Eurycorypha aequatorialis Krauss, 1890

Heller, Klaus-Gerhard, 2019, Provisional checklist of the Tettigonioidea (Insecta: Orthoptera) from São Tomé & Príncipe with taxonomic remarks, bioacoustical data and the description of new taxa, Zootaxa 4563 (1), pp. 41-66 : 45

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4563.1.2

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:AB160951-31C8-4E06-84FB-7C46B94FFDDC

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5926043

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6264514E-7D48-8A17-E8B4-FC90FAE4FA36

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Eurycorypha aequatorialis Krauss, 1890
status

 

Eurycorypha aequatorialis Krauss, 1890 / E. securifera Brunner von Wattenwyl 1878

Krauss 1890: Eurycorypha aequatorialis Krauss, 1890

Griffini 1906: Eurycorypha securifera Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1878

Krauss (1890) described the species E. aequatorialis from one female, collected on Rolas Islands (holotype lost, see above). According to the text, it is quite similar to E. securifera , known at that time only from males, and differs only in the number of spines on the lower side of the hind legs (2 on both sides in securifera and 11/7 and 4/ 1 (left/right leg) in aequatorialis ). Griffini (1906) identified a male, collected by Fea in Ribeira Palma (near Neves) on São Tomé with some doubts as E. securifera (this specimen is figured by Massa 2017a, Massa, pers. comm). We assume that both specimens belong to the same species. During a visit in NMW we tried to find the type of E. securifera , but could not find it. It is not registered in the catalogue of the museum nor is there any indication for it in the box where the other Eurycorypha species are stored. Giglio-Tos (1907) described a specimen from Madimba/ Congo as male of E. aequatorialis (figured in Massa 2017a). However, it is by no means clear that it belongs to this species (see also comments in Massa 2017b). The same is true for the record of one female from Lolodorf/ Cameroon by Bruner (1920). Only topotypical material of both species can solve the problem.

We could not find any information supporting the idea that the holotype has ever been in SMNS as mentioned by Otte (1997) instead of in Marburg as indicated by Krauss (1890) (see also Holstein & Ingrisch 2004).

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