337 Empusa egena Charpentier, 1841 Kirby, 1904: 312 Empusa egena Charpentier, 1841 Giglio-Tos, 1927: 638 Empusa pennata (Thunberg, 1815) Ehrmann, 2002: 128 Empusa pennata (Thunberg, 1815) Remarks. The specimen depicted in Plate 68, Figure 11 is highly problematic to classify within any known Mantodea genus. The engraving bears a superficial resemblance to Empusa Illiger, 1798 but notably lacks the lobation of the meso/metathoracic legs. Unlike several other of Seba’s Thesaurus Mantodea that include ventral perspectives revealing such traits, this specimen is illustrated only dorsally, limiting potential diagnostic interpretation. Furthermore, the antennae are portrayed as long and filiform. If this specimen were indeed an Empusa, the depiction might represent a female, though females of this genus have antennae that are never as elongated as shown here. Seba himself emphasized that this species was “quite different from the preceding ones,” implying that it should not be placed in Empusa—particularly if the preceding figures (Plate 68, Figures 9–10) are interpreted as pennata. Robinet likewise could not relate the engraving to any known taxon and simply listed it as a new species. Fabricius, followed by later authors, attempted to associate this figure with gongylodes, as was done with numerous other unrelated depictions, though this engraving bears no resemblance to the distinctive morphology of that species. Goeze recognized the image as representing a distinct species and assigned it the binomial Mantis clavata. Only Manuel acknowledged clavata as valid, yet in the same paper, he inconsistently referred to the same figure under gongylodes. Later, Saussure and Kirby both treated clavata as a junior synonym of egena, while Giglio-Tos and Ehrmann grouped this figure with pennata. Given the crude execution of the engraving, the ambiguity of Seba’s accompanying description, and the absence of any type specimen, it is impossible to confidently assign this figure to genus or species. Accordingly, the name Mantis clavata Goeze, 1778 should be regarded as nomen dubium. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 76, Plate 68, Figure 12 91 References to the species depicted on Plate 68 Figure 12 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 76 “this one, which lacks wings, is perhaps the female or male of the previous species, with grayish-brown legs striped with black” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 29 “another gouty cricket, similar to number 9 and also wingless” Fabricius, 1775: 275 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Goeze, 1778: 22 “the African mantis with hood covers” Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Fabricius, 1781: 346 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Manuel, 1797: 627 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Manuel, 1797: 642 Mantis clavata Goeze, 1778 Lichtenstein, 1802: 21 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Schwarz, 1810: 5 Mantis gongylodes Linné, 1758 Giglio-Tos, 1927: 638 Empusa pennata (Thunberg, 1815) Remarks. With the exception of Manuel’s temporary confusion regarding the application of clavata, the species illustrated in Plate 68, Figure 12 was consistently referred to as gongylodes by nearly all early authors, from Fabricius through Schwarz, until Giglio-Tos diverged by reassigning it to pennata. If we interpret Plate 68, Figure 9 as depicting a nymph of gongylodes, based on the clear pronotal expansions typical of that species, then Figure 12 cannot represent the same species, as this engraving lacks any such pronotal structures. Instead, the morphology of the specimen shown here more closely aligns with Empusa, and it may reasonably be associated with pennata. Giglio-Tos’ interpretation is thus plausible, as Figure 12 appears consistent with a nymphal stage corresponding to the adult female depicted in Figure 10 on the same plate. While all such identifications remain speculative due to the anatomical inaccuracies characteristic of Seba’s engravings, this figure can confidently be stated not to represent the same species as Plate 68, Figure 9. The earlier consistent assignment to gongylodes was thus erroneous, and Giglio-Tos’s reassignment to pennata represents the most coherent modern interpretation of this engraving. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 76, Plate 68, Figure 13 92 References to the species depicted on Plate 68 Figure 13 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 76 “of a reddish-brown or yellowish-brown color” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 30 “small walking leaf, having in some way double sheaths on the wings. Species of Gryllus (Mantis) of Linné (new species)” Goeze, 1778: 34 “the small praying mantis with two extra wing covers” Mantis parvula Manuel, 1797: 642 Mantis parvula Goeze, 1778 Saussure 1871: 347 indeterminate Thespidae Kirby, 1904: 278 Bactromantis parvula (Goeze, 1778) Giglio-Tos, 1927: 268 doubtful species Ehrmann, 2002: 75 Bactromantis parvula (Goeze, 1778) Remarks. The specimen depicted in Plate 68, Figure 13 represents a wholly fantastical rendering that cannot be reconciled with any known species of Mantodea—or indeed, with any real insect. The engraving portrays a specimen with what appears to be three pairs of wings, a configuration that does not occur in any extant insect lineage. The most plausible explanation is that Seba’s original specimen was physically altered through Frankenstein