Hololampra sancta Werner, 1929

Bohn, Horst, 2020, Revision of the genus Dziriblatta Chopard, 1936 (Blattodea, Ectobiidae, Ectobiinae) II. The species of the subgenera Pauciscleroblatta and Monoscleroblatta, Zootaxa 4728 (3), pp. 301-333 : 312

5. Hololampra sancta Werner, 1929

Hololampra sancta Werner, 1929: 172 , fig. 3; Werner 1932: 126. Nom. dubium nov.

Arbiblatta sancta: Chopard 1943: 28 .

Phyllodromica (Arbiblatta) sancta: Morales Agacino 1948: 341 ; Princis 1971: 1109.

Type material: 1 female, Morocco, Mulay Idris , 12.V.1928, leg. F.Werner.

The species is only known from the female type specimen which should be housed in Naturhistorisches Museum Wien ( NHMW) but which is untraceable there at least since 1990. Werner (1929) and Chopard (1943) consider the species to be closely related to the other species of the subgenus then known: Dz. (M.) abdelazizi , Dz. (M.) haffidi and Dz. (M.) azruensis . But their descriptions only include external characters. Since neither genital sclerites nor the position of the ootheca prior to its deposition are known—important female features allowing the distinction between the genera Dziriblatta and Phyllodromica in the female sex—the assignment to Dziriblatta and Monoscleroblatta remains doubtful. Nevertheless, there are similarities arguing for such an assignment: The colouration of the thoracal nota—a pattern of darker spots on a straw-coloured background—and the dark transversal stripes on the abdominal tergites is in similar way found in the females of most subgenera of Dziriblatta . The relatively broad tegmina with obliquely cut apical ends strongly resemble those of the females of Dziriblatta (Monoscleroblatta) abdelazizi and Dz. (M.) haffidi , from which the type specimen according to Werner’s description is distinguished by the straight inner (posterior) border of the tegmina (fig. 3 of Werner1929).

The specimen was found in the surroundings of Mulay Idriss at the northern border of the distribution area of Dz. (M.) haffidi ; a sample of specimens (16 males, 22 females) collected by B. & H.Bohn at the same locality or near by (Ma 65, Figs. 18 , 19 ) only contained the species Dz. (M.) haffidi , raising the suspicion that the type specimen could also belong to this species. The distinguishing character in the shape of the tegmina does not seem to be very reliable; the present studies have shown that there is some variation in this character ( Figs. 9L, M , 11F, G ). Moreover, it is usually rather difficult to analyse the course of the inner border of the tegmina in situ since the transparent wing structures may become overlayed by the strong contour of the lateral border of the mesonotum. In the same paper Werner (1929) also presents a drawing of a female of Dz. (M.) azruensis showing tegmina with obliquely straight inner borders; the pictures of separately mounted tegmina of the same species present well rounded inner borders ( Figs. 10L, M ). Since it is—due to the obvious loss of the type specimen—impossible to unequivocally clarify the identity of the type specimen it is proposed to consider the name sancta as nomen dubium.

Figures

FIGURE 9 A–M. Structures of Dziriblatta (Monoscleroblatta) haffidi, male A–G,J,K, female H,I,L,M. A: T5; B: T6; C: T7, with gl gland; D–F: T7 gland, f forceps bristles, p bilobed glandular pouch; G–I: thoracal nota of male (G, left tegmen removed, hw reduced hind wing) and female (H,I, showing range of colouration; J–M: left tegmen of male (J,K) and female (L,M).—Enlargements: Same scale for A–C and for D–F.—Identifications: A–C,E,G,K (Ma 260/1), D (Ma 87b/1), F (Ma 237a/1), H (Ma 207/2), I (Ma 87b/4), J (Ma 137a/1), L (Ma 132a/1), M (Ma 87b/3).

FIGURE 10 A–M. Structures of Dziriblatta (Monoscleroblatta) azruensis, male A–G,J,K, female H,I,L,M. A: T5; B: T6, the darker structure along the posterior broder is a remnant of the intersegmental membrane; C: T7 with gl gland; D–F: T7 gland, f forceps bristles, p bilobed pouch; G–I: thoracal nota of male (G, metanotum removed) and female (H,I showing range of pigmentation); J–M: left tegmen of male (J,K) and female (L,M).—Enlargements: Same scale for A–C and for D–F.—Identifications: A (Ma 98b/11), B (98b/11), C,J (Ma 98a/1), D (Ma 98b/10), E (Ma 98b/1), F (Ma 98a/1), G (Ma 98b/2), H (Ma 98b/13), I (Ma 98b/14), K (Ma 98b/4), L (Ma 98b/5), M (Ma 98b/6).

FIGURE 11 A–M. Structures of Dziriblatta (Monoscleroblatta) aglandulosa (A–K) and Dz. (M.) abdelazizi (L, M). Male tergites: A: T5; B: T6; C: T7, no gland present; D–G: left tegmen of male (D,E) and female (F,G); H–J: thoracal nota of male (H, metanotum removed) and female (I,J, showing the range of colouration); K: pronotum of a male with aberrantly light colouration, same specimen as in E. L, M: Left male tegmen of Dz. (M.) abdelazizi.—Enlargements: Same scale for A–C.—Identifications: A–D (holotype, Ma 136a/3), E,K (Ma 214/2), F (Ma 136a/6), G (Ma 136a/5), H (Ma 136a/1), I (Ma 136a/2), J (Ma 136/3), L (Ma 50/11), M (Ma 50/6).

FIGURE 18. Distribution of the four species of subgenus Monoscleroblatta in Morocco with the projection of the assumed phylogenetic relationships (gray). Arrow: The two species indicated by the overlapping symbols are from neighbouring but separate localities (compare with Fig. 19).

FIGURE 19. Localities and their numbers to the distribution of the species of subgenus Monoscleroblatta in Morocco.. author's own material, · material from museums.