Coletinia, Wygodzinsky, 1980

Molero-Baltanás, Rafael, Gaju-Ricart, Miquel, Fišer, Žiga, Bach de Roca, Carmen & Mendes, Luís F., 2022, Three new species of European Coletinia Wygodzinsky (Zygentoma, Nicoletiidae), with additional records and an updated identification key, European Journal of Taxonomy 798 (1), pp. 127-161 : 153-157

Key for identification of species of the genus Coletinia

This key is based on that of Wygodzinsky (1980) but includes the 16 new species described afterwards. The females of Coletinia diania , C. herculea , C. setosula , C. dextra sp. nov. and C. serrata sp. nov. and the males of Coletinia corsica Chopard, 1924 are not known, so they are excluded from the key. The original description (only available) of the female Coletinia corsica is insufficient to identify some characters considered in this key, so this species is not included. For some characters, figures of original descriptions have been considered when not explicitly described in the text.

Moreover, the variability of C. maggi discussed by Gilgado & Ortuño (2015) is left pending, and the distinction established by Molero et al. (2013) between C. maggi and C. hernandoi Molero, Bach & Gaju 2013 is not considered, since both taxa require further investigation. We indicate this in the key as ‘ Coletinia maggi species group’.

For some characters, the key of Molero et al. (2013) has been used but revised and modified, because the high variability detected in several species, as commented in the discussion section. For example, the shape of the hind margin of the urotergite X has been discarded.

1. Frons with very numerous subequal long setae ................................................................................ 2

– Frons with fewer setae, both distinct macrochaetae and short bristles ............................................. 3

2. Macrochaetae of tibiae robust, the ventral ones of mesotibiae clearly longer than the diameter of the tibia (about 1.5 times this diameter) and bigger than those of metatibiae. Males with parameres that do not reach the level of apex of styli IX. SW Iberian Peninsula ..... C. mendesi Wygodzinsky, 1980

– Macrochaetae of tibiae thin, the ventral ones of mesotibiae about as long as the diameter of the tibia and not bigger than those of metatibiae. Parameres large, attaining the level of apex of styli IX. Known from Sicily ........................................................................... C. setosula Wygodzinsky, 1980

3. Males ................................................................................................................................................. 4

– Females ........................................................................................................................................... 24

4. Antennae symmetrical (left and right pedicellar apophyses similarly developed) ......................... 12

– Antennae asymmetrical (left and right apophysis with different size and shape) ............................ 5

5. Left apophysis with two elongate and narrow ribbon-like processes, longer than the width of the pedicel. Right apophysis less developed and triangular, without apical or subapical seta, its base more than half the width of the pedicel. Italy.................................. C. subterranea (Silvestri, 1902)

– Apophyses without elongate ribbon-like processes. If processes are present, they are short and not ribbon-like, and their length is lower than the width of the pedicel. Right apophysis with diverse shapes, often with apical or subapical seta; if triangular and without seta, its size is smaller (its base less than half the width of the pedicel) ............................................................................................. 6

6. The less developed apophysis is at least half the length of the more developed one and is subcylindrical or conical in shape, longer than wide. Terminal filaments without pegs, with acute spines similarly developed to those of females or slightly shortened and robust ....................................................... 7

– The less developed apophysis (right) is very small, less than 0.2 times as long as the more developed one (left) ............................................................................................................................................ 9

7. The more developed apophysis (left) has a sclerotized subapical ridge and its distal part is clearly wider than the base. Less developed apophysis (right) with subapical glandular seta. Terminal filaments with a setation like that of females; inner spines of cerci thin. Brazil................................ ............................................................................................ C. brasiliensis Mendes & Ferreira, 2002 .

– The more developed apophysis (left or right) lacks sclerotizations and its width is similar in the distal and in the basal part; the distal area shows a lamellar process. Less developed apophysis (left or right) without a visible subapical seta. Inner spines of cerci shortened and robust (spiniform pegs). S Spain and Portugal......................................................................................................................... 8

8. Left apophysis more developed than the right one. Lamellar process of the left apophysis with denticulate margin ....... C. serrata Mendes, Molero-Baltanás, Bach de Roca & Gaju-Ricart sp. nov.

