Euborellia, Burr, 1909

García-París, Mario, 2017, Taxonomy Of Iberian Anisolabididae (Dermaptera), Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 63 (1), pp. 29-43 : 35-36

Euborellia

Thegenus Euborellia istraditionallyrepresentedintheIberianPeninsula bytwowidelydistributedspecies, Euborelliaannulipes (Lucas, 1847) and E. moesta (Gené, 1837) (LApeIRA & PAScuAl 1980, HeRReRAMeSA 1999). SteInmAnn (1981 a), describedathirdIberianspecies, Euborelliahispanica Steinmann, 1981, basedonasinglespecimenfromOlot (ProvinceofGirona, Spain). Thespeci- men, accordingtoSteInmAnn’ s (1981 a) description, correspondstoarecently moultedimmaturespecimen. Iexaminedthemorphologicalvariabilityofa largeseriesofadultandjuvenilespecimensof E. moesta fromthreedifferent localitiesinGirona (locatedabout 40 kmfromthetypelocalityof E. hispanica ), whereitisarelativelycommonspecies (seerecordsinAppendix 1).

ThediagnosticcharactersindicatedbySteInmAnn (1981 a) for E. hispanica areincludedwithinthelocalvariabilityfoundin E. moesta fromGirona, and, asindicatedabove, immatureorrecentlymetamorphosedmalesinthefamily Anisolabididaeshowexternalsecondarysexualcharactersandgenitalstruc- tureshighlyvariable.

Iproposethat E. hispanica and E. moesta representthesametaxon, and therefore E. hispanica shouldbetreatedasajuniorsynonymof E. moesta . HeR- ReRAMeSA (1999) didnotmentionSteinmann’staxon, probablybecausethe authorconsideredSteinmann’s E. hispanica amisapplicationof Forficulahispanica Herrich-Schäffer, 1840 (= E. moesta ), butSteInmAnn’ s (1981 a) intention wasclearlythedescriptionofanewspecies.

Thegeographicrangesof E. moesta and E. annulipes arenotadequately analyzedintheIberianterritory. Alongtheexaminationof 360 specimensof Iberian Euborellia (seeAppendix 1), Idetectedsomemisidentificationsthat allowustoquestionpublishedreports. Thoseerroneousordoubtfulrecords correspondtothepresenceof E. annulipes incentralSpain. Infact, oncerevisedtheavailablespecimens, theresultinggeographicrangeof E. annulipes ismostlylimitedtocoastalareas, orregionswithadeepoceanicinfluence, while E. moesta ispresentoverlargeareasinmorecontinentalsituations.

Theconfusionmighthavearosefromthefactthatlatenymphalinstars of E. moesta (Fig. 5) presentexternalmorphologicaltraitsverysimilartothose retainedbyadult E. annulipes . Someofthosetraits, asforexample, thepres- enceoflightlegsannulatedwithdarkbrownrings, thepresenceofawhitish annulionthedistalportionoftheantennae, ortheabsenceofelytralpads, are oftentheonlycharactersusedforseparationbetween E. moesta and E. annulipes . Asaconsequence, latenymphalinstarsof E. moesta areeasilyconfused withadult E. annulipes . Ibelievethatalargenumber, ifnotall, thereportsof E. annulipes incentralSpaincorrespondactuallyto E. moesta . Iprovidealistof confirmedlocalitiesinAppendix 1.