Stagmomantis is currently an aggregate of morphologically diverse species that have been historically grouped into various taxonomic subdivisions based upon their shared characteristics. In 1917, Giglio-Tos organized a set of species subdivisions as separate genera apart from Stagmomantis and used basic morphological characters to delineate the differences between them. Four years later, in 1922, Hebard rejected Giglio-Tos’ segregation of Stagmomantis into separate genera and synonymized these subdivisions, stating that they “have at best no higher than group value within the genus.” In 1935, Rehn further criticized Giglio-Tos’ simplistic criteria for the demarcation of his proposed genera and offered instead his own ordering of species subdivisions into defined groups. Rehn’s group concept of the species subdivisions was constructed through a much more thorough and sophisticated analysis than that of Giglio-Tos but he essentially reached the same conclusions as the former author, as Rehn’s species groups demonstrated clear parallels to the generic divisions that were first introduced by Giglio-Tos’.
Without a proper phylogenetic study to map out the exact relationships between the various species of Stagmomantis, the taxonomic ranking of the species subdivisions that were created by Giglio-Tos and Rehn remain open to interpretation. To help clarify this problem, Rodrigues initiated a phylogenetic study of Mantidae in 2018. Although the final results of this study remain pending, Rodrigues reported through personal correspondence with the present author that his preliminary data regarding the members of Stagmomantis “indicate that the genus needs to be split as there are different lineages grouped together.” At present, there is only enough data to confidently segregate Isomantis away from the other species clusters and reinstate this monotypic division as its own genus. Several of the remaining subdivisions will also most likely need to be returned to genus status at some point in the near future for reasons similar to those that warrant the separation of Isomantis. But until further studies can compellingly challenge Rehn’s organization of species within Stagmomantis, the subdivisions that have been constructed by him should remain in place within this taxon. However, as both GiglioTos and Rehn reached roughly the same conclusions through different methodologies regarding the segregation of the various species within Stagmomantis, it is clear that the subdivisions erected by these two authors have merit and thus should be regarded with an elevated taxonomic designation of subgenera rather than the informal group designation as proposed by Rehn.