L. fissurata inanis Prout

(Figs. 18, 68; Map 4)

Lithostege inanis Prout, 1941: 331, pl. 34: i. Holotype 3, allotype Ƥ, BMNH (examined by photo). Type locality: Saudi-Arabia: Khafs.

Lithostege fitzgeraldi Wiltshire, 1947: 10, pl. Fig. 15; text-fig. 10. Holotype 3, BMNH (not examined). Type locality: Saudi- Arabia: Artawiya.

Lithostege fissurata inanis: Wiltshire, 1990: 125, fig 81.

Lithostege inanis: Parsons et al., 1999 .

Lithostege fissurata inanis: Hausmann & Seguna, 2005: 11 –15.

Material examined. Type material: Holotype 3: ‘Arabia: Khafs. 26.ii.1935. H. St. J. B. Philby, B. M. 1935–222’, ‘Type’, ‘ Lithostege inanis Prout Holotype 3’; allotype Ƥ: same data; coll. BMNH.

Additional material: 1 Ƥ: Iran, Belutschistan, Iranshahr, 800 m, 1.-10.III.1954, [leg.] Richter u. Schäuffele, gen. prep. 1012/2010 H. R. Preparations of genitalia: 1 3, 2 Ƥ.

Description & Diagnosis. Wingspan of the single specimen from Iran: 22 mm. Wings similar to L. fissurata, but without apical dark grey line on forewing (Fig. 18). Female genitalia (Fig. 68) with very short apophyses anteriores (0.1 of apophyses posteriores) and a short funnel-shaped antrum; the pear-shaped corpus bursae fully spinulate, with a small anterior diverticulum. Female genitalia of fissurata without distinct differences. Also the male genitalia of the holotype (studied) almost identical.

Taxonomic note. Wiltshire (1990) synonymised L. fitzgeraldi Wiltshire, 1947 with L. inanis Prout, 1941 and simultaneously downgraded this taxon to a subspecies of L. fissurata Mabille, 1888 . The single examined specimen from Iran was recorded by Hausmann & Seguna (2005) as L. fissurata inanis Prout, 1941 . The female genitalia of this specimen are highly similar to those of L. fissurata (figured in Hausmann & Seguna (2005)). Also the male genitalia of the holotype of L. inanis Prout fit well with those of L. fissurata Mabille. On the other hand, a separation on species-level of inanis and fissurata is supported by genetic differentiation between these two taxa. DNAbarcoding of 5 specimens of fissurata from a wide area of distribution (Mauretania: 2; Tunisia:2; Israel: 1) does not show any intraspecific variation, but comparing these with three barcodes of inanis (from United Arab Emirates) reveals a distance of 2.35%, suggesting inanis to be a distinct species. Conventionally, a barcode difference exceeding 2% is understood as an argument of a species-level difference. It seems not unlikely that long-term isolation between Iranian and Arab populations led to a cryptic species (“in statu nascendi”) in Iran, but without further studies of more material we are not able to decide this question. So here we follow Hausmann & Seguna (2005), regarding inanis as a subspecies of L. fissurata .

Bionomics. Specimens studied are collected in January and February.

Distribution. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and SE of Iran (Hausmann & Seguna, 2005) (Map 4).