Exosehirus elamensis, Gapon, 2021

Gapon, Dmitry A., 2021, Revision of the genus Exosehirus (Heteroptera: Cydnidae), with the description of two new species, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae (Acta. Ent. Mus. Natl. Pragae) 61 (1), pp. 133-161 : 151

Exosehirus elamensis sp. nov.

( Figs 2B , 3C, I , 4C , 6G–I , 7 , 9 , 14 )

Type material. Hඈඅඈඍඒඉൾ:J [pinned, with dissected terminalia placed in microvessel], “Bushir – Shiraz / yu.-z. Persiya / Sijazov 21-23. V 927 [ IRAN, between Bushehr and Shiraz, c. 29°16′31.3″N 51°40′51.1″E, 21–23.v.1927, M.M.Sijazov leg.]” ( ZISP).Pൺ*©ൺඍඒඉൾඌ:2*JJ, 3*+ 1 ♀♀, same label as for holotype ( ZISP).

Diagnosis. In habitus, most similar to E. sargon , differing mainly in slightly smaller size and wider body, in narrower scutellum, and, probably, in its less shiny and less dark body [vs. “very shiny” in E. sargon ; body of this new species slightly shinier and slightly darker than usual in E. validus and less shiny than usual in E. essedonius sp. nov.], less convex disk of pronotun and calli, larger eyes, more widely rounded preocular part of head. Pale stripe of lateral margins of hemelytra posteriorly extremely narrow, disappearing ( Fig. 2B ). Preocular part of head usually as in E. validus , but slightly less narrowly rounded anteriorly ( Fig. 3C ). Pronotum with anterolateral margins more widely diverging posteriorly ( Fig. 3I ) than in E. validus , E. essedonius sp. nov., E. marginatus and slightly more widely diverging than in E. sargon . Punctation usually slightly larger and deeper than usual in E. validus . Other characters of habitus as in E. validus .

Pygophore ( Fig. 4C ) and paramere mostly as in E. validus . Median notch of posteroventral margin of pygophore less wide and deep than in E. validus and less wide than in E. essedonius sp. nov. Dorsal wall of paramere corpus before base of hypophysis without distinct tubercle as in E. essedonius sp. nov. ( Fig. 4I ).

Aedeagus ( Figs 6G–I , 7 , 9 ) similar to that of E. validus . Conjunctiva longer, about as long as theca and phallobase combined. Ventrolateral lobes slightly narrower, with slightly narrower apices bordered by wider band; bands on mesal margins of lobes more convergent; bands on anterior margins of lobes shorter. Dorsolateral lobes slightly longer, becoming wider apically in lateral view, directed anteriad (towards base of conjunctiva); ventral wall of each lobe before apex with short, narrow transverse sclerite, its lateral rounded margin protruding beyond lateral wall of lobe; any denticles on sclerites absent [vs. E. sargon and E. essedonius sp. nov.]. Dorsoapical lobes almost completely transformed into spicules, being long, straight, directed dorsally and slightly anteriad, slightly diverging. In anterior view, each spicule wide at base, gradually tapering distally, with grooved concave surface; apically, spicule very narrow, without depression; in lateral view, spicule narrow throughout, thinning apicad, slightly curved; membranous wall preserved only at extreme base of spicule at anterior side; apex of spicule acute. Vesica ( Fig. 7 ) very long, directed ventrally and anteriorly, parallel to ventral wall of conjunctiva and reaching its base. Membranous tubercle at base of ventral wall trapezoidally rounded, adjacent to conjunctival wall. Walls of proximal part of conjunctiva slightly sclerotised in middle, membranous and slightly swollen just before apex. Distal part of vesica extended into relatively long filament.

Female terminalia ( Fig. 14 ) similar to those of E. validus . Extreme lateral ends of gonocoxites II curved inward.

Anterior part of gynatrial sac slightly smaller; its lateral walls almost parallel, dorsal wall slightly concave anterior to transverse fold [perhaps this shape is a consequence that the gynatrial sac in the studied females did not fully expand and swelled under the action of osmotic forces when boiling in alkali]. Gynatrial cone about three times as long as in E. validus ; its posterior part shorter and wider, without pouches on sides, anterior part much longer, more flattened, with a straight [not ventricose vs. E. essedonius sp. nov.] posterior wall, with parallel lateral margins in middle, tapering triangularly apically [in one of the two studied females, gynatrial cone is straight ( Fig. 14B ), in the other female, it is folded twice at the base ( Fig. 14A ); I do not know which state of this structure is normal]. Spermatheca attached to gynatrial cone at its apex. Proximal part of spermathecal duct slightly wider and longer than in E. validus , not narrowed distally; middle part substantially wider, longer (not less than twice), with parallel walls throughout; distal part slightly longer. Margins of ring sclerites slightly wider than that in typical cases in E. validus . Posterior pouches spaced apart, with widely rounded posterior margins.

