Perilampus noemi Nikol'skaya , 1952
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.96.83235 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:78AF5F05-21F1-41D7-A37B-1AAFFF77E441 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/09C4AF13-72B4-501B-8FEF-60C1A4708025 |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Perilampus noemi Nikol'skaya , 1952 |
status |
|
Perilampus noemi Nikol'skaya, 1952 View in CoL
Fig. 14 View Figure 14
Perilampus noemi Nikol’skaya, 1952: 194.
Diagnosis.
Head and metasoma black; mesosoma dorsally black, with distinct violet, bronze or/and golden green reflections; female flagellum brownish-black, clava somewhat lighter. Body size: 1.75-3.00 mm. Head shape in frontal view (Fig. 14A, B View Figure 14 ) much wider than high. Head in lateral view not unusually long, without distinct sulcus separating posterior eye margin from temple. Clypeal margin (Fig. 14A, B View Figure 14 ) slightly convex. Supraclypeal area (Fig. 14A, B View Figure 14 ) slightly transverse (less than 1.5 × as wide as high), sides slightly or not defined; in male without oval lateral impressions. Malar sulcus versus anterior margin of malar depression shorter. Frontal keels (Fig. 14A, B View Figure 14 ) absent. Face between scrobes and eye (Fig. 14A, B View Figure 14 ) smooth. Face between clypeus and eye (Fig. 14A, B View Figure 14 ) smooth. Lateral ocellus large (OOL less than twice the largest ocellar diameter). Funicular segments in female (Fig. 14A View Figure 14 ): most segments quadrate to transverse. Male scape (Fig. 14B View Figure 14 ) slightly widened distally, ventral pores on about half scape length. Mesosoma (Fig. 14C View Figure 14 ) not narrow (less than 1.4 × as long as wide). Mesoscutum sculpture (Fig. 14C View Figure 14 ) without smooth median tubercle; interspaces smaller than punctures, rugose. Scutellum hind margin (Fig. 14C View Figure 14 ) without a double carina, with large bilobed protruding projection. Prepectus (Fig. 14D View Figure 14 ) wide, dorsal margin longer than pronotal collar; well defined anteriorly (i.e. suture with pronotum very distinct); all sides with punctures (anterior side with much smaller punctures or partly interrupted), leaving just a very small smooth central area.
Material examined.
Greece: 1♀, " Attiki, Salamina, Agios Lavrendios , 37.962996°N, 23.514664°E, v.2020, By Hand, Leg. Koutsoukos, V." (MICO); 1♀, " Attiki, Salamina, Agios Lavrendios, 37.962996°N, 23.514664°E, vii.2020, By Hand, Leg. Koutsoukos, V." (MICO); 1♀, 3♂♂, " Attiki, Salamina, Ano Vasilika, 37.98822°N, 23.49196°E, ix.2020, By hand, Leg. Koutsoukos, V." (MICO); 1♀, 1♂, " Attiki, Salamina, Patris hill, 37.970°N, 23.489°E, x.2020, By hand Leg. Koutsoukos, V." (MICO); 1♂ " Greece / Crete; 35.094319°N, 24.706687° E; 18.10.2022 on Urginea maritima", " E. Klimsa leg." GoogleMaps . Mongolia: 1♀ " Mongolia, Gobi Altaj aimak, Zachuj Gobi, 10 km N von Chatan chajrchan Gebirge , 1150 m, Exp. Dr. Z. Kaszab, 1966", "Nr. 591, 27.VI.1966 ", "Perilampus Perilampus Nik. ♀ Bouček det. 1982" (NHMUK); 1♂ " Mongolia: Bajanchongor aimak, Cagan Bogd ul, zw. Talyn bilgech bulag und Caganbulag, 25 km WSW v. Quelle, 1450 m, Exp. Dr. Z. Kaszab, 1966", "Nr. 842, 24.VI.1967 ", "Perilampus Perilampus Nik. ♂ Bouček det. 1982", “NHMUK014583387” (NHMUK) .
Hosts.
Unknown.
Distribution.
Mongolia and Tadzhikistan, the latter cited by Bouček (1983). New species to Europe.
Comments.
In Bouček’s key (1956) specimens of P. noemi go to couplet 17 ( P. laevifrons and P. neglectus ). However, P. noemi differs from both these species mainly in the shape and sculpture of the prepectus (Fig. 14D View Figure 14 ) and body colour (Fig. 14 View Figure 14 ). Additionally, from P. laevifrons (Fig. 8 View Figure 8 ) it differs mainly in having the upper face smooth and the clypeal margin slightly convex (Fig. 14A, B View Figure 14 ), while from P. neglectus (Fig. 12 View Figure 12 ) in having the posterior margin of scutellum with a larger bilobed protruding projection (Fig. 14C View Figure 14 ). According to Darling and Yoo (2021), females of P. noemi are undistinguishable from females of P. khor Yoo & Darling, 2021 (described from the United Arab Emirates), while the males of the two species can be separated based on several features, the structure of the scape being the most striking ( Darling and Yoo 2021: 114). However, the scape of the NHMUK014583387 male (identified as P. noemi by Bouček, see Material examined) is much more similar to the scape of the P. khor male ( Darling and Yoo 2021: fig. 4J, K) than the scape of the ROME188145 male ( Darling and Yoo 2021: fig. 5D, also identified as P. noemi ), although in NHMUK014583387 the ventral pores occupy a rather larger portion of the scape as compared to those in P. khor . Concerning scape morphology, all males from Greece (Fig. 14B View Figure 14 ) are similar to NHMUK014583387 and different from ROME188145. One possibility is that ROME188145 is in fact not P. noemi , as also indicated by differences from the P. noemi female: the arrangement of the ocelli, the shape of the clypeal margin, and the relative dimensions of the clypeal and supraclypeal areas. However, Nikols’kaya’s original material of P. noemi as well as additional specimens should be examined before assessing the variability of the involved species and taking any taxonomic decisions.
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Perilampus noemi Nikol'skaya , 1952
Mitroiu, Mircea-Dan & Koutsoukos, Evangelos 2023 |
Perilampus noemi
Nikol'skaya 1952 |