taxidermy, in which the brachypterous forewings of another mantis were affixed to an existing specimen. Such an artificial assemblage could easily have misled the engravers working from preserved, composite material. Despite the anatomical impossibility of the depiction, several historical authors attempted to formalize its taxonomy. Goeze established the name parvula for this series of engravings (Figures 13–16) but Saussure and Giglio-Tos subsequently refrained from assigning these figures to any genus or species, recognizing their interpretive uncertainty. Kirby tentatively placed parvula within Bactromantis Scudder, 1896, but provided no justification for the generic placement. Ehrmann continued to list parvula as valid, perpetuating its inclusion in catalogues without critical evaluation. Anderson (2022: 10) conclusively argued that parvula lacks any meaningful diagnosis, has no specified type locality, and is based on an inaccurate, composite depiction inconsistent with mantis morphology and thus cannot be confidently associated with any real taxon and must be regarded as nomen dubium. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 76, Plate 68, Figure 14 93 Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 76, Plate 69, Figure 5 References to the species depicted on Plate 69 Figure 5 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 76 “outer wings that are more or less green, while the inner wings, which are primarily used for flying, are a light purplish-gray color. The body and legs are mostly brown in color, but the shade may vary” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 30 “elytra of varying shades of green … they should be classified under the Gryllus (Mantis) of Linné Genus 194 (new species)” Goeze, 1778: 35 “the eight-bristled predatory grasshopper. With a head equipped with eight prominent bristles” Mantis octosetosa Manuel, 1797: 642 Mantis octosetosa Goeze, 1778 Giglio-Tos, 1927: 598 Stagmatoptera precaria (Linné, 1758) Ehrmann, 2002: 329 Stagmatoptera precaria (Linné, 1758) Remarks. This engraving depicts an unusual and clearly stylized specimen of Mantodea characterized by bristle-like projections along the head capsule and an exaggerated series of spines on the foretibiae. Neither Seba nor Robinet mentioned these peculiarities in their brief, generalized descriptions—both of which were applied indiscriminately to figures 1–6 of the same plate and emphasize only body and wing coloration. By contrast, Goeze focused specifically on the head armature, designating the species octosetosa and remarking that its head was “equipped with eight prominent bristles.” Such a feature is unknown in any genuine species of Mantodea. Manuel subsequently repeated Goeze’s name, but later compilers Giglio-Tos and Ehrmann listed octosetosa as a junior synonym of precaria. This synonymy is untenable, as this figure bears no resemblance to precaria, nor even to Goeze’s cubitata of Plate 69 Figure 3, which the same authors also synonymized with precaria. The engravings of these two species differ markedly in head morphology, pronotal proportions, and forewing form, attributes that clearly indicate distinct taxa, however crudely drawn. Moreover, the repeated attribution of Plate 67, Figures 3–8; Plate 69, Figure 3 and Plate 69, Figure 5 to precaria demonstrates the absence of internal consistency among these later interpretations. Of all these, only Plate 67, Figure 5 100 plausibly represents the true precaria; the others depict disparate and fanciful insects. The present figure cannot be associated with Stagmatoptera or with any described Mantodea. Consequently, Mantis octosetosa Goeze, 1778 is best regarded as a nomen dubium. 101 Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 76, Plate 69, Figure 7 (dorsal) and Figure 8 (ventral) References to the species depicted on Plate 69 Figures 7 & 8 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 76 “this species is very different from the previous ones. It has a shield-like structure on the front part of its body, which appears like a vesicle with a yellowish upper face and variegated reddish spots. It is also marked on both sides with green spots. The front of the body is also green, and the back is brown. On the underside, the entire body is brown, and the shield is pale green, marked with four dirty yellow spots. Its wings are dark green both above and below. The outer wings resemble leaves and are similarly marked with veins, while the inner wings are adorned with a dark yellow spot on the side.” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 30 “a walking leaf with a swollen thorax, yellow and speckled with red and green. This species is related to the Gryllus strumarius of Linné sp. 10” Fabricius, 1775: 276 Mantis strumaria Linné, 1758 Goeze, 1778: 27 “the Indian crop carrier” Mantis strumaria Linné, 1758 Fabricius, 1781: 347 Mantis strumaria Linné, 1758 Manuel, 1797: 633 Mantis strumaria Linné, 1758 Schwarz, 1810: 6 Mantis strumaria Linné, 1758 Ehrmann, 2002: 102 Choeradodis strumaria (Linné, 1758) Remarks. The coloration of this species as was described by Seba and Robinet likely reflects a desiccated specimen. Living individuals of shield mantises are typically a uniform green, whereas preserved or dried examples turn yellowish or reddish-brown, accounting for the hues noted in the original text. The depicted specimen possesses pectinate antennae, which suggests Frankenstein taxidermy rather than accurate representation. Morphologically, the pronotum of the illustrated specimen appears nearly circular, a form more consistent with Asiadodis Roy, 2004 than the more angular disc of Choeradodis Audinet-Serville, 1831. Given the crudeness of the image, however, either generic interpretation remains tentative. However, Robinet’s own wording makes clear that the species was considered related to rather than representative of strumaria, implying that this figure depicted an undescribed taxon at the time. Nevertheless, Fabricius was the first to formally interpret the figure as exactly representative of strumaria, a view that persisted through later compilations and was perpetuated by Ehrmann in the modern 102 era. The historical assignment to strumaria is unsubstantiated and the identity of Seba’s illustrated specimen remains uncertain and is best regarded as indeterminate within Choeradodinae. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 76, Plate 70, Figure 1 References to the species depicted on Plate 70 Figure 1 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 76 “this species of grasshopper with four wings is entirely chestnut in color, striped with white on both the upper and lower sides” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 30 “walking leaf, brown with white stripes. Species of Gryllus (Mantis) Linné Genus 194 (new species)” Goeze, 1778: 24 “the European walking leaf” Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 Schwarz, 1810: 10 Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 Saussure, 1871: 254 Iris oratoria (Linné, 1758) (female) Westwood, 1889:10 Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 Ehrmann, 2002: 216 Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 Remarks. Robinet explicitly noted this figure as representing a new species within Gryllus (Mantis). Despite this original indication of novelty, Goeze assigned the figure to religiosa, an interpretation later repeated by Schwarz. Saussure diverged from this view, reassigning the figure to oratoria, although neither Seba’s description nor the engraved specimen exhibits the diagnostic hindwing maculations that unmistakably characterize oratoria. Without explanation, Westwood reverted the figure to religiosa, a decision later perpetuated by Ehrmann. As mentioned earlier, the difficulty with Westwood’s and Ehrmann’s identifications lies in their internal inconsistency: both authors attributed multiple, morphologically distinct Seba figures to religiosa: Plate 67, Figure 1; Plate 70, Figure 1; Plate 73, Figure 3 and Plate 96, Figure 45. While all of these depictions are crudely rendered, they display conspicuous differences and cannot represent the same species. Among them, the specimen depicted on Plate 96, Figure 45 most closely resembles the true religiosa, whereas the present engraving most probably corresponds to Raptrix Terra, 1995—a genus entirely unknown at the time of Robinet. Robinet’s statement that the specimen represented a new species was therefore accurate. The subsequent historical 103 assignments to religiosa or oratoria are unsubstantiated, and the identification of this figure remains uncertain. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 76-77, Plate 70, Figure 7 References to the species depicted on Plate 70 Figure 7 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 76-77 “outer wings are pale blue-green, and the inner wings are light gray or ash-colored, marked with transverse reddish bands. The body is reddish-brown.” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 30 “walking leaf, with wing covers of a very greenish-blue color. Species of Gryllus Mantis according to Linné (new species)” 104 Goeze, 1778: 35 “the greenish-blue mantis” Mantis aeruginosa Manuel, 1797: 642 Mantis aruginosa Goeze, 1778 Saussure, 1871: 235 Polyspilota striata (Houttuyn in Stoll, 1813) Westwood, 1889: 12 Polyspilota striata (Houttuyn in Stoll, 1813) Kirby, 1904: 240 Polyspilota pustulata (Houttuyn in Stoll, 1813) Giglio-Tos, 1927: 399 Polyspilota aeruginosa (Goeze, 1778) Ehrmann, 2002: 285 Polyspilota aeruginosa (Goeze, 1778) Remarks. Robinet noted that this species was new under Gryllus (Mantis). Goeze named the figure aeruginosa, interpreting the epithet from the Latin “aeruginosus,” meaning “greenish-blue” or “verdigris-colored.” (Verdigris is the natural patina that forms on the surface of copper, brass, or bronze when exposed to air and moisture over time.) Manuel accepted this name but issued a misspelling of the epithet as “aruginosa”. Saussure reinterpreted aeruginosa as “rust-colored” rather than “verdigris-colored,” criticizing Goeze for relying solely on Seba’s illustration rather than a preserved specimen. Saussure pointed out that this dependence likely led to a misreading of Seba’s text and consequently an erroneous color interpretation. Nonetheless, Saussure retained aeruginosa but considered it a junior synonym of striata. As Anderson (2022a: 59) later clarified, striata itself was preceded by two other names and is a junior synonym of Mantis variegata Manuel, 1797, which in turn postdates aeruginosa. The Stoll (1787: Plate XI, Figure 41) illustration that Manuel and Houttuyn referenced indeed depicts a reddish-brown mantis, which explains Saussure’s critique of Goeze’s color interpretation, but ironically, Saussure repeated the same methodological limitation by working only from illustrations. Westwood adopted Saussure’s interpretation, while Kirby also applied aeruginosa