Nocaracris burri (Uvarov, 1949) comb. rev.

(Figs. 531, 558–559, 639–640, 843)

Nocarodes cyanipes Fisch de W.: Werner 1901: 282, partim.

Nocarodes cyanipes Fisch. -Waldh.: Ebner 1919: 175, partim.

Nocarodes burri spec. nov.: Uvarov 1949a: 1.

Nocarodes burri Uvarov, 1949: Otte 1994: 173; Macháčková & Fikáček 2014: 427.

Nocaracris burri (Uv. 1949): Ramme 1951: 279, 300, 411, 427; Karabağ 1958: 120.

Paranocaracris burri burri (Uvarov, 1949): Weidner 1969: 162.

Nocaracris burri (Uvarov): Karabağ et al. 1971: 86.

Paranocaracris rubripes burri Uvarov, 1949: Demirsoy 1973: 425, 426, partim; Demirsoy 1977: 82, 83, partim; Presa & Garcia 1983: 23; Otte 1994: 183.

Type locality. Turkey: Bursa, Uludağ. Holotype: male (NHMUK).

Material examined. TURKEY: Uludagh ( Mt. Olympus), 1700–2000 m, 26– 30.8.1943, 1♂ (Holotype), 8♀ (Paratypes) (leg. M. Burr); Uludagh, 1600–2000 m, 1944, 7♂, 3♀ (Paratypes) (leg. C. Kosswig) (NHMUK) ; Uludagh, 1944, 1600–2000 m, 2♂ (Paratypes) (leg. Kosswig); Uludagh (M. Olympus), 1700–2000 m, 2♀ (Paratypes) (leg. M. Burr) (MfN) ; Uludagh ( Mt. Olympus), 1700–2000 m, 26– 30.8.1943, 1♂, 1♀ (Paratypes) (ZIN) ; Bursa, Uludağ, 2200–2400 m, 29.7.1995, 15♂, 8♀ (leg. M. Ünal & P. Naskrecki) (AİBÜEM) ; Bursa Uludağ, 1790–2000 m, 14.6.2007, 15♂, 11♀, plus 6♂, 5♀ in alcohol (leg. M. Ünal) (AİBÜEM); Bursa, Uludağ, 2050 m, 8.8.2007, 1♂, 1♀ (leg. M. Ünal) (AİBÜEM) ; Bursa, Uludağ, 31.5.2009, 1♂, 1♀ nymph (leg. İ. Eker) (AİBÜEM) ; Amasia, 1♀ (det. Br. v.W. as rubripes) (det. Ramme as Nocaracris burri) (det. Cejchan, 1967 as Paranocaracris burri burri); [Bursa], Bithyn. Olymp. [ Uludağ], 14.8.1910, 2 nymphs (leg. Fahringer) (det. as Nocarodes cyanipes); Olymp. b. Brussa, 1852, 1♀ (leg. Mann) (NMW) ; Turcia, Merkl, 1890, 1♂, 2♀ (MNCN) ; Col. Marguel, 1♀ (leg. P. Pant.) (MNCN).

Distribution. N.W. Anatolia: Bursa, Uludağ and its vicinity (Fig. 843).

Remarks. Much material has been studied, and it is possible to see specimens completely without tympanum and some others with a reduced, very small tympanum in the same locality. All of them undoubtedly belong to this species.

One female from Amasya is certainly this species, but its label must be attached erroneously as is the case of one historical male of N. furvus furvus (see the Remarks section of P. straubei and N. furvus furvus).