Enoplomischus ghesquierei Giltay, 1931
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2024.952.2647 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:00BEAF45-3564-4079-BB79-504FF82966C6 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13752353 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039D879D-FFBA-FFDD-332C-5FDFFD71F93C |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Enoplomischus ghesquierei Giltay, 1931 |
status |
|
Enoplomischus ghesquierei Giltay, 1931 View in CoL
Enoplomischus ghesquierei Giltay, 1931: 168 View in CoL , figs 1–2.
Enoplomischus chattoni Berland & Millot, 1941: 343 View in CoL , fig. 47.
Enoplomischus spinosus Wesołowska, 2005: 309 View in CoL View Cited Treatment , figs 1–8, syn. nov.
Enoplomischus ghesquierei View in CoL – Wesołowska & Szeremeta 2001: 219, figs 4–10.
Material examined
UGANDA • 1 ♂, 3 ♀♀; Entebbe ; Apr. 1999; FSCA • 1 ♀; same locality as for preceding; 9 May 1993; L. Fishpod leg.; NHM .
Distribution
Known from Ivory Coast, Congo and Kenya, this is the first record from Uganda.
Synonymization
Enoplomischus ghesquierei (♂) and E. spinosus (♀) were described from a single sex only. In the material form Uganda the two sexes were found together in one sample. Furthermore, they share a similar body form and have a very characteristic outgrowth on their pedicel. Based on this evidence, we consider the two specific names as synonyms.
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 |
Enoplomischus ghesquierei Giltay, 1931
Wiśniewski, Konrad & Wesołowska, Wanda 2024 |
Enoplomischus ghesquierei
Wesolowska W. & Szeremeta M. 2001: 219 |
Enoplomischus chattoni
Berland L. & Millot J. 1941: 343 |
Enoplomischus ghesquierei
Giltay L. 1931: 168 |