to this figure but tentatively treated it as a synonym of pustulata, which is another name later shown by Anderson (2022a: 60) to represent aeruginosa. Giglio-Tos reinstated aeruginosa as valid for Seba’s figure, a view subsequently retained by Ehrmann. Remarkably, aeruginosa has persisted as a valid name for over two centuries—an unusual fate compared to Goeze’s other Mantodea binomials, most of which have fallen into synonymy or forgotten altogether. However, by modern standards of zoological nomenclature, aeruginosa fails to satisfy the criteria set forth by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). The Seba illustration and description are too imprecise to permit identification, and no type specimen exists; thus, the name should have been regarded as a nomen dubium many decades ago. Nevertheless, given its long-standing and widespread usage, the continued application of aeruginosa is advisable in the interest of nomenclatural stability. But to bring utility to the name of aeruginosa, it is necessary to designate a neotype for this species. Anderson in (2023: 41-42) detailed that Fabricius described Mantis marginata in 1798 from a male specimen that was sent by Daldorff from the “Isle de France” (modern-day Mauritius). The holotype of marginata, preserved in the Fabricius collection at the University of Copenhagen, is well maintained and historically linked to the same taxonomic concept later associated with aeruginosa, as this species was synonymized with aeruginosa by Giglio-Tos in 1927. As such, the holotype of marginata should serve as the neotype for aeruginosa, effectively establishing Mauritius as the type locality for this species, thereby stabilizing the name Polyspilota aeruginosa (Goeze, 1778) through neotypification. 105 Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 76, Plate 70, Figure 9 References to the species depicted on Plate 70 Figure 9 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 76-77 “outer wings are pale blue-green, and the inner wings are light gray or ash-colored, marked with transverse reddish bands. The body is reddish-brown. The anterior edge of the inner wings is adorned with dark red spots.” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 30 “walking leaf, slightly different from the last one” Goeze, 1778: 35 “the red spot” Mantis rubromaculata Manuel, 1797: 642 Mantis rubromaculata Goeze, 1778 Saussure, 1871: 235 Polyspilota pustulata (Houttuyn in Stoll, 1813) Westwood, 1889: 12 Polyspilota pustulata (Houttuyn in Stoll, 1813) Kirby, 1904: 240 Polyspilota pustulata (Houttuyn in Stoll, 1813) Ehrmann, 2002: 285 Polyspilota aeruginosa (Goeze, 1778) 106 Remarks. Robinet observed that this figure had only minor differences compared to the species shown in figure 7 on the same plate. It is indeed plausible that figures 9 and 7 are conspecific, with the present figure representing the male and preceding figure the female. Goeze named this specimen rubromaculata, based on Seba’s description of reddish maculations along the wings. Manuel repeated this designation. Saussure, however, synonymized rubromaculata under pustulata, noting that although Goeze’s name had chronological priority, it was “based solely on a very imperfect figure, one that could even be subject to debate,” and thus, in his view, “not appropriate to adopt.” Westwood followed Saussure’s interpretation. Kirby later reinstated rubromaculata but with hesitation, listing it as a questionable junior synonym of pustulata. Giglio-Tos then synonymized rubromaculata with aeruginosa, a view accepted by Ehrmann, who directly referred this figure to aeruginosa. As Anderson (2022a: 60) demonstrated, pustulata and aeruginosa are in fact the same species, rendering rubromaculata yet another historical name for the same taxon. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 77, Plate 70, Figure 13 References to the species depicted on Plate 70 Figure 13 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 77 “this Specter is named, and several of its species have already been presented on Plate 68” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 30 “walking leaf of lead-gray color, with very slender secondary elytra; identified as Gryllus (Mantis) Linné” (new species) Goeze, 1778: 35 “the blue-colored predatory grasshopper” Mantis plumbea Manuel, 1797: 642 Mantis plombea Goeze, 1778 Saussure, 1871: 197 Euchomena plumbea (Goeze, 1778) Westwood, 1889: 9 Euchomena plumbea (Goeze, 1778) Ehrmann, 2002: 369 Mantis plumbea Goeze, 1778 Remarks. Seba introduced this species by employing the word “Specter”—a term historically used to denote members of Phasmatodea rather than mantises. Robinet, however, interpreted it differently, identifying this figure as representative of a new species under Gryllus (Mantis). 107 Goeze accepted Robinet’s interpretation and formally named the figure plumbea, presumably in reference to the metallic sheen or leaden tint of the engraving. Manuel followed Goeze but introduced a misspelling, citing the taxon as “plombea”. Later, Saussure reassigned the species to Euchomena Saussure, 1870, an action subsequently adopted by Westwood. Ehrmann removed plumbea from Euchomena and returned it to Mantis without justification or commentary, effectively treating it as an unresolved name. Given these ambiguities and the absence of any defining Mantodean characteristics, the generic affiliation of plumbea and even its ordinal placement remain uncertain. Accordingly, the name Mantis plumbea Goeze, 1778 should be regarded as a nomen dubium. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 78, Plate 73, Figure 1 References to the species depicted on Plate 73 Figure 1 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 78 “a locust entirely of reddish-brown color, with pale brown and transparent wings” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 30 “a walking leaf of chestnut color. Species of Gryllus (Mantis) Linné Gen. 194 (new species)” 108 Saussure, 1871: 239 Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 (female) Remarks. Robinet noted that this figure represented a new species of Gryllus (Mantis). Curiously, Saussure was the only subsequent author who commented on this figure—an unusual omission given the frequency with which other Seba figures were later reinterpreted. Saussure identified the specimen as a female of religiosa. Robinet’s text, however, suggests that he recognized the figure as distinct from religiosa, which he would have been well acquainted with, being a common species in France. The description and habitus of this species could instead represent a species of Tenodera Burmeister, 1838, a genus not yet described in Robinet’s time. Nevertheless, given the crudeness of the engraving and the limited descriptive detail, it remains possible that this figure indeed depicts religiosa. In the absence of diagnostic features permitting a definitive assignment, this figure is best regarded as indeterminate within Mantidae, possibly referable to Tenodera but not confidently identifiable as religiosa. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 78, Plate 73, Figure 3 References to the species depicted on Plate 73 Figure 3 between 1765-2002. 109 morphologically consistent renderings on Plate 66 remained entirely ignored. Of all the names proposed by Goeze for Seba’s Mantodea figures, only falcataria and aeruginosa have persisted as valid. Although the falcataria engravings may plausibly represent female members of Acanthops, they lack sufficient diagnostic detail for confident species-level identification. Recognizing this problem, Lombardo & Ippolito (2004: 1082) designated a neotype for Acanthops falcataria (Goeze, 1778) in their revision of the genus, thereby stabilizing the application of the name. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 80, Plate 76, Figure 5 References to the species depicted on Plate 76 Figure 5 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 80 “this one is light brown on both sides” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 31 “light brown walking leaf, of the same species (new species)” Goeze, 1778: 36 “the toothed wing. Wings with a denticulated margin” Mantis dentata Manuel, 1797: 642 Mantis dentata Goeze, 1778 Saussure, 1871: 254 Iris oratoria (Linné, 1758) Giglio-Tos, 1927: 332 Iris oratoria (Linné, 1758) Ehrmann, 2002: 195 Iris oratoria (Linné, 1758) Remarks. Robinet implied that, although this figure represented a new species, it was “of the same species” as those Acanthops featured on the same plate. Goeze provided the name dentata to this species, describing it as “the toothed wing,” a reference to the distinctive scalloped hindwing margin visible in the engraving. Manuel accepted the name without alteration. Saussure later reassigned this figure to oratoria, as he had also done for the specimen shown on Plate 70, Figure 1. This identification is untenable, as the depicted specimen bears no resemblance in maculation to oratoria, as it displays uniformly brown hindwings that lack the 116 concentrated eyespot in the anal area and the red-and-yellow tessellation of the discoidal area characteristic of oratoria. Furthermore, the scalloped outer hindwing margin, the defining feature of dentata, is absent in oratoria. Giglio-Tos later followed Saussure’s interpretation, placing dentata in synonymy with oratoria. Ehrmann also placed this figure under oratoria but suffered from the same inconsistencies as Saussure. Ehrmann’s inclusion of Plate 67, Figure 9 within oratoria is problematic, as neither that figure nor the present one resembles oratoria or each other in any defining character. While Mantis dentata Goeze, 1778 can be dismissed as distinct from oratoria, it cannot be confidently associated with any known mantis species and thus must be regarded as a nomen dubium. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 80, Plate 76, Figure 7 References to the species depicted on Plate 76 Figure 7 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 80 “all four wings are gray, with brown tips on the inner ones; the body is also brown” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 31 “ashen-gray walking leaf, with very dark wing tips. Linné Ibid (new species)” Goeze, 1778: 37 “the rosary body. Various colors, however all have an abdomen articulated with oval globules, like a rosary” Mantis paternoster Manuel, 1797: 642 Mantis paternoster Goeze, 1778 Ehrmann, 2002: 369 Mantis paternoster Goeze, 1778 Remarks. Robinet recognized this depicted specimen as a new species under Gryllus (Mantis). Goeze subsequently assigned the name Mantis paternoster to a collective grouping of six figures (Plate 76, Figures 7–12), explaining the epithet as referring to the “rosary body,” alluding to their shared appearance of an abdomen segmented like a string of beads. While this morphological trait served as his unifying criterion, it led to the inclusion of distinctly unrelated figures under a 117 