Mortonagrion
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.201683 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6185155 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/BA4387BA-FF96-9B0D-FF53-CFF4C66CFD04 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Mortonagrion |
status |
|
Relationship of Mortonagrion View in CoL with Agriocnemis and Argiocnemis
Mortonagrion View in CoL has had a confused history since it was erected. A number of species have at various times been placed in Mortonagrion View in CoL , and at other times placed in the allied genera Agriocnemis View in CoL and Argiocnemis View in CoL . The issue of the relationships among these genera has never been satisfactorily resolved, for instance see Pinhey (1974) and Hämäläinen (1989). Until now the sole character that has been considered to reliably distinguish Mortonagrion View in CoL from Agriocnemis View in CoL and Argiocnemis View in CoL is a detail of wing venation: “ ab continued on as 1a in the same straight line, no angulated medio-anal link intervening at the junction ” ( Fraser 1933: 409). The species currently placed in Mortonagrion View in CoL , excluding M. aborense View in CoL and M. alcyone View in CoL and the African M. stygia Fraser, 1954 View in CoL , share a number of other characteristics, for instance: complicated postocular markings in the males, mesostigmal plates strongly raised up along one or more edges in females (e.g. Figs 8–10 View FIGURES 7 – 10 ) and triangular paraprocts (e.g. Fig. 32 View FIGURES 25 – 32 ) in females (rather than the rather formless paraprocts typical in the Coenagrionidae View in CoL ). These species certainly appear to be more closely related to each other than to any other species, but none of the characters mentioned is unique to this group of species, all being found in some species typically placed in Agriocnemis View in CoL .
M. aborense View in CoL and M. alcyone View in CoL both share some characters with Argiocnemis rubescens Selys, 1877 View in CoL , the genotype of Argiocnemis View in CoL , that are not shared with the other Mortonagrion View in CoL species: all have simple postocular markings, relatively simple broad triangular mesostigmal plates and formless paraprocts in the female, and very similar male anal appendages; they also share a typical scheme of colour changes from immaturity to maturity. See Hämäläinen (1989) for a summary of the complicated history of A. aborense View in CoL ; however it differs significantly in genital ligula structure from all other species examined or for which illustrations were available from all three genera (see below). A. alcyone View in CoL appears to have become associated with Mortanagrion almost by accident, as it does not even consistently share the venational character, for instance the lectotype male in the BMNH has an angulated medioanal link joining ab with 1A.
M. stygia View in CoL has mature colouration more typical of many Agriocnemis View in CoL species, but the female variably has triangular paraprocts. The genital ligula is of Agriocnemis View in CoL / Mortonagrion View in CoL form (see below). It is difficult to come to any firm conclusion on the placement of this species at the moment.
Probably the most promising character to distinguish Argiocnemis View in CoL from Agriocnemis View in CoL and Mortonagrion View in CoL , and possibly the latter two genera from each other, is the structure of the genital ligula. The genital ligula of Agriocnemis femina (Brauer, 1868) View in CoL ( Fig. 25 View FIGURES 25 – 32 ), Argiocnemis rubescens rubeola View in CoL ( Fig. 26 View FIGURES 25 – 32 ), Argiocnemis View in CoL sp. ( Fig. 27 View FIGURES 25 – 32 ; a problematic form distinct from, but possibly with a name buried in the synonymy of, A. rubescens View in CoL ), Mortonagrion aborense View in CoL ( Fig. 28 View FIGURES 25 – 32 ), M. alcyone View in CoL ( Fig. 29 View FIGURES 25 – 32 ), M. arthuri View in CoL ( Fig. 30 View FIGURES 25 – 32 ) and M. indraneil View in CoL ( Fig. 31 View FIGURES 25 – 32 ) were examined by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). With the exception of M. aborense View in CoL , the genital ligula of all the species examined is broadly similar; the terminal segment has simple-shaped broad apical lateral lobes, at rest directed back on either side of the shaft. In Mortonagrion View in CoL and Argiocnemis View in CoL there are rows of short setae or spines dorsolaterally on either side of the shaft; in Agriocnemis femina View in CoL the spines are absent from the shaft, but there is a small clump of spines on each side of the segment that lies between the apical lobes of the terminal segment. In Argiocnemis rubescens View in CoL , Argiocnemis View in CoL sp. and M. alcyone View in CoL the terminal part of the lateral lobes has a fringe of narrow teeth along its margin, but these teeth are absent in the other species examined. Pinhey (1974) illustrated the genital ligula of all African species known to him, including M. stygia View in CoL , and Agriocnemis pygmaea (Rambur, 1842) View in CoL which is also widely distributed in Asia; the genital ligula of all of these species is of the general Agriocnemis View in CoL / Mortonagrion View in CoL form. However with the equipment available to him Pinhey may not have been able to see certain features of the genital ligula, such as spines or setae, but it seems likely that a fringe of teeth such as occurs in M. alcyone View in CoL , Argiocnemis rubescens View in CoL and Argiocnemis View in CoL sp. would have been visible to him; presumably no such fringe occurs in any of the species examined by Pinhey. As noted by Pinhey (1974: 271 as M. simile Ris, 1930 View in CoL ) and illustrated by Asahina (1982: 457, Figs 9–10 View FIGURES 7 – 10 as M. binocellata Fraser, 1922 View in CoL ) the genital ligula of M. aborense View in CoL ( Fig. 28 View FIGURES 25 – 32 ) is of a different form from all the other species considered, with, as Pinhey puts it “flagella united into a single short, broad scoop over the stem.”
I consider the placement of aborense View in CoL and alcyone View in CoL in Mortonagrion View in CoL to be extremely doubtful, with alcyone View in CoL belonging with the Argiocnemis View in CoL species which it closely resembles and aborense View in CoL possibly deserving its own genus. However in order to prevent further confusion it appears best to leave the status of these species unchanged at this time. Mortonagrion View in CoL may itself prove to be merely a specialised group within Agriocnemis View in CoL , but this should be considered as part of a full review of the relationships between Mortonagrion View in CoL , Agriocnemis View in CoL and Argiocnemis View in CoL ; such a review is a major undertaking that must include the African as well as Asian species, SEM studies of the genital ligula and molecular studies. A final resolution of this issue will not be based on characters of wing venation.
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 |
Mortonagrion
Dow, Rory A. 2011 |
M. stygia
Fraser 1954 |
M. simile
Ris 1930 |
M. binocellata
Fraser 1922 |
Argiocnemis rubescens
Selys 1877 |
Agriocnemis femina
Brauer 1868 |
Agriocnemis pygmaea
Rambur 1842 |