Proctostephanus anopolitanus ( Schulz & Lymberakis, 2006 ) Schulz & Lymberakis, 2006

Potapov, Mikhail, Kahrarian, Morteza, Deharveng, Louis & Shayanmehr, Masoumeh, 2015, Taxonomy of the Proisotoma complex. V. Sexually dimorphic Ephemerotoma gen. nov. (Collembola: Isotomidae), Zootaxa 4052 (3), pp. 345-358 : 356

Proctostephanus anopolitanus ( Schulz & Lymberakis, 2006) comb. nov.

Figs 32, 33 , 39

Syn.: Proisotoma anopolitana Schulz & Lymberakis, 2006

Material. Four paratypes (West Crete, Anopolis) deposited in Senckenberg Museum of Natural History Görlitz.

Taxonomical additions. Mouthparts typical for the genus. Two prelabral chaetae. Maxillary outer lobe with simple maxillary palp and 4 sublobal hairs. Labium with all papillae (A–E) present, papillae A–D with normal number of guards (1,4,0,4), E usually with 4 guards, with 5 on one side of one paratype. With 3 proximal and 4 basomedian chaetae. Body with numerous and rather short chaetae on body. Wart of Abd.V distinct, consisting of a few strong chitinized wrinkles ( Fig. 32 ), common chaetae near wart thicker, sometimes with denticles. Abd. V with 4 sens arranged in two transverse rows, two anterior sens longer and thicker than posterior sens. S -formula as 3,3/ 2,2,2,2,4 (s) and 1,1/1,1,1 (ms). Furca well developed, similar to other members of Ephemerotoma ( Fig. 33 ).

Affinity. Initially the species was described in the genus Proisotoma since its position was not fully clear ( Schulz & Lymberakis 2006). In the light of the current study it shares the characters of Ephemerotoma and Proctostephanus . Since the compact abdominal wart of P. anopolitanus is more likely to be the "crown" than the diffuse rugosity, we recognise the species as a member of Proctostephanus , which differs from congeners by fewer crown protuberances ( Fig. 39 versus Figs 37, 38 ). In addition, the crown of P. anopolitanus is partly covered with chaetae ( Fig. 32 , Schulz 2010, Schulz & Lymberakis 2006), which is unknown for other species of Proctostephanus .

Proctostephanus anopolitanus mostly resembles E. porcella described from the same area. The two species differ by sexual dimorphism (absent in anopolitana vs. present in porcella ), shape of the wart and setae at the end of abdomen, ratios of furcal parts and the number of chaetae on the ventral tube (see Schulz & Lymberakis 2006). The maturity of males on which the first description was based is somewhat equivocal, which causes some doubts if the two species differ in sexual dimorphism. P. anopolitanus was caught in pitfall traps in great numbers (see table 1 in Schulz & Lymberakis 2006), which indicates an ecological similarity to Ephemerotoma .

Figures

FIGURES 29 – 33. Ephemerotoma multituberculata (29 – 31) and Proctostephanus anopolitanus (32 – 33): 29, 30, Abd. V, chaetotaxy (29) (granulation not shown) and granulation (30); 31, labrum; 32, Abd. V; 33, dens, posterior view.

FIGURES 34 – 41. Posterior part of abdomen in genera Ephemerotoma and Proctostephanus: 34, E. porcella, Abd. V; 35, P. cidi, Abd. V, dorsal view, only sens shown; 36, posterior part of abdomen of P. sanctiaugustini, lateral view; 37 – 41, modification of posterior part of abdomen in Proctostephanus (37 – 39) and Ephemerotoma (40 – 41): P. c i di (37), P. stuckeni (38), P. anopolitanus (39), E. multituberculata (40), E. skarzynskii sp. nov. (41).