Eupholidoptera abscondita Ünal & Gorochov, 2024

Ünal, Mustafa & Gorochov, Andrei V., 2024, Tettigoniinae (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) from South-West of Turkey, with an incognito new species and comments on the genus Eupholidoptera, Zootaxa 5474 (1), pp. 21-34 : 25-29

Eupholidoptera abscondita Ünal & Gorochov sp. nov.

(Figs. 1–10, 19a, b)

Type locality. Turkey: Antalya Prov., Geyikbayırı , 36°52.417´N, 30°29.100´E, 376 m, 6.9.2011 (leg. M. Ünal & A. Gorochov). Holotype: female ( AİBÜEM).

Description. Female (Holotype). Fastigium of vertex 1.1 times wider than width of eye, 1.7 times wider than antennal scape and 2.5 times wider than frontal groove. Pronotum (Figs. 1–2) elongated posteriorly, 1.9. times longer than its high, with smooth surface; fore and last transversal sulci distinct; anterior margin slightly concave, posterior margin broadly rounded; shoulder incision distinct. Tegmina scale-like, hardly touching each other at dorsum and completely hidden under pronotum. Hind femur (Figs. 1–2) 4.8 times longer than high in lateral view, apical narrowed part 2.6 times shorter than basal part. Last abdominal tergite short and wide with a small shallow posterior incision; lateral lobes broad and rounded. Cercus slender, long and narrow, slightly incurved along its length, apex strongly pointed like a spine. Subgenital plate (Figs. 3–4, 19a, b) slightly wider than long, with a large, deep elliptical posterior incision reaching to the middle of the plate which is widened apically; lateral lobes triangular in lateral view, narrowly rounded at apex. Ovipositor (Figs. 1–2) long, slightly upcurved, longer than hind femur.

Male (Allotype). Fastigium of vertex as wide as width of eye, 1.8 times wider than antennal scape and 2.2 times wider than frontal groove. Pronotum (Figs. 5–6) 1.8 times longer than high, with smooth surface, first and last transversal sulci hardly visible; prozona cylindrical, metazona slightly flattened and widened; prozona and metazona almost equal length in dorsal view; anterior margin almost truncate, with a poor concavity in the middle, posterior margin broadly rounded; metazona extended slightly beyond the middle of the first abdominal tergite; shoulder incision distinct in lateral view. A large portion of tegmina (Figs. 5–6) concealed under pronotum; their posterior part visible in dorsal and lateral views; right tegmen gently longer than left tegmen, reaching slightly beyond the first abdominal tergite. Hind femur (Figs. 5–6) long, 4.7 times longer than high in lateral view, reaching far beyond the end of abdomen (its 1/2.6 apical part extended beyond abdomen). Last abdominal tergite (Fig. 7) short and wide, 2.2 times wider than long, with a wide V-shaped posterior incision in dorsal view, with short and sparse hairs; lateral lobes almost triangular in posterior view, down curved and pointed with a tooth. Cercus (Fig. 7) 3.5 mm, slender, long and narrow; extended posteriorly at straight direction but wavy, proximal 2/3 part slightly incurved, then slightly bent outwards and its apical 1/6 part poorly incurved again, this part narrow and pointed with a small spinule which slightly down curved. Subgenital plate (Fig. 8) very wide basally, strongly narrowed posteriorly, with a very deep posterior incision reaching to 2/3 of the length of plate; lateral lobes strongly pointed at apex, spine-like, without styli. Titillator (Figs. 9–10) slender, 3/4 part of basal arms gently upcurved then suddenly bent upwards at apical 1/4, reaching the beginning of the unfused part of the apical arms; apical arms fused at basal half, unfused part contiguous two long spine-like, bent forwards under an obtuse angle in lateral view.

Colouration. Female: Milky brown with remarkable large black, dark brown markings in different shapes. Face with 2 rounded spots and 2 black stripes, the latter ones in the middle part. Clypeus and labrum with several small black spots. Eyes and antennal scapes surrounded with black colour, reaching to the pronotum laterally. Lower and lateral margins of fastigium with thin black stripe. Antennae light brown. Paranota of pronotum black except a large cream ventral band; dorsal surface mainly milky-brown, lateral sides bordered with paranotal black colour; posterior margin surrounded with a thin black stripe. Dorsal side and partly inner face of fore femur with black stripes; outer and inner surfaces of mid femur with black stripes and spots. Hind femur with a large black anterior spot dorsally; outer and inner surfaces of middle part with large transversal black stripes; apical end with a wide black ring; basal end of hind tibia with a similar black ring continuing of the apical ring of the hind femur. First abdominal tergite black. Lateral widened part of 9th tergite black. Ovipositor brownish, with 2 narrow black stripes at base dorsally. Subgenital plate brownish, with a transversal large black spot at base.

Male: Body castaneous with black markings similar to female. Visible part of tegmina dark brown in dorsal view, costal margin milky brown in lateral view. Last abdominal tergite black with a brown central spot and two smaller brown spots near to the central one; posterior margins of lateral lobes brownish in posterior view. Cercus with dark brown basal part, its apical 1/3 part light brown. Subgenital plate yellow, with outer margins black laterally; its pointed, spine like apex dark brown.

Diagnosis. This species is unique in the shape of the female subgenital plate (Figs. 3–4, 19a, b), which easily separates it from the other species of Eupholidoptera (Figs. 16–36). But the general appearance and the male is very similar to E. tahtalica ( Uvarov, 1949) . Male subgenital plate is almost same with this species (Figs. 8, 12). While male cercus distinctly narrower and inner expansion of cercus much weaker, in E. tahtalica inner margin of cercus strongly widened in basal 2/3 part, and inflated in the middle part (Figs. 7, 11). Titillator in the new species, basal 1/3 part of apical arms wider and slightly widened in the beginning of the distal part in anterior view (Fig. 9); apical arms distinctly curved forwards under an obtuse angle in lateral view (Fig. 10); in E. tahtalica , basal 1/3 part of apical arms narrow, distal part elliptically widened in anterior view (Fig. 13); apical arms very gently curved forwards in lateral view (Fig. 14). Posterior incision of male last tergite larger with short and sparse hairs (Fig. 7); in E. tahtalica , posterior incision smaller with distinctly long and dense hairs (Fig. 11). Female subgenital plate of the new species is very different by the large elliptical posterior incision which widened apically, and lateral lobes almost triangular, narrow at apex (Figs. 3, 4, 19a, b); in E. tahtalica , posterior incision much narrower, acutangular, almost V-shaped; lateral lobes much wider and rounded at apex (Figs. 15, 18a, b).

This new species is similar to E. anatolica ( Ramme, 1930) and E. krueperi ( Ramme, 1930) by the colouration with the black markings and patterns on body surface. But, all the other characteristics such as the male last tergite, cercus, subgenital plate, titillators and the shape of female subgenital plate (compare Figs. 16a, b, 17a, b with Fig. 19a, b) are very different and easily recognizable.

It is actually not very similar to E. unimacula Karabağ, 1956 in the natural form of the female subgenital plate (in the fresh, well prepared or live specimens) (compare Figs. 21a, b with Figs. 19a, b), however, is more similar to some drawings of the female subgenital plate in literature (because of the reasons explained in the introduction section above and remarks section of this new species below). But, the typical colouration, with distinct, large black markings (in E. unimacula , body unicolour light brown in the dry type material, green or yellowish green in fresh specimens, with a black spot on the upper edge of paranota and black stripe on the dorsal edge of hind femur), the ovipositor longer than hind femur (in E. unimacula , shorter than hind femur), the shape of male subgenital plate without styli [with styli in E. unimacula (see Ünal, 2006 and 2012)], the shapes of titillator, the male cercus and the male last tergite are different.

Measurements (mm). Holotype (female): body length 25.6; pronotum 10.5; hind femur 25.1; ovipositor 28.9. Paratypes: body length: male 25.3–26.9, female 26.5; pronotum: male 8.9–10.2, female 9.1–9.6; hind femur: male 22.8–24, female 23.7–24; ovipositor 24.5–25.

Material examined. Antalya Prov., Central Distr., ~ 15 km W of Antalya City, bank of Geyikbayırı River , 36°52.417´N, 30°29.100´E, 376 m, at night, 6.9.2011, 1 female (holotype), at night (leg. M. Ünal & A. Gorochov) ; same place, 17.8.2018, 1 female, at night, (leg. M. Ünal); same place, 10.7.2023, 2 males, 1 female, at night (leg. M. Ünal); Antalya, Çınarhisar [correct name Hisarçandır], 880 m, 20.6.2001, 2 males (leg. M. Ünal) ( AİBÜEM) .

Etymology. Latin “abscondita ” means hidden. Because of the similarity of the male this species was hidden under E. tahtalica up to date though the female subgenital plate is unique.

Remarks. Three species of Eupholidoptera were found at the type locality, Geyikbayırı, Eupholidoptera abscondita sp. nov., E. smyrnensis ( Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1882) and E. karabagi Salman, 1983 . These three species are found as congeneric partners in the same place and time. It is not impossible to existence of more species, E. tahtalica ( Uvarov, 1949) or E. anatolica ( Ramme, 1930) in the same place.

Only one female of E. abscondita sp. nov. was found on our field trip (in two visits) in September 2011. This female could not be identified and not matched any known females of the genus. To find more material the first author went to the same place in August 2018. Again , only one female was found. To identify these two specimens all known females of the genus, especially ones found in Turkey and the Middle East were compared using not only the literature but also the material. For this, some field trips were carried out to find the females of other likely similar species; two museums ( MfN and NMW) were visited during this period; and some photographs of females and specimens were obtained from colleagues. The third opportunity to go Geyikbayırı was found in July 2023. This time 2 males and 1 female were found which are helpful for comparison and identification .