Measurements (n = 7; mm). Body: length 5.25–6.25, width 3.25–3.93; ratio body length / pronotum width 1.75– 1.84; head: length 1.05–1.19, width 1.33–1.46; ratio width / length 1.22–1.29; synthlipsis 0.85–0.95; ocular index 3.54–3.89; length of antennal segments I–V: 0.35–0.42: 0.43–0.49: 0.36–0.41: 0.59–0.67: 0.71–0.73; pronotum: length 1.53–1.75, width 3.00–3.45, ratio width / length 1.94–1.97; scutellum: length 2.18–2.58, width 1.95–2.33, ratio length / width 1.09–1.11.

Etymology. The species name is an adjective derived from the Sumerian name of the state that existed until the 6th century BC in the territory where the new species was found.

Distribution ( Fig. 1 ). Southwest Iran.

Figures

Fig. 2. Exosehirus species, general appearance from dorsal side and type labels. A – E. validus (Jakovlev, 1877), holotype; B – E. elamensis sp. nov., holotype; C – E. essedonius sp. nov., holotype; D – E. marginatus (Signoret, 1881), without abdomen, from Turkey.

Fig. 3. Head (A–F), pronotum (G–K) and external scent efferent system (L) of Exosehirus species.A, G, L – E. validus (Jakovlev, 1877); B, H – E. sargon Linnavuori, 1984; C, I – E. elamensis sp. nov.; D, E, J – E. essedonius sp. nov.; F, K – E. marginatus (Signoret, 1881). Scale bars: 0.25 mm (A, C–F, L) and 0.5 mm (G, I–K). B and H after Lංඇඇൺඏඎඈ*©ං (1984).

Fig. 4. Pygophore, paramere and aedeagus of Exosehirus species.A, F, G, H – E. validus (Jakovlev, 1877); B, K – E. sargon Linnavuori, 1984; C – E. elamensis sp. nov.; D, I – E. essedonius sp. nov.; E, J – E. marginatus (Signoret, 1881). Pygophore in ventrocaudal (A–E) and dorsal (F) view; paramere in lateral (G) and dorsal (H–J) view; aedeagus in lateral view (K). Abbreviations: d.inf – dorsal infolding of pygophore; l.inf – lateral infolding of pygophore; l.r – lateral ridge of subgenital plate; p.r – posterior ridge of subgenital plate; v.inf – ventral infolding of pygophore. Scale bars: 0.25 mm (A, C, D, E, F) and 0.14 mm (G–J). B and K after Lංඇඇൺඏඎඈ*©ං (1984).

Fig. 6. Wet preparations of conjunctival lobes of Exosehirus species. A–C – E. validus (Jakovlev, 1877); D–F – E. sargon Linnavuori, 1984; G–I – E. elamensis sp. nov.; J–L – E. essedonius sp. nov. Ventrolateral lobe (A, D, G, J); dorsolateral lobe (B, E, H, K); dorsoapical lobe (C, F, I, L). Scale bar: 0.14 mm. D–F after Lංඇඇൺඏඎඈ*©ං (1984).

Fig. 7. Vesica of Exosehirus elamensis sp. nov., lateral view.Abbreviations: a.s – articular sclerites; d.ej.r – distal part of ejaculatory reservoir; dc.ej – ductus ejaculatorius; i.f.c – internal fold of wall of conjunctiva; p.ej.r – proximal part of ejaculatory reservoir. Border between conjunctiva and vesica shown by arrows. Scale bar: 0.14 mm.

Fig. 9. Completely inflated aedeagus of Exosehirus elamensis sp. nov. A – ventral view; B – lateral view; C – dorsal view. Scale bar: 0.25 mm.

Fig. 14. Female terminalia of Exosehirus elamensis sp. nov.A – terminalia in dorsal view (female with folded gynatrial cone); B – straight gynatrial cone of another female, in dorsoposterior view. Scale bar: 0.25 mm.

Fig. 1. Distribution of Exosehirus species based on the examined material (coloured buttons) and literature (white buttons).