single name. In truth, Figures 9–12 on Plate 76 are clearly not mantises but rather representations of Phasmatodea, each one differing substantially from the others and from the Mantodean figure depicted in Figure 7. Although the specimen in Figure 7 does appear Mantodean, it lacks sufficient detail for definitive generic placement. The name paternoster has virtually no history in subsequent entomological literature, having been mentioned only by Manuel, who repeated Goeze’s designation, and later by Ehrmann, who, like Goeze, erroneously grouped all six figures together under the same name. Given the ambiguous nature of the figure, the conflation of unrelated taxa under the same epithet, and the absence of any consistent diagnostic traits, Mantis paternoster Goeze, 1778 must be regarded as a nomen dubium. Hand-colored engraving of species from Seba, 1765: 83, Plate 80, Figure 13 References to the species depicted on Plate 80 Figure 13 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 83 “the outer wings are of a light green color, and the inner ones are gray, marked with small black lines and spots” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 32 “walking leaf, which has green wing covers and ashy wings, marked with black. Species of Gryllus (Mantis) Linné (new species)” Goeze, 1778: 37 “the praying mantis with leaf-shaped antennae. Antennae are leaf-like, with a very pointed tip” Mantis foliata Manuel, 1797: 642 Mantis foliata Goeze, 1778 Ehrmann, 2002: 363 Mantis foliata Lichtenstein, 1802 Remarks. Goeze assigned this figure the name foliata, referencing the foliaceous form of its antennae. Manuel accepted this designation without modification. Ehrmann later listed this figure as potentially referable to foliata Lichtenstein, 1802, which is an entirely different species based on a Stoll illustration, as the two figures in question are morphologically incongruent. Seba’s foliata shows a mantis with distinctly patterned hindwings and simple, unlobed metathoracic legs, whereas Stoll’s foliata, as later interpreted by Lichtenstein, displays hyaline hindwings and lobed metathoracic legs. These morphological discrepancies confirm that the two 118 illustrations represent separate taxa. Moreover, Mantis foliata Lichtenstein, 1802 constitutes a junior homonym of Mantis foliata Goeze, 1778, rendering Lichtenstein’s name invalid under the rules of zoological nomenclature. The specimen in Seba’s figure exhibits a curious mix of features not characteristic of any known mantis species. The most striking elements include the pectinate antennae, typically restricted to males in certain genera, and patterned hindwings, which in such taxa are normally hyaline. These inconsistencies suggest that the depiction may be another example of Frankenstein taxidermy. Given the ambiguous nature of its defining traits, Mantis foliata Goeze, 1778 should be regarded as a nomen dubium. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 83, Plate 81, Figure 4 References to the species depicted on Plate 81 Figure 4 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 83 “color brownish-yellow, with the posterior part of the body somewhat reddish” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 32 “another specimen of the walking leaf without wings, likewise to be regarded as a larva. Linné (new species) Ibid.” Remarks. Robinet designated this engraving as representing a new species under Linné, interpreting it as a nymphal form. Despite this clear indication of novelty, the figure was never formally named by any later author and appears to have been entirely neglected in subsequent literature. This omission is notable given that other juvenile specimens within the Thesaurus were nonetheless assigned names by Goeze and later workers. Thus, its exclusion cannot be attributed to its nymphal condition or lack of distinctive features, but rather seems to reflect a simple oversight within the historical chain of interpretation. 119 Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 84, Plate 82, Figure 3 References to the species depicted on Plate 82 Figure 3 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 84 “yellowish in color” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 32 “Gryllus species without wings and only having sheaths. Linné (new species) Ibid.” Remarks. Robinet designated this engraving as representative of a new species under Linné. Despite this indication of novelty, the engraving was never subsequently named by any author and appears to have been entirely ignored in later literature. Though comparable in crudeness or interpretive inaccuracy to earlier engravings, this figure was passed over by Goeze and all succeeding authors. As with the preceding figure, this literary neglect contrasts sharply with earlier treatments, in which even the most stylized or implausible depictions were repeatedly renamed, reinterpreted, and synonymized over the following two centuries. The probable reason for this discontinuity lies with Goeze himself. As the first author to systematically apply binomials to Seba’s figures, he established a precedent that later workers felt compelled to engage with. Since Goeze did not name this particular figure, it seems subsequent authors saw no need to address it, lacking both a binomial to reinterpret and a morphological basis to justify a new one. In this way, the figure’s continued omission serves as a tacit acknowledgment that was shared by 18ththrough 21st-century scholars that many of Seba’s depictions are too stylized to be confidently assigned to any real species of Mantodea. Nonetheless, it is notable that while some engravings within Seba’s work depict “mantises” with as many as three pairs of wings, Robinet here described the opposite extreme—a supposed species reduced to only a single pair of wing sheaths. 