Female subgenital plate is unique and does not match any known Eupholidoptera . But male is very similar to E. tahtalica ( Uvarov, 1949) by the subgenital plate without styli and the last tergite, and by the less similar cerci and titillator. Therefore, as is usual in this genus researchers have probably relied on the males, and did not notice the distinct female subgenital plate and the details of male characteristics in the previous studies close to the type locality. Some previous records of E. tahtalica may belong to this new species such as the Çınarhisar [Hisarçandır] record of Ünal (2006: 191) which belongs to this new species. Thus, this interesting species has been overlooked under E. tahtalica up to date. However, Yalım and Çıplak (2002: 272) mentioned a difference of the Termessos population of E. tahtalica , without any morphological discussion. The previous records of E. tahtalica should be confirmed. A misidentification is mentioned in the following paragraph. It must be remembered that sympatry is a feature of this genus and 3 species (maybe more) of Eupholidoptera may be found in the same location as congeneric partners such as the type locality of the present new species.

The female subgenital plate is one of the very distinctive characteristics in Eupholidoptera species. In the absence of male sex it is quite possible to identify the females by comparing the subgenital plates. But, because of the drying process or the preparation of specimens after treatment of alcohol (etc.) the natural forms of specimens and the shapes of their diagnostic characters such as female subgenital plates are changed (wrinkled, shrinked, compressed etc.). Therefore, the drawings based on such specimens may not reflect their true structure. This has resulted in difficulties in the identification processes of new material. For example, some species were recorded far from their known distributional areas. These include Eupholidoptera annulipes ( Brunner von Wattenwyl,1882) from Muğla Province, E. anatolica ( Ramme, 1930) from Adana Province, E. tahtalica ( Uvarov, 1949) from Muğla Province ( Karabağ 1958), all of which were misidentified. Besides, females of some species with close or overlapping distributions have also been mixed. As revealed in this study, a female identified as E. tahtalica (in Karabağ 1961, Salman 1983) at the NHM London, actually belongs to E. anatolica .

For comparison of the new species described here and also for further research we provide images of the female subgenital plates of all known Eupholidoptera species of Turkey and Cyprus, and 3 species of the known 5 from the Middle East ( Syria, Lebanon, Palaestine and Israel). Totally 24 species [except E. palaestinensis (Ramme, 1939) and E. peneri Kaltenbach, 1969 ] are listed below, with the figure numbers used herein.

Female sex of two species, Eupholidoptera demirsoyi Salman, 1981 and E. gocmeni Ünal, 2019 and the adult female of E. akdeniz Ünal & Naskrecki, 2002 are unknown. But these three East Mediterranean species are not close relatives of the present new species. Female subgenital plate of E. demirsoyi perhaps similar to its sister species, E. excisa (Karabağ, 1952) . As the members of E. ledereri species group E. akdeniz and E. gocmeni , may have female subgenital plates probably similar to that of the members of this group (Figs. 31–36). The female subgenital plate of the immature stage of E. akdeniz is already similar to these species ( Ünal & Naskrecki 2002: 2).

E. anatolica sp. group

Eupholidoptera anatolica ( Ramme, 1930) (Figs. 16a, b)

Eupholidoptera krueperi ( Ramme, 1930) (Figs. 17a, b)

Eupholidoptera tahtalica ( Uvarov, 1949) (Figs. 11–15, 18a, b)

Eupholidoptera abscondita Ünal & Gorochov sp. nov. (Figs. 1–10, 19a, b)

E. prasina sp. group

Eupholidoptera prasina ( Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1882) (Figs. 20a, b)

Eupholidoptera unimacula Karabağ, 1956 (Figs. 21a, b)

Eupholidoptera karabagi Salman, 1983 (Figs. 22a, b)

Eupholidoptera singularis Ünal, 2018 (Figs. 23a, b)

Eupholidoptera tasheliensis Çıplak, 1999 (Figs. 24a, b)

Eupholidoptera mersinensis Salman, 1983 (Figs. 25a, b)

Eupholidoptera tauricola ( Ramme, 1930) (Figs. 26a, b)

Eupholidoptera sevketi (Ramme, 1933) (Figs. 27a, b)

Eupholidoptera excisa (Karabağ, 1952) (Figs. 28a, b)

Eupholidoptera demirsoyi Salman, 1983 female unknown

E. ledereri sp. group

Eupholidoptera annulipes ( Brunner von Wattenwyl,1882) (Figs. 29a, b)

Eupholidoptera marashensis Salman, 1983 (Figs. 30a, b)

Eupholidoptera smyrnensis ( Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1882) (Figs. 31a, b)

Eupholidoptera cypria cypria Ramme, 1951 (Figs. 32a, b)

Eupholidoptera cypria turcica Salman, 1983 (Figs. 33a, b)

Eupholidoptera werneri Ramme, 1951 (Figs. 34a, b)

Eupholidoptera gocmeni Ünal, 2019 female unknown

Eupholidoptera akdeniz Ünal & Naskrecki, 2002 adult female unknown

Eupholidoptera ledereri (Fieber, 1861) (Figs. 35a, b)

Eupholidoptera lyra (Uvarov, 1942) (Figs. 36a, b)