– Right apophysis more developed than the left one. Lamellar process of the left apophysis not clearly denticulate, almost straight ......... C. dextra Molero-Baltanás, Bach de Roca & Gaju-Ricart sp. nov.

9. Right apophysis of adult males of triangular shape, without glandular seta .................................. 10

– Right apophysis of adult males with other shape, with or without apical seta ................................11

10. Left pedicellar apophysis without lamellar expansion, its sclerotized area placed besides or under the glandular seta; this seta is inserted on apical position. Only known from Córdoba Province (S Spain) ........................................................................ C. asymetrica Bach, Mendes & Gaju, 1985

– Lamellar expansion and sclerotized area of the left pedicellar apophysis extending above the glandular seta. Canary Islands ............................ C. majorensis Molero, Gaju, López & Bach, 2014

11. Posterior margin of eighth urosternite not very protruding (ratio length/width of the protruding part about 0.23) and slightly convex. Apophysis of the left pedicel of adults with a sclerotized region next to the glandular cone and a very well developed subapical lateroexternal process, showing no sclerotizations but densely covered with small hairs. Only known from a cave near Berja (Almería, SE Spain) .......................................................... C. vergitana Molero, Barranco, Bach & Gaju, 2013

– Posterior margin of eighth urosternite more protruding (ratio length/width of the protruding part about 0.32) and convex. Apophysis of the left pedicel of adults with two lamellar processes, one apical without sclerotization, and one subapical with hook-shaped sclerotization and with a long and strong macrochaeta plus a few thin setae. Only known from S Spain (Straits of Gibraltar) .............. ............................................................................................ C. herculea Molero, Bach & Gaju, 2013

12. Pedicellar apophyses simple, subcylindrical, not abruptly narrowed in their apex (simply rounded apically) without sclerotizations or processes (reported from several countries of southern and central Europe, in revision) ................................................................ Coletinia maggi species group

– Pedicellar apophyses not simple, abruptly narrowed or truncate at their apex and/or with processes or sclerotizations ............................................................................................................................. 13

13. Pedicellar apophyses large, reaching the limit of annuli 7–8 of the flagellum, and even further elongated by a long thin sclerotised extension abruptly turning back on itself toward its pedicel, furnished with a predistal tooth and whose distal end is spatula like and toothed. Urotergite X with more than 20 +20 pegs. Only known from Turkey............................... C. longissima Mendes, 1988

– Pedicellar apophyses smaller and with a different shape. Urotergite X with a lower number of pegs, usually less than 10 +10 .................................................................................................................. 14

14. Pedicellar apophyses subcylindrical, slightly widened in their distal half but narrowing in its apex forming a glandular cone that is not accompanied by any lamellar projection, sclerotizations of tegument or hook-shaped process. Cerci without blunt pegs, only with acute short spines. Tibiae lacking lateral spines ..... C. dalmatica Molero-Baltanás, Fišer, Bach de Roca & Gaju-Ricart sp. nov.

– Pedicellar apophysis not widened in their distal half, narrowing in the apex where the glandular cone is visible, and accompanied by lamellar projections, sclerotizations or hook-shaped processes. Cerci usually with blunt pegs in their basal divisions (at least in C2, except for C. jeanneli ). Tibiae usually with one short lateral spine (not described in C. bulgarica (Kozaroff, 1939)) ..................................15

15. Pedicellar apophysis with a subapical hook-shaped projection and a sclerotized area besides the glandular cone. Metatibiae length is, according to the original figures, less than 4 times longer than wide. Only known from Bulgaria....................................................... C. bulgarica (Kozaroff, 1939)

– Pedicellar apophysis different. If presenting hook-shaped projections, there are two or they are not sclerotized. Ratio length/width of metatibiae higher, 4 or more times longer than wide ............... 16

16. Pedicellar apophysis with two curved projections, not lamellar. Hind margin of urosternite VIII very protruding and straight ( Fig. 12D ). Without blunt pegs on cerci (only acute spines, according to the original description). Known from France............................................ C. jeanneli ( Silvestri, 1938)

