Amblyphymus transvaalicus Dirsh, 1956

Tshililo, Precious, 2020, Review of South African Euryphyminae, Zootaxa 4820 (1), pp. 70-104 : 80-81

Amblyphymus transvaalicus Dirsh, 1956 ( Figs. 3H , 4F , 8 )

Amblyphymus transvaalicus: Dirsh, 1956b:121–272 , figs 28.10–12; Dirsh, 1965: 264; Johnston, 1968:195; Johnsen, 1990:6.

Type locality. Africa , Southern Africa , Transvaal , Johannesburg, Modder Fontein . Type ♂ is in the British Museum (not examined).

Material. SOUTH AFRICA: Limpopo: 1 mi S Tshipise (S22.5269, E30.6915) 03.v.1963 coll. H.D. Brown— 1♀ ( SANC) ; Northern Cape: 22m N Kimberley (S28.8727, E16.6953) 15.i.1963 coll. H.D Brown— 1♂ ( SANC) ; 35 mi S Louis Trichardt (S23.5257, E29.7045) 1.i.1963 coll, H.D Brown— 3 ♂, 5♀ ( SANC) ; 8 mi E Messina (S22.3521, E30.1776) 03.v.1963 coll. H.D Brown— 4♂ ( SANC) ; Bandolierkop, Ensolerg Formation (S23.3202, E29.8042) 03.iv.1956 coll. H.D Brown— 1♂ ( SANC) ; Brits, Hartebeespoort Dam (S5.6426, E27.7935) 19.ii.1975 coll. M. Powell— 3♂ ( SANC) ; Zoutpan, Zoutpansberg (S23.00837, E29.768993) 06.iv.1956 coll. H.D. Brown— 2♂, 3♀ ( SANC) ;.

Distribution. This species was previously recorded from Namibia (Grootfontein Distr.) by Johnsen (1990 b), known also from South Africa ( Dirsh 1956b) and Botswana (Houston 1978, Johnsen 1990 a, Naskrecki 1995).

Remarks. This genus was erected by Uvarov (1922) based on the structure of both male and female genitalia and shape of hind legs. This genus is related to Rhachitopis ( Naskrecki 1995) .

The genus does not have stable taxonomy. Uvarov (1922) placed species based on their integument rugosity and male cercus. Dirsh (1956) placed species based on another diagnostic feature different from Uvarov (1922), on the basis of male cercus, pronotum and prosternal tubercle but admitted that the species are rather different and may be transferred to other genera in future (Dirsh 1956).

This genus has seven described species, five have records of occurrence in South Africa. There are an additional ten specimens in the SANC collection which could not confidently be assigned to one of the described species, and may constitute one or more new species. Dirsh (1956) described this genus as unstable, in comparison with other Euryphyminae genera it does not seem to be of high priority for revision although there may be a small number of undescribed species.

Figures

FIGURE 3. Figure showing generic representation of various shapes of lateral view of male cerci: (A) Pachyphymus, (B) Euryphymus, (C) Aneuryphymus, (D) Rhachitopis, (E) Brachyphymus, (F) Calliptamicus, (G) Rhodesiana, (H) Amblyphymus, (I) Platacanthoides, (J) Plegmapterus, (K) Calliptamuloides, (L) Plegmapteroides, (M) Plegmapteropsis.

FIGURE 4. Figure showing generic representation of dorsal view of pronotum: (A) Euryphymus, (B) Aneuryphymus, (C) Rhachitopis, (D) Brachyphymus, (E) Rhodesiana, (F) Amblyphymus and (G) Platacanthoides, (H) Calliptamicus, (I) Calliptamulus, (J) Plegmapterus, (K) Plegmapteropsis, (L) Calliptamuloides, (M) Plegmapteroides and (N) Phymeurus.

FIGURE 8. Map showing collecting localities of Amblyphymus species.