Acanthacris ruficornis ruficornis (Fabricius, 1787)

Felix, Rob P. W. H. & Massa, Bruno, 2016, Orthoptera (Insecta: Tettigonioidea, Pyrgomorphoidea, Acridoidea) of Kafa Biosphere Reserve, Bale Mountains National Park and other areas of conservation interest in Ethiopia, Zootaxa 4189 (1), pp. 1-59 : 44

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4189.1.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:3C3C1242-82BC-4C73-B95E-0232F9603BA4

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6057340

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FD87C1-FB4A-FFBD-C4FC-FD3CFA71D279

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Acanthacris ruficornis ruficornis (Fabricius, 1787)
status

 

Acanthacris ruficornis ruficornis (Fabricius, 1787)

http://lsid.speciesfile.org/urn:lsid: Orthoptera .speciesfile.org:TaxonName:50244

Material examined. ETHIOPIA: SNNPR, Bench Maji, Sheko Forest (1340 m), 16.IV.2015, B. Massa (1♀, BMPC) ; Bench Maji, Sheko Forest (1570 m), 13.IV.2015, R.P.W.H. Felix (1Ƌ, RFPC) ; Oromia, Bale, Harenna Forest (1950 m), Bale Mountains N.P., 13.XII.2015, B. Massa (1♀, BMPC) .

Distribution. This subspecies is widespread in South, East and Central Africa. Ssp. ruficornis is known to occur in Ethiopia ( De Bormans 1881, Baccetti 1996, Donskoff 1977, Jago 1977).

Remarks. According to Mungai (1987) the distribution of ssp. ruficornis shows little overlap with ssp. citrina, which is supposed to be restricted to northwest Africa. We found both subspecies in Ethiopia, in the same kind of habitat, at two sites only a few km apart. Possibly the range of overlap is much larger than previously described. Both subspecies differ considerably from each other morphologically, and probably genetically, but are treated as ssp. by Mungai (1987) based on hybridization tests. Hybridization provides evidence of incomplete isolation during the speciation process. Following O’Brien and Mayr (1991) subspecies should be considered entities that occupy a particular geographical sector of species distribution, present a natural history and distinct genes from other subspecies. Thus, only a clearly isolated population may be considered taxonomically separated. Further study should reveal whether both subspecies should be given full species status, or that the morphological differences lie within the variability of the same taxon, or that our specimen from Ethiopia is in fact another taxon.

GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF