Doratura rusaevi Kusnezov, 1928

(Figs 30D; 31E–L; 32C–E; 33D–G; 34B, C)

Doratura rusaevi Kusnezov, 1928b: 231

Doratura astrachanica Vilbaste, 1961: 324 syn. nov.

Doratura (Doraturina) rusaevi Emeljanov, 1964: 404

Diagnosis. The species is closely related to D. concors and D. medvedevi, based above all on the aedeagus provided with robust black thorn-shaped spines (Figs 31E–L), the in lateral view high, in ventral view straight and short aedeagus socle, the similar shape of genital plates (Figs 33D–G) with strongly sinuate lateral margins, and the strongly caudad protruding female pregenital sternite (Figs 34B, C). The equally curved and stout styles (Figs 32C–E) clearly resemble the corresponding structures in D. medvedevi . D. rusaevi differs from the other two taxa in males by the only slightly (not abruptly) widening aedeagus base (ventral view), in females by the long tongueshaped pregenital sternite without caudal notch.

Remarks. For D. rusaevi Kusnezov, described after a female from Kazakhstan (surroundings of Uralsk), an extremely long and narrow female pregenital sternite is figured in the original description. Later, the aedeagus of the species was figured by Emeljanov (1964) and Mitjaev (1971). In these figures, the affinity to the aedeagus of D. concors is obvious. We examined specimens identified by Emeljanov as D. rusaevi .

Distribution (Fig. 60B). We studied material from Kazakhstan and European Russia. Apparently, there are no records for further countries.

Taxonomic remarks. D. astrachanica Vilbaste, 1961, is described from Southern European Russia. There are no records for other countries, records for Near East are erroneous. We examined one male and one female identified by Vilbaste himself and now deposited in the Dlabola collection in Paris. The aedeagus displays robust spines; the female pregenital sternite is strongly protruding as in D. concors but has a different shape.

Following Vilbaste in the original description, this taxon should differ from D. rusaevi in its larger size and the female pregenital sternite, which in D. rusaevi should narrow from the base on and in D. astrachanica only from mid-length on. Both differences are not evident in our material (Measurements males: D. astrachanica: Body length: 3.35 mm; body width over wings: 1.35 mm; length of hind tibia: 1.96 mm; width of vertex: 1.21 mm; length of vertex: 0.50 mm; length of fore wings from shoulder to tip: 1.23 mm; width of fore wings: 0.88 mm. D. rusaevi: Body length: 3.2–3.5 mm; body width over wings: 1.34 mm; length of hind tibia: 2.0– 2.02 mm; width of vertex: 1.16–1.19 mm; length of vertex: 0.48–0.50 mm; length of fore wings from shoulder to tip: 1.15–1.17 mm; width of fore wings: 0.84–0.86 mm. Measurements females: D. astrachanica: Body length: 5.9 mm; body width over wings: 1.77 mm; length of hind tibia: 2.16 mm; width of vertex: 1.36 mm; length of vertex: 0.56 mm; length of fore wings from shoulder to tip: 1.34 mm; width of fore wings: 1.01 mm. D. rusaevi: Body length: 4.9–5.3 mm; body width over wings: 1.46–1.54 mm; length of hind tibia: 2.02–2.21 mm; width of vertex: 1.32–1.34 mm; length of vertex: 0.58–0.60 mm; length of fore wings from shoulder to tip: 1.38–1.44 mm; width of fore wings: 0.94–1.02 mm). Note that the difference in body length between the D. astrachanica female and the longest D. rusaevi female is exclusively due to the abdomen, which is very expanded in the former specimen, strongly contracted in the latter; measurements regarding the fore body of all the measured specimens give values within a quite limited range. As to the female pregenital sternite, see Figs 34B, C. Thus, we establish the synonymy of D. astrachanica with D. rusaevi .