Coenagrion australocaspicum, Dumont & Heidari, 1996
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5471.2.1 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BAA047F4-2D65-4E52-8798-D426E3B26DA1 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12206851 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/DB0F87E1-910E-F101-A7D3-F80979D87817 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Coenagrion australocaspicum |
| status |
|
Coenagrion australocaspicum View in CoL
C. australocaspicum View in CoL stands aside from other Coenagrion spp. in the area considered with respect to its very long male paraprocts, a character seen even by a naked eye and shared only by C. syriacum View in CoL ranging in the Mediterranean coastal areas of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Israel ( Kalkman 2006). It is remarkable that the only difference of C. australocaspicum View in CoL from C. syriacum View in CoL stated in the original description is as follows: “It differs, from C. ponticum View in CoL and C. syriacum View in CoL by the widely separated app. sup. of the males, a character it only shares with C. puella View in CoL s.s. ” ( Dumont & Heidari 1996). Unfortunarely, this character was not well illustrated in the original descripion, where the illustrations contradict each other. The drawings in the dorsal and caudal views show the bases of the cerci set apart from each other and laterally of the central prominence of the S10 inner side ( Dumont & Heidari 1996: figs 7, 8). At the same time, the scanned electronic microphotograph shows, in caudal view, their bases disposed close to each other under the central prominence (Ibid.: fig. 4). Exactly this is seen also in our caudal view photos of C. australocaspicum View in CoL from Dagestan ( Fig. 4a–b View FIGURE 4 ) and in the photos of male specimens of C. syriacum View in CoL from Adana Il of Turkey kept in RMNH, kindly provided by the curator of Odonata collection Charlotte Hartong ( Fig. 16d,f View FIGURE 16 ). Taking into account the subjectivity of drawings, we conclude that the very bases of the cerci are set tightly close to each other in both species. The actual difference between C. australocaspicum View in CoL and C. syriacum View in CoL is seen in dorsal view ( Fig. 2a–c View FIGURE 2 vs Fig. 16b, e View FIGURE 16 ) and consist of the presence of inner bulges of the basal parts of the cerci in C. syriacum View in CoL ( Fig. 16b, e View FIGURE 16 ), so that they contact to each other. C. australocaspicum View in CoL misses these bulges ( Fig. 2a–c View FIGURE 2 ), so its cerci are well separated from each other indeed in dorsal view, but this is a matter of their shape rather than positions of their bases.
The original description of C. australocaspicum View in CoL also mentions (but not as diagnostic) and illustrates the paraproct basoventral part with a rounded prominence, rather than an angular one, as in C. syriacum View in CoL , but our specimens of C. australocaspicum View in CoL from Dagestan ( Fig. 3a–c View FIGURE3 ) and those of Skvortzov & Snegovaya (2015) from Azerbaijan, both series being from the Caspian coast, exhibit the latter condition of angular projection.
The comparison of the photographs of male specimens of C. syriacum kept in RMNH ( Fig. 16 View FIGURE 16 ) with our specimens of C. australocaspicum from Dagestan ( Figs 2a–c View FIGURE 2 , 3a–c View FIGURE3 , 4a–b View FIGURE 4 , 5f View FIGURE 5 ) showed the following morphological differences of the former species from the latter:
—the cercus has a well expressed bulge ( Fig. 16b, e View FIGURE 16 );
—the paraproct spine is thicker, blunter, a bit relatively shorter and very slightly skewed up rather than directed strictly caudad ( Fig. 16a, d View FIGURE 16 );
—the tubercle of the cerci is slanting down in C. syriacum but slightly raised in C. australocaspicum ( Fig. 16a, d View FIGURE 16 );
—the processes of the cerci in C. syriacum are much longer than in C. australocaspicum and protrude below the middle of the paraproct bases ( Fig. 16c, f View FIGURE 16 ), they are straight almost like in C. pulchellum ;
—the S10 dorsal margin more raised in lateral view ( Fig. 16a, d View FIGURE 16 ).
Also there exists a steady difference in the abdominal black pattern: the males of C. syriacum always have a broad dorsal black bar on the hind part of S9 ( Fig. 16 View FIGURE 16 ; iNaturalist 2023) while the males of C. australocaspicum have S9 entirely blue, with at most a pair of black dots ( Fig. 2a–c View FIGURE 2 , 6a–c, j–k View FIGURE 6 ).
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 |
Coenagrion australocaspicum
| Kosterin, Oleg E., Onishko, Vladimir V., Ilyina, Elena V., Chepurnov, Grigory Yu. & Blinov, Alexander G. 2024 |
C. australocaspicum
| Dumont & Heidari 1996 |
C. australocaspicum
| Dumont & Heidari 1996 |
C. australocaspicum
| Dumont & Heidari 1996 |
C. australocaspicum
| Dumont & Heidari 1996 |
C. australocaspicum
| Dumont & Heidari 1996 |
C. australocaspicum
| Dumont & Heidari 1996 |
C. australocaspicum
| Dumont & Heidari 1996 |