Euboeus (Pelorinus) krivokhatskyi, Nabozhenko, 2022
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5159.4.1 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CA6AF6AD-9E4A-4BE3-8B52-6D8E5EA3641F |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6794274 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/8274CC88-6B2A-474C-BEAC-CC4CA4AE55F8 |
|
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:8274CC88-6B2A-474C-BEAC-CC4CA4AE55F8 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Euboeus (Pelorinus) krivokhatskyi |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Euboeus (Pelorinus) krivokhatskyi sp. nov.
( Fig 14 View FIGURE 14 )
Type material. Holotype, ♂ ( HNHM): Iran, Gilan Prov.: “ Kelishum [ Klishom ] 2000 m südl. Langerud [Langarud] 4.viii.1967 ”, “ Gilan ( Iran) Heinz leg.”, “ Probaticus sp. det. Kaszab ” . Paratype, ♀ ( SMNS): Iran, Gilan Prov., 20 km SE Deilaman , 1900 m, 22.04.2003 (leg. G. Sama) ; 1♂ ( NMPC): Iran, Koedestan [Kurdestan] Prov., Pass 26 km SE Saqqez, 17.iv.2002 (leg. S. Kadlec) ; 1♀ ( NME): Iran, Luristan [Lorestan] Prov., pass 2300 m W Nour-Abad (SE Nahavand), oberh. Grotte v. Gamasiab [upper grotto of Gamasiab], 10.iv.2014 (leg. Heinz) .
Description. Male. Body slender, black, shiny ( Fig. 14A View FIGURE 14 ), but weakly shiny in the Lorestan Population. Measurements: Y = 1.59; PH w = 1.55; P w P l = 1.3; E l E w = 1.6; EH w = 1.83; EP w = 1.17; EP l = 2.48. Body length 12.5 mm, width 4.5 mm.
Head ( Fig. 14B, D, E View FIGURE 14 ). Anterior margin of epistoma slightly rounded and emarginated near angles. Head widest at eye level. Eyes strongly convex, angulate in dorsal view, circumocular impression deep, moderately wide ( Figs 14B, D, E View FIGURE 14 ). Lateral margins of genae angularly rounded. Puncturation of head fine and sparse, interpuncture distance 1.5–2 times as long as puncture diameter; punctures coarser on genae. Ventral side of epicranium coarsely and densely punctured around submentum and coarse and sparse on temples. Antennae comparatively short, with only three apical antennomeres, extending beyond base of pronotum, reaching less than 1/4 of elytral length.
Prothorax ( Figs 14D–F View FIGURE 14 ). Pronotum widest ahead of middle, transverse ( Fig. 14D View FIGURE 14 ). Lateral margins of pronotum moderately rounded, slightly emarginated near base; anterior margin weakly widely emarginated; base straight. Antero-lateral corners not projected, obtuse, narrowly rounded at apex; postero-lateral corners weakly obtuse, narrowly rounded at apex. Lateral margins not beaded; anterior margin beaded only laterally ( Figs 14D, E View FIGURE 14 ). Disc of pronotum evenly weakly convex, not flattened along lateral margin, without impressions. Puncturation of disc fine and sparse, punctures small, but surface around punctures impressed, puncture diameter 3 times as short as interpuncture distance; punctures round. Prosternum with coarse and sparse simple puncturation ( Figs 14B, F View FIGURE 14 ). Prothoracic hypomera not flattened flattened along margin, with coarse, sparse, large, round punctures on smooth surface at outer half and dense and coarse merged punctures on inner half; surface without microgranulation ( Fig. 14F View FIGURE 14 ). Prosternal process shiny, sparsely punctured, slightly convex at apex, not beaded ( Figs 14B, F View FIGURE 14 ).
Pterothorax ( Figs 14A, B View FIGURE 14 ). Scutellar shield with very weakly rounded margins, coarsely sparsely punctured. Elytra shiny, moderately elongate, widest at middle; punctures in striae fine, round, widely spaced; punctures in interstriae fine and sparse, much smaller than strial ones ( Fig. 14A View FIGURE 14 ). Anterior half of mesoventrite pubescent, coarsely and densely wrinkled. Mesepisterna, mesepimera and metepisterna with coarse and dense puncturation of large foveae; metaventrite and intercoxal part of mesoventrite with moderately coarse and moderately dense punctures; metaventrite covered with very short setae ( Fig. 14B View FIGURE 14 ).
Legs. Trochanters with brush of short dark-reddish setae and one long seta ( Fig. 14B View FIGURE 14 ). Basal third of meso- and metafemora with the same brush on flex side, the same part of profemora without this brush ( Fig. 14B View FIGURE 14 ). Protibiae weakly S-shaped, mesotibiae weakly curved, metatibiae weakly bent inward. Pro- and mesotarsomeres 1–4 strongly widened, trasverse, but pro- and mesotarsomere 1 not wider than apex of protibia.
Abdomen ( Figs 14B, G–K View FIGURE 14 ). Abdominal ventrites with the same puncturation as on metaventrite and very short setation (not pubescent) ( Fig. 14B View FIGURE 14 ); Ventrite 5 with several sparse long setae at apex. Genitalia ( Figs14G–K View FIGURE 14 ). Apical part of the basal piece of aedeagus with longitudinal rugosity ( Fig. 14K View FIGURE 14 ). Apical piece subtriangle, narrowly rounded at apex, dorsal surface with longitudinal small median groove ( Fig. 14K View FIGURE 14 ).
Female ( Fig. 14C View FIGURE 14 ). Body much robuster and dull. Eyes smaller (Y=1.36 vs. 1.59 in male). Antennae short, not reaching base of pronotum. Lateral margins of pronotum beaded at basal half. Postero-lateral corners of pronotum right. Metatibiae straight. Measurements: Y = 1.36; PH w = 1.67; P w P l = 1.29; E l E w = 1.37; EH w = 2.2; EP w = 1.32; EP l = 2.34. Body length 17 mm, width 7 mm.
Etymology. The species is named in memory of my colleague Viktor Anatolievich Krivokhatsky (1954–2021), the world specialist on Neuroptera , Myrmeleontidae ( Volkovitsh et al. 2021, Ovtshinnikova et al. 2021).
Differential diagnosis. The new species is close to E. merkli by having not beaded lateral margins of pronotum ( Figs 14E View FIGURE 14 , 15E View FIGURE 15 ) and smooth punctured sculpture of the prothoracic hypomera ( Figs 14F View FIGURE 14 , 15F View FIGURE 15 ), but is different from other congeners of the huedepohli species-group by strongly convex (lateral margin angulate in dorsal view) eyes ( Fig. 14D View FIGURE 14 ) and smooth prothoracic hypomera with sparse coarse punctures (except for E. merkli , which has the similar sculpture of hypomera). Euboeus krivokhatskyi has a similar shape of the pronotum as E. grimmi , not beaded male pronotum as is in E. merkli and the apical part of the basal piece of the aedeagus with longitudinal rugosity as in E. huedepohli and E. kasatkini . The new species additionally differs from:
– E. huedepohli and E. kasatkini by not beaded laterally male pronotum and partly beaded female pronotum ( Figs 14D, E View FIGURE 14 ) (lateral margins of the pronotum are beaded in both comparable species ( Figs 11E, F View FIGURE 11 , 13E, F View FIGURE 13 )), and the absence of the dense brush of setae at the base of the flex side of profemora ( Fig. 14B View FIGURE 14 ), the shape of the apical piece of aedeagus;
– E. grimmi by shiny body dorsally, at least in the Elburs population ( Fig. 14A View FIGURE 14 ) (weakly shiny in E. grimmi ( Fig. 9A View FIGURE 9 )), not beaded laterally male pronotum ( Figs 14D, E View FIGURE 14 ) (lateral margins of the pronotum are beaded in E. grimmi ( Fig. 9D, E View FIGURE 9 )), the absence of the dense brush of setae at the base of the flex side of profemora ( Fig. 14B View FIGURE 14 ), the apical part of the basal piece of the aedeagus with longitudinal rugosity ( Fig. 14K View FIGURE 14 ) (smooth in E. grimmi ( Fig. 9K View FIGURE 9 )), the apical piece of the aedeagus with longitudinal median groove ( Fig. 14K View FIGURE 14 ) (median keel in E. grimmi ( Fig. 9K View FIGURE 9 ));
– E. merkli by the shiny male body at least in the Elburs population (14A) (weakly shiny in E. merkli (15A)), wider and the widest ahead of the middle pronotum with rounded lateral margins ( Fig. 14D View FIGURE 14 ) ( E. merkli has narrower, widest at middle pronotum, with very weakly rounded lateral margins ( Fig. 15D View FIGURE 15 )), the presence of dense brush of setae at the base of the flex side of meso- and metafemora ( Fig. 14B View FIGURE 14 ) (absence of the femoral brush in E. merkli ( Fig. 15B View FIGURE 15 )) and almost bare abdominal ventrites ( Fig. 14B View FIGURE 14 ) (pubescent in E. merkli ( Fig. 15B View FIGURE 15 )).
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.