Nocaracris sureyana Ramme, 1951
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4206.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:E1566C02-9987-4116-83AA-91D3D1DCF2FF |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5781082 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C24587A5-FF75-4FC4-FF50-FF8444D1FE45 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Nocaracris sureyana Ramme, 1951 |
status |
|
Nocaracris sureyana Ramme, 1951 View in CoL sp. rev.
( Figs. 560 View FIGURES 555 – 583 , 641–642 View FIGURES 639 – 652 , 843 View FIGURE 843 )
Nocaracris sureyana View in CoL n.sp.: Ramme 1951: 302.
Nocaracris sureyana Ramme, 1951 View in CoL : Karabağ 1958: 121; Weidner 1969: 160, partim.
Paranocaracris rubripes burri Uvarov, 1949 View in CoL : Demirsoy 1973: 425, 426, partim; Demirsoy 1977: 83, partim. Paranocaracris sureyana Ramme, 1951 : Demirsoy 1973: 426 as syn. of burri View in CoL ; Demirsoy 1977: 83, as syn. of burri View in CoL .
Type locality. Turkey, Kütahya. Holotype: male ( MfN).
Material examined. TURKEY: Kütahya, 15.6.1930, 1♂ (Holotype) (leg. Sureya Bey) ( MfN) ; Kütahya, Simav, Akdağ , 1900–1980 m, 4.7.2010, 3♂, 3♀ (leg. M. Ünal) ; ibidem, 1977 m, 20.6.2013, 5♂, 3♀, plus 2♂, 3♀ in alcohol (leg. M. Ünal); Kütahya, Gediz, Akdağ ( Şaphane Dağı ), above 1900 m, 18.7.2003, 2♀ (leg. M. Ünal) ; ibidem, 2068 m, 21.6.2013, 3♂, 6♀ (leg. M. Ünal); ibidem, 2080 m, 17.6.2014, 1♂, 2♀ (leg. M. Ünal, A. G. Bugrov & I. E. Jetybayev) (AİBÜEM).
Distribution. W. Turkey: Kütahya Province, Gediz, Simav, Akdağ ( Fig. 843 View FIGURE 843 ).
Description of female: Body ( Fig. 642 View FIGURES 639 – 652 ) depressed dorso-ventrally. Fastigium of vertex distinctly short and broad, slightly depressed, sloping. Vertex between the eyes 1.2 times wider than vertical diameter and 1.4 times transversal diameter of eye; vertex convex in lateral view. Supraocular foveola distinct, open type. Frontal ridge very indistinctly narrowed and not incised just below the median ocellus. Antennae with 12–13 segments. Pronotum ( Fig. 642 View FIGURES 639 – 652 ) distinctly depressed dorso-ventrally, with distinct lateral carinae; median carina not raised with a distinct longitudinal sulcus, slightly narrowing backwards; slightly convex or straight in lateral view; anterior margin convex, posterior margin straight in dorsal view. Prosternum ( Fig. 560 View FIGURES 555 – 583 ) with relatively raised, narrow triangular or very narrowly rounded anterior margin. Mesosternal interspace very wide, 3 times wider than its length and as wide as mesosternal lobes. Hind femur ( Fig. 642 View FIGURES 639 – 652 ) 2.6 times longer than its height, dorsal margin slightly convex with fine denticles in lateral view. Hind tibia with dense and stout 9 inner and 10 outer spines. Arolium very narrow and small. Abdominal tergites ( Fig. 642 View FIGURES 639 – 652 ) simple, median carina not raised. Tympanum absent, but in several specimens with a very reduced tympanum much smaller than the neighbour stigmal area. Subgenital plate short and broad, almost as wide as long.
Coloration. Body various shades of brown. Head and pronotum creamish-brown with some irregular black spots spread on body surface. Some females brown to dark brown. Inner surface of hind femur black with reddish basal part; outer part of ventral surface black, inner part reddish; inner ventral genicular lobe of hind femur and inner surface of hind tibia yellow, in some females slightly orange. Tarsus pinkish-red.
Measurements (mm) of both sexes. Body length: male 22.4–26.6, female 38.4–47.8; pronotum length: male 5–5.4, female 6.9–8.9; pronotum height: male 5.5–6.2, female 8.8–10.7; pronotum width anterior: male 4.9–5.4, female 7.5–8.8; pronotum width posterior: male 7–7.6, female 11.1–12.8; hind femur length: male 8.7–10.2, female 13–14.5; hind femur height: male 3.7–4.1, female 4.8–5.8.
Remarks. The type specimens of this species are 1 male and 1 female (MfN). Ramme labelled the male as holotype from Kütahya, but he reported in the description ( Ramme 1951: 302) two females, one of them from Kütahya as holotype. It is clear that this is a typing mistake in Ramme (1951) and the holotype of this species is the male collected from Kütahya ( MfN) . On the other hand female allotype from Sivas in fact belongs to N. cinerascens Ramme. Demirsoy (1973, 1977 ) included this female (allotype) to N. acinosus Mistshenko and synonymized N. sureyana and N. cinerascens with “ Paranocaracris rubripes acinosus Mistshenko ”.
Because of the the rules of the ICZN (Article 31.2.1) the gender ending of this species name is not changed. The previously unknown female of N. sureyana is described here.
MfN |
Museum f�r Naturkunde |
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 |
Nocaracris sureyana Ramme, 1951
Ünal, Mustafa 2016 |
Paranocaracris rubripes burri
Demirsoy 1977: 83 |
Demirsoy 1977: 83 |
Demirsoy 1973: 425 |
Demirsoy 1973: 426 |
Nocaracris sureyana
Weidner 1969: 160 |
Karabag 1958: 121 |
Nocaracris sureyana
Ramme 1951: 302 |