Canthophorus melanopterus contrarius (Wagner, 1956) (Figures 1 D, 4 H, 7 E, 14 H)

Sehirus melanopterus contrarius Wagner 1956: 195 [holotype: male, Cyprus, Troodos].

Canthophorus melanopterus contrarius: Lis 1999.

Material examined

Cyprus: Troodos, N34°56.138 ″ E032°53.830 ″, 24.V.2006 (A. Matocq), 1J (AMC); Prodromos vill., N34°57.009 ″ E032°49.894 ″, 1386 m amsl, 25.V.2006 (A. Matocq), 1J, 1♀ (AMC) ; “ Ischelé, Plage de Trichomos” [ İskele District, Trikomo], 24.V.2007 (A. Matocq), 2J (AMC) ; Château de Buffavento, 23.V.2007 (A. Matocq), 3J, 1♀ (AMC) .

Diagnosis

Membrane whitish, subtransparent or slightly smokybrownish (Figure 1 D). Yellowish rib on lateral margins of pronotum and corium broader than base of antennal segment II. Lateral branch of vesica short or very short (Figure 4 H). Spicule basal plate at dorsolateral lobes of conjunctiva with narrow distal denticle (Figure 7 E). Posterior pouches of gynatrial sac approximately as long as wide and rather long posteriorly (beyond dorsal inner margin); sclerites inside pouches large, symmetrical, hemispherical, and strongly sclerotised (Figure 14 H). Tubular proximal part of spermathecal capsule 2–3 times as long as transverse diameter of spherical distal part.

Measurements

Body 5.35–8.00 in length, 3.10–4.60 in width; pronotum 2.8–3.90 in width; head 1.32–1.68 in width; ocular index 3.53–4.00; length of antennal segments I–V: 0.28–0.38: 0.52–0.64: 0.52–0.67: 0.78–0.91: 0.81–0.95.

Remarks

Wagner (1956) distinguished his new subspecies from the nominotypical one by the smaller body size (body length 5.00– 6.15 in males and 6.20–6.70 in females), slenderer proportions (body length twice greater than body width), whitish membrane, smaller parameres with smaller, narrower hyphophysis and wider sensory process, and thinner, more acute spicule (“grosse Haken”) at dorsolateral lobes of conjunctiva. I could not find any significant differences of C. m. contrarius in the structure of parameres, and the spicules in the specimens examined by me are slightly thicker than in most of the examined specimens belonging to the nominotypical subspecies. The thicker spicule of C. m. contrarius can be seen also in the drawing of Wagner. Perhaps he meant the denticles (“kleine Zaehne”) on the spicule basal plate; in his figure 23, they are shown to be shorter and thinner, but the length and shape of these denticles actually vary somewhat, and the specimens I have studied from Cyprus have virtually the same denticles as in specimens of C. m. melanopterus . The dimensions and proportions of the body, as seen on the material examined, also do not have diagnostic significance.

Distribution

Cyprus.