Euborellia, Burr, 1909
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.17109/AZH.63.1.29.2017 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E11F1B-FFEF-5166-FDB1-E89DFDB4EEA6 |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Euborellia |
| status |
|
Thegenus Euborellia istraditionallyrepresentedintheIberianPeninsula bytwowidelydistributedspecies, Euborelliaannulipes (Lucas, 1847) and E. moesta (Gené, 1837) (LApeIRA & PAScuAl 1980, HeRReRAMeSA 1999). SteInmAnn (1981 a), describedathirdIberianspecies, Euborelliahispanica Steinmann, 1981, basedonasinglespecimenfromOlot (ProvinceofGirona, Spain). Thespeci- men, accordingtoSteInmAnn’ s (1981 a) description, correspondstoarecently moultedimmaturespecimen. Iexaminedthemorphologicalvariabilityofa largeseriesofadultandjuvenilespecimensof E. moesta fromthreedifferent localitiesinGirona (locatedabout 40 kmfromthetypelocalityof E. hispanica ), whereitisarelativelycommonspecies (seerecordsinAppendix 1).
ThediagnosticcharactersindicatedbySteInmAnn (1981 a) for E. hispanica areincludedwithinthelocalvariabilityfoundin E. moesta fromGirona, and, asindicatedabove, immatureorrecentlymetamorphosedmalesinthefamily Anisolabididaeshowexternalsecondarysexualcharactersandgenitalstruc- tureshighlyvariable.
Iproposethat E. hispanica and E. moesta representthesametaxon, and therefore E. hispanica shouldbetreatedasajuniorsynonymof E. moesta . HeR- ReRAMeSA (1999) didnotmentionSteinmann’staxon, probablybecausethe authorconsideredSteinmann’s E. hispanica amisapplicationof Forficulahispanica Herrich-Schäffer, 1840 (= E. moesta ), butSteInmAnn’ s (1981 a) intention wasclearlythedescriptionofanewspecies.
Thegeographicrangesof E. moesta and E. annulipes arenotadequately analyzedintheIberianterritory. Alongtheexaminationof 360 specimensof Iberian Euborellia (seeAppendix 1), Idetectedsomemisidentificationsthat allowustoquestionpublishedreports. Thoseerroneousordoubtfulrecords correspondtothepresenceof E. annulipes incentralSpain. Infact, oncerevisedtheavailablespecimens, theresultinggeographicrangeof E. annulipes ismostlylimitedtocoastalareas, orregionswithadeepoceanicinfluence, while E. moesta ispresentoverlargeareasinmorecontinentalsituations.
Theconfusionmighthavearosefromthefactthatlatenymphalinstars of E. moesta (Fig. 5) presentexternalmorphologicaltraitsverysimilartothose retainedbyadult E. annulipes . Someofthosetraits, asforexample, thepres- enceoflightlegsannulatedwithdarkbrownrings, thepresenceofawhitish annulionthedistalportionoftheantennae, ortheabsenceofelytralpads, are oftentheonlycharactersusedforseparationbetween E. moesta and E. annulipes . Asaconsequence, latenymphalinstarsof E. moesta areeasilyconfused withadult E. annulipes . Ibelievethatalargenumber, ifnotall, thereportsof E. annulipes incentralSpaincorrespondactuallyto E. moesta . Iprovidealistof confirmedlocalitiesinAppendix 1.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.