– Pedicellar apophysis with an apical lamellar projection besides the glandular cone ( capolongoi type). Hind margin of urosternite VIII protruding; if straight, not so protruding ( Fig. 12E ). Usually with blunt pegs on cerci, at least in C2 ........................................................................................... 17

17. Hind margin of urosternite VIII straight or almost straight ............................................................ 18

– Hind margin of urosternite VIII convex, rounded in the middle area ............................................ 19

18. Urotergite X with at least 6 +6 sensory pegs. Known from caves of Castellón Province (E Spain) .. ............................................................................................... C. tessella Molero, Bach & Gaju, 2013

– Urotergite X with at most 5+5 sensory pegs. Known from gypsum caves of Almería (SE Spain) ... .......................................................................... C. calaforrai Molero, Barranco, Bach & Gaju, 2013

19. C2 of cerci with at least 5 pegs, some of them inserted at the same level. Paracercus with some lateral blunt pegs and dorsal spiniform spines. Known only from a cave of Denia, Alicante Province (E Spain) ................................................................................ C. diania Molero, Bach & Gaju, 2013

– C2 of cerci with at most 4 pegs; if 5 or more, all of them inserted in a single row. Paracercus usually without blunt pegs, only with acute spiniform dorsal spines .......................................................... 20

20. Ratio L/W of metatibiae higher than 6 ........................................................................................... 21

– Ratio L/W of metatibiae lower than 6 ............................................................................................ 22

21. Ratio L/W of paramera about 5. Ratio L/W of protibiae higher than 4. Ratio L/W of mesotibiae about 5. Only known from a cave in Castellón Province (E Spain) ................................................... ........................................................................................... C. longitibia Molero, Bach & Gaju, 2013

– Ratio L/W of paramera about 6. Ratio L/W of protibiae and mesotibiae usually lower than 4. Known from caves in Valencia Province (E Spain) ................................. C. capolongoi Wygodzinsky, 1980

22. Metatibiae with only 1 dorsal spine. Species from S Spain................................................................ ............................................................................................ C. intermedia / C. tinauti / C. calaforrai

– Metatibiae usually with 2–3 dorsal spines ...................................................................................... 23

23. Metatibiae usually with 6 or more ventral spines. Cerci with at most 4 small and subcylindrical pegs. Known from Castellón Province (E Spain) ....................... C. redetecta Molero, Bach & Gaju, 2013

– Metatibiae with 4–6 ventral spines. Cerci in most cases with more than 4 large pegs ....................... ...................................................................................................... C. capolongoi Wygodzinsky, 1980

24. Ratio L/W of metatibiae about 3.5 (following original description and/or designs) ...................... 25

– Ratio L/W of metatibiae higher than 3.75 (usually more than 4) ................................................... 26

25. Ratio L/W of subgenital plate about 0.5, with the hind margin convex, slightly acute. Brazil.......... ............................................................................................. C. brasiliensis Mendes & Ferreira, 2002

– Ratio L/W of subgenital plate higher, with the hind margin more rounded. Bulgaria....................... ............................................................................................................. C. bulgarica (Kozaroff, 1939)

26. Ovipositor with 30 or more divisions ............................................................................................. 27

– Ovipositor with fewer than 28 divisions ......................................................................................... 28

27. Ovipositor with about 30 divisions. Robust and dense setae covering disc of tenth urotergite. Subgenital plate wider at the base than long .... C. vergitana Molero, Barranco, Bach & Gaju, 2013

– Ovipositor with 33–35 divisions. Setae of the disc of the tenth urotergite scarce and thin. Subgenital plate as long as wide at the base .................................... C. asymetrica Bach, Mendes & Gaju, 1985

28. L/W of metatibiae higher than 9. L/W of subgenital plate lower than 0.5. Apex of the ovipositor not surpassing the apex of styli IX, with only 12–14 divisions .................... C. longissima Mendes, 1988

– L/W of metatibiae lower, at most about 7. L/W of subgenital plate higher than 0.6. Apex of the ovipositor clearly surpassing the apex of styli IX, in most species with more than 14 divisions .....32

29. At least metatibiae with a lateral spine ........................................................................................... 31

– Tibiae without lateral spines ........................................................................................................... 30

30. Hind margin of subgenital plate truncate, straight ................................................................................. ....................................... C. dalmatica Molero-Baltanás, Fišer, Bach de Roca & Gaju-Ricart sp. nov.

– Hind margin of subgenital plate convex, rounded .... Coletinia maggi species group (under revision)

31. Protibiae and mesotibiae without lateral spine. Subgenital plate convex, rounded ............................ .................................................................................. Coletinia maggi species group (under revision)

– Protibiae and mesotibiae with lateral spine (not documented in C. jeanneli , but this species has a truncate subgenital plate) ................................................................................................................ 32

32. Apex of the ovipositor surpassing the level of the apex of styli IX by about 3 times their length. Ovipositor with about 25 divisions. L/W of subgenital plate about 0.6–0.7 ...................................... .......................................................................................................... C. subterranea (Silvestri, 1902)

– Apex of the ovipositor usually surpassing the level of the apex of the styli IX by less than 3 times as long as these styli. Ovipositor with fewer than 25 divisions. L/W of subgenital plate higher than 0.7 ................................................................................................................................................... 33

33. Ratio L/W of metatibiae higher than 6.5 ........................................................................................ 34

– Ratio L/W of metatibiae lower than 6.2 ......................................................................................... 35

34. Ovipositor with about 18 divisions, surpassing the apex of styli IX by 1–1.5 times as long as these styli ................................................................................... C. longitibia Molero, Bach & Gaju, 2013

– Ovipositor with fewer than 17 divisions but longer, surpassing the apex of styli IX by about 1.5–2 times their length ......................................................................... C. capolongoi Wygodzinsky, 1980

35. Hind margin of subgenital plate straight or almost straight ............................................................ 36

– Hind margin of subgenital plate convex, rounded .......................................................................... 39

36. Metatibiae with 2 dorsal spines. Ovipositor with more than 20 divisions, surpassing the level of styli IX by 1.5 times their length (following Silvestri’s figures) ................... C. jeanneli ( Silvestri, 1938)

– Metatibiae with 1 dorsal spine. Ovipositor with less than 20 divisions, surpassing the level of styli IX by a length that is equal or lower than the length of these styli ................................................ 37

37. Ovipositor with 14–17 divisions ..................................................................................................... 38

– Ovipositor with more than 17 divisions ..................................................... C. intermedia / C. tinauti

38. Ovipositor surpassing the apex of styli IX by more than 1.5 times their length ................................ .......................................................................... C. calaforrai Molero, Barranco, Bach & Gaju, 2013

– Ovipositor surpassing the apex of styli IX by the length of these latter or less ................................. ............................................................................................... C. tessella Molero, Bach & Gaju, 2013

39. Metatibiae usually with only 1 dorsal spine .... C. calaforrai Molero, Barranco, Bach & Gaju, 2013

– Metatibiae with 2–3 dorsal spines .................................................................................................. 40

40. Ovipositor with about 22 divisions. Hind margin of subgenital plate subacute ................................. ............................................................................. C. majorensis Molero, Gaju, López & Bach, 2014

– Ovipositor with at most 20–21 divisions. Hind margin of subgenital plate rounded or truncate ... 41

41. Hind margin of subgenital plate convex, rounded. Ovipositor with 15–16 divisions ........................ ...................................................................................................... C. capolongoi Wygodzinsky, 1980

– Hind margin of subgenital plate truncate, straight or almost straight. Ovipositor with more than 18–20 divisions .................................................................. C. redetecta Molero, Bach & Gaju, 2013

Figures

Fig 12. A–C. Coletinia mendesi Wygodzinsky, 1980, ♂ from Palenciana (Córdoba) (UCO, Ref. Z2643). A. Micrograph of the male urotergite X, focused dorsally.B. Idem ventrally; while the dorsal focus shows an almost straight hind margin, in the ventral focus a concave shape is visible between the posterolateral lobes. C. Micrograph of a mandible showing the macrochaetae of its outer margin, more numerous than in other species of the genus. D. Coletinia jeanneli (Silvestri, 1938), ♂. Urosternite VIII of the male according to the original design of Silvestri (1938). E. Coletinia tessella Molero, Bach & Gaju, 2013, ♂ from the type locality. Micrograph of urosternite VIII. Scale bars = 0.1 mm.