120 Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 84, Plate 82, Figure 4 References to the species depicted on Plate 82 Figure 4 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 84 “yellowish in color” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 32 “related to the preceding species. Linné (new species) Ibid.” Remarks. Robinet noted that this depicted specimen was a new species under Linné. Beyond these cursory remarks, this figure received virtually no attention in subsequent literature. Saussure (1871: 347) was the only later author to mention this engraving. He did not assign a Latin binomial to it, instead suggesting that the figure possibly represented an immature form of another species, though he provided no indication as to which. His hesitation was likely due to the vague and stylized nature of the illustration, which, although somewhat unique, lacks any diagnostic features by which it could be confidently associated with a real taxon. Given the uncertainty surrounding both its maturity and taxonomic affinity, the specimen depicted in Plate 82, Figure 4 must be regarded as indeterminate and unassignable. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 84, Plate 82, Figure 7 121 References to the species depicted on Plate 82 Figure 7 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 84 “yellow in color” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 32 “a walking leaf endowed with wings and these false sheaths; species of Gryllus (Mantis) Linné” (new species)” Saussure, 1871: 266 Miomantis fenestrata (Fabricius, 1781) Remarks. Robinet designated this figure as a new species, noting its unusual wing structure. Saussure (1871: 266) was the only subsequent author to address this engraving, assigning it to fenestrata, though the connection is tenuous and entirely unfounded. The figure itself represents one of Seba’s most conspicuous Mantodea chimeras that depicts a mantis with three pairs of wings, an anatomical impossibility. Robinet attempted to reconcile this feature by referring to the additional set as “false sheaths,” though the depiction more plausibly reflects a composite specimen, assembled from mismatched thoracic and abdominal segments. This engraving is thus best understood as another example of Frankenstein taxidermy and not representative of any real taxon. Hand-colored and uncolored variants of a species depicted in Seba, 1765: 84, Plate 82, Figure 8 References to the species depicted on Plate 82 Figure 8 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 84 “yellow in color” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 32 “the variety of the preceding species. Linné (new species) Ibid.” Remarks. Robinet regarded this specimen as merely a variety of the preceding figure but noting that it represents a new species. Like the prior engraving, it portrays a mantis with three complete pairs of wings—an anatomical impossibility that firmly situates this image among Seba’s Mantodea chimeras. Curiously, despite its association with the preceding figure, this engraving was not referenced by Saussure or reassigned by any subsequent author. Its omission perhaps reflects an unspoken acknowledgment of its implausibility. As with the other chimeric depictions, the figure was almost certainly based on an actual mounted specimen rather than an invention of the engraver, further illustrating how Seba’s collection bridged the line between authentic natural history and the performative spectacle of early curiosity cabinets. 122 Hand-colored and uncolored engraving of species from Seba, 1765: 97, Plate 96, Figure 45 References to the species depicted on Plate 96 Figure 45 between 1765-2002. Seba, 1765: 97 “the common walking leaf of Surinam” Robinet in Seba, 1765: 32 “species of walking leaf. Gryllus religiosus, Linné sp. 5.” Goeze, 1778: 24 “the European walking leaf” Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 Schwarz, 1810: 10 Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 Saussure, 1871: 239 Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 (female) Westwood, 1889:10 Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 Ehrmann, 2002: 216 Mantis religiosa Linné, 1758 Remarks. This figure stands apart from the rest of Seba’s Mantodea depictions. Unlike the majority of his engravings, which clearly represent mounted and dried specimens from collection drawers, this image appears to illustrate a living individual. Moreover, the composition seems to derive directly from Joris Hoefnagel’s Animalia Rationalia et Insecta (Ignis) from 1575, where a vividly rendered and anatomically accurate adult female religiosa is depicted. Hoefnagel’s illustration, which was produced nearly two centuries before Seba’s Thesaurus, is remarkably more anatomically correct, precisely detailed, and taxonomically informative than Seba’s comparatively crude and simplified rendering. This strongly suggests that Seba’s image is not an original depiction from life but rather a derivative and poorly executed reproduction of Hoefnagel’s earlier work. The rationale behind Seba’s inclusion of this figure is uncertain. It may have been intended to balance the more fantastical or exotic Mantodea plates with a recognizable 123 European species, providing a familiar anchor within an otherwise eclectic assemblage. More puzzling, however, is Seba’s note that this specimen originated from Surinam, which is a clear geographical inconsistency, as religiosa is native to Europe and adjacent regions, not South America. Robinet identified the figure as religiosa, an interpretation followed uncritically by Goeze and all subsequent authors. Despite its derivative and inconsistent nature, the figure’s persistence in the literature owes more to its recognizability than to its scientific merit. In this sense, it serves as a fitting conclusion to Seba’s series of Mantodea engravings—bridging the boundary between direct natural observation and artistic citation, between the credible and the curious. Watercolored engraving of Mantis religiosa from Hoefnagel, 1575: Plate XXXXIV, Figure 1 ~ ፨ ፨ ፨ ~ Acknowledgements. I extend my sincere gratitude to Ariel Hammond, Director of Research Library & Archives at the San Diego Natural History Museum (theNat), for her generous assistance in facilitating access to the museum’s rare volumes of Albertus Seba’s Thesaurus. During my visit in September 2025, Ms. Hammond kindly granted me behind-the-scenes access to examine the uncolored edition of Volume IV and later arranged for high-quality scans of the relevant plates. I am also grateful to her volunteers, Rosie Bell and Angie Vorhees, who produced the uncolored scans used in this study. Their generosity and professionalism greatly contributed to the completion of this work. References. ANDERSON, K. (2022): Revision of the North American Genus Bistanta Anderson, 2018. Soothsayer, Journal of Mantodea Research. 3 (1): 1-47. ANDERSON, K. (2022a): Caspar Stoll’s Praying Mantises of the Dutch Colonial Empire. Soothsayer, Journal of Mantodea Research. 3 (2): 2-98. ANDERSON, K. (2023): The Mantodea of Johan Fabricius. Soothsayer, Journal of Mantodea Research. 4 (1): 27-61. ANDERSON, K. (2024): Taxonomic Revision of Subtribe Compsomantina Giglio-Tos, 1915 (Mantodea: Gonypetidae: Gonypetinae: Gonypetini). Soothsayer, Journal of Mantodea Research. 5 (1): 38-88. 124 EHRMANN, R. (2002): Mantodea - Gottesanberinnen der Welt. – Natur und Tier-Verlag, 519 S., 13 Tab., 56 Grafiken, 194 Farbabb; Münster. FABRICIUS, J. C. (1775): Systema Entomologiae. Mantodea & Phasmodea. –Korte, Flensburgi et Lipsiae, 30 + 832 (268-279) S.; Flensburg & Leipzig. FABRICIUS, J. C. (1781): Species Insectorum Mantodea Phasmodea. – Bohn, Hamburgi et Kilonii, 1: 8 + 552 (340-351) S.; Hamburg & Kiel FABRICIUS, J. C. (1793): EntomologiaSystematica. Mantodea & Phasmodea. – Prost, Hafniae, 2: 8 + 519 (12-25); Kopenhagen. GIGLIO-TOS, E. (1927): DasTierreich. Orthoptera-Mantidae. – Walter de Gruyter& Co., 50. Issue, 707 S., 25 figures; Berlin. GOEZE, J. A. E. (1778): Entomologische Beyträge zu des Ritter Linné zwölften Ausgabe des Natur Systems. – Weidmanns Erben und Reich, 2: 1-352 (16-37); Leipzig HODACS, H., NYBERG, K., & BROBERG, G. (Eds.). (2007). Linnaeus' Apostles - Global Science & Adventure, Vol. 1. The IK Foundation & Company. HOEFNAGEL, J. (1575): Animalia Rationalia et Insecta (Ignis). Archetypa studiaque patris Georgii Hoefnagelii. KIRBY, W. F. (1904): A synonymic Catalogue of Orthoptera. (Forficilidae, Hemimeridae, Blattidae, Mantidae and Phasmidae). – British Museum, Nat. Hist., 1: I-X, 1-501 (207-316); London. LICHTENSTEIN, A. A. H. (1802): Transactions of the Linnean Society.- Dissertation on two genera hitherto confounded under the name of mantis and phasmids. – Trans. Linn. Soc. London, v. Thomas Young, Serie B, 6: 1-39, 2 Taf.; London. LOMBARDO, F. & IPPOLITO, S. (2004): Revision of the species of Acanthops Serville 1831 (Mantodea, Mantidae, Acanthopinae) with comments on their phylogeny. – Ann. Ent. Soc. America, 97(6): 1076-1102, 2 Tab., 4 Kte., 35 Abb.; New York. MANUEL, B. E. (1797): Histoire Naturelle, Insectes– Mantes. Encyclopédie Méthodique. 7: 619-642. SAUSSURE, H. (1871): Mélanges Orthoptérologiques - IV. Mantides. – Genève & Bâle, H. Georg, 1863-1871, 3. Issue, 1(2): 149-362, Issue 4-6., (Nachdruck von: Mem. Soc. Physique, 3. Issue, 21(2): 1-214, Issue 4-6, 1871); Geneva SCHWARZ, C. (1810): Nomenclator über die in den Röselschen Insekten-Belustigung.- Insekten und Würmer, mit möglichst vollständiger Synonymie. – Raspe, 2: 1-11; Nürnberg. SEBA, A. (1765): Description exacte des principales curiositez naturelles du magnifique Cabinet d’Albert Seba. – Thesaurus, 4: 42 u. 226 Textseiten, Taf. 1-108; Amsterdam. STOLL, C. (1787): Representation exactement colorée d’après nature des Spectres ou Phasmes, des Mantes, des Sauterelles, des Grillons, des Criquets et des Blattes. Qui se trouvent dans les quatre parties du monde. l’Europe, l’Asie, l’Afrique et l’Amérique; Rassemblées et Décrites par Caspar Stoll. Pages 1-56, Plates 1-18, figures 1-68. VILLERS, C. (1789): Caroli Linnaei Entomologia, faunae Suecicae descriptionibus aucta : DD. Scopoli, Geoffroy, de Geer, Fabricii, Schrank, &c., speciebus vel in systemate non enumeratis, vel nuperrime detectis, vel speciebus Galli australis locupletata, generum specierumque rariorum iconibus ornata; curante & augente Carolo de Villers. – Lyon: Piestre and Delamolliere, 1: 431-433. WESTWOOD, J. O. (1889): Revisio Insectorum Familiae Mantidarum, specie busnovisaut minus cognitisdescriptis et delineatis. – Gurney and Jackson, 55 S., 14 Issue; London. 125