Prionotropis maculinervis (Stål, 1878), Stal, 1878

Massa, Bruno, Ünal, Mustafa & Verde, Gabriella Lo, 2015, Revision of the genus Prionotropis Fieber, 1853 (Orthoptera: Pamphagidae: Thrinchinae), Zootaxa 4059 (3), pp. 499-524 : 518-519

Prionotropis maculinervis (Stål, 1878)

Prionotropis urfensis Ramme, 1933 new synonym

http://lsid.speciesfile.org/urn:lsid: Orthoptera .speciesfile.org:TaxonName:42784

Material examined. Turkey, Kahramanmaraş (1♂, 1♀) ( MNCN); Turkey, Diyarbakır, Bismil, Kezban Çesmesi 6.VI.1961 (2♂); Turkey, Diyarbakır (mountain) 6.VI.1961, M. Donskoff (1♂); Turkey, Oued Diyarbakır 5. 1VII.1959, G. Remaudière (1♀) (identified as P. m. maculinervis ) ( MNHN); Turkey, Urfa, Eshref Bey (1♂); Turkey, [Urfa], Süverek [Siverek], 1914, Pietschmann (1♀); Turkey, Elazığ 29.VI.1952, Ö.K. Gülen (1♂, 2♀) (det. Uvarov); Turkey, Erzincan, K.M. Guichard & D.H. Harvey (5♂, 1♀) (cf. Karabağ 1963); Turkey, Antitaurus, Maraş, Göksun, between Yalak and foot of Binboğa Dağ, 1500 m, in steppe 14.VII.1952, P.H. Davis (3♀) (cf. Karabağ, 1963) (NHM); Turkey, Amasia [Amasya], Staudinger (2♂ syntypes) ( MfN); Turkey, [Diyarbakır], Heine [Hani] (1♀); Turkey, Malatia [Malatya], (2♂ syntypes); Turkey, Amasia (1♂); Turkey, [Elazığ], Kharput [Harput] 1914 (1♀ nymph) ( NMW); Turkey, West Anatolia, Gebirge b. Malatia [Malatya], Yokarbanassiya (1600 m) 6– 7.VII.1937, W. Ramme (1♂, 1♀); Turkey, Erzurum, Pazaryolu, 14 km W. Çatakbahçe Köyü (1312 m) 40.25.129 N, 40.42.592 E, 17.VII.2013, M. Ünal & A. Erden (1♂); Turkey, Erzurum, Pazaryolu (1280 m) 17.VII.2013, M. Ünal & A. Erden (6♀); Turkey, Diyarbakır, Bismil, Kezban Çeşmesi, 6.VI.1961 (1♂, 1♀) (AİBÜEM); Turkey, Elazığ, Harput, 13.VII.1952, Ö.K. Gülen (1♂) ( AÜZM); Turkey, Diyarbakır, Bismil, Kezban Çeşmesi, 6.VI.1961 (13♂, 1♀) ( NTM); Turkey, Mesopotamia, Urfa 1931, Sureya (1♂ holotype of P. urfensis , 1♀ allotype of P. ur f en s i s, 1♂, 1♀ paratypes of P. urfensis ) ( MfN); Turkey, [Urfa], Siverek, 1914, Pietschmann (2♀) ( NMW).

Remarks. P. m a cu l i n er v i s has a very prominent sexual dimorphism, males are fully winged, while the tegmina of females just cover the 1st tergite ( Figs 13 , 21 , 29 , 37 ). The pseudolophi of the epiphallus are few and small and parabolically placed; penis valves are straight and thin ( Figs 44 , 51 , 58 ).

Ramme (1933) describing Prionotropis urfensis , separated it from P. maculinervis by the shape of the male pronotum which should be more robust, more arched and convex, coarser tubercles and a steeper typical sulcus in lateral view and by the coloration of the hind legs, of which hind femur has a discoloured inner side (instead of blackish), hind tibia pale orange instead of reddish-yellow to red. However, Uvarov (1943) considered the morphological differences of P. urfensis small and moved it at subspecies level of P. maculinervis , because of the coloration of the hind legs. Ramme (1951) agreed with Uvarov’s opinion and treated P. urfensis as a subspecies of P. maculinervis . Later, all the authors used the characters given in the original description and reported this taxon as a subspecies of P. maculinervis ( Bey-Bienko & Mistshenko 1951, Karabağ 1958, Weidner 1969, Demirsoy 1977). However, the material we examined showed that the coloration of the hind legs is quite variable as well as the shape of the pronotum. There is no morphological stability in accordance with the geographical distribution of each morph. For example, the hind tibia of maculinervis is red, but the specimens found in Diyarbakır province close to the type locality of urfensis have a red hind tibia; in addition, some specimens found in Northern Turkey, geographically much closer to the type locality of maculinervis , have an orange hind tibia. Hind legs colouration cannot be used to separate maculinervis from urfensis , as this may vary in different shades of red, orange and yellow. Similar variations are also present in the coloration of the inner side of the hind femora and the shape of the pronotum. There is no difference in the male phallic complex of the specimens examined. Finally, it is not possible to consider maculinervis and urfensis as subspecies, because their distribution is overlapping. In view of the above listed reasons, we propose that P. urfensis has to be considered as junior synonym of P. maculinervis .

Measurements. See Table 1 and Figs 65–68 .

Distribution. Eastern half of Turkey.

Figures

FIGURES 10 – 13. Lateral view of males of Prionotropis appula (10), P. willemsorum n. sp. (11), P. flexuosa (12) and P. maculinervis (13).

FIGURES 18 – 21. Dorsal view of males of Prionotropis appula (18), P. willemsorum n. sp. (19), P. flexuosa (20) and P. maculinervis (21).

FIGURES 26 – 29. Lateral view of females of Prionotropis appula (26), P. willemsorum n. sp. (27), P. flexuosa (28) and P. maculinervis (29).

FIGURES 34 – 37. Dorsal view of females of Prionotropis appula (34), P. willemsorum n. sp. (35), P. flexuosa (36) and P. maculinervis (37).

FIGURES 38 – 44. Lateral view of the epiphallus of Prionotropis hystrix (38), P. azami (39), P. rhodanica (40), P. appula (41), P. flexuosa (42), P. