Doratura caucasica Melichar, 1913

Bückle, Christoph & Guglielmino, Adalgisa, 2022, Revision of the genus Doratura Sahlberg (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae, Deltocephalinae) with particular regard to its distribution in Italy and description of four new species, Zootaxa 5112 (1), pp. 1-116 : 52-54

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5112.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C2750D92-315A-431F-BCEB-3E20ECD03EA0
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6342963
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039C8791-BF4E-1544-E8B8-8453BB39309E
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Doratura caucasica Melichar, 1913
status

Treatment

( Figs 30F–H View FIGURE 30 ; 34F View FIGURE 34 ; 37F–I View FIGURE 37 ; 38E–G View FIGURE 38 ; 39C–F View FIGURE 39 )

Doratura caucasica Melichar, 1913: 329

Doratura arenicola Logvinenko, 1975: 462 syn. nov.

Diagnosis. This species is very closely related to D. homophyla from which it is distinguished by a somewhat different aedeagus shape ( Figs 37F–I View FIGURE 37 ) in lateral view and above all by another shape of the genital plates ( Figs 39C–F View FIGURE 39 ) without the pronounced latero-caudal angle. The aedeagus socle, the testaceous aedeagus coloration and the presence of two rows of teeth and spines on the ventral side of the apical half of the aedeagus are features that both taxa have in common.

Remarks. The original description of D. caucasica is based on a single female, which the author figures only in dorsal view. Kusnezov (1928b) places the species near D. rusaevi . Logvinenko (1975) compares D. arenicola with D. caucasica and D. homophyla . Figures of the genital morphology do apparently not exist. In the Moravian Museum in Brno, a male specimen is present collected in Tbilisi (Tiflis), identified by Melichar himself as D. caucasica , and provided with a label “Kaukasisches Museum”, apparently corresponding to a specimen mentioned in his publication from 1914 ( Melichar, 1914: Figs 30F View FIGURE 30 ; 37H View FIGURE 37 ; 38G View FIGURE 38 ; 39E, F View FIGURE 39 ). Obviously, it belongs to the same species as the D. arenicola specimens in the Logvinenko collection in Kiew. We tried to examine the type specimen too, but without success, as this specimen was not traceable neither in Tbilisi nor in Brno. Even if the specific identity of the male from Tbilisi and the type female from Lago Lechi in northern Georgia is not sure, it is quite probable that both specimens belong to the same species. Melichar’s description of body morphology and female pregenital sternite of D. caucasica coincides well with this interpretation.

Distribution ( Fig. 62A View FIGURE 62 ). We examined specimens from Azerbaijan and Georgia. In addition, the species is recorded for Armenia ( Kusnezov, 1927), and Russia: Southern European part, Dagestan ( Logvinenko, 1975, as D. arenicola ). The presence of the species in Armenia is probable but needs confirmation.

Taxonomic remarks. D. arenicola Logvinenko, 1975 is described from Southern European Russia (Dagestan), Georgia and Azerbaijan. Logvinenko mentions D. caucasica , D. homophyla and D. littoralis as similar taxa. The only difference between D. caucasica and D. arenicola she mentioned, lies in their different size. However, in the few specimens that are left from her D. arenicola material, conspicuous variability in size is visible. Furthermore, Melichar’s D. caucasica (male) specimen from Tbilisi fits quite well with Logvinenko’s D. arenicola specimens, including the genital morphology. Therefore, we establish the synonymy of D. arenicola with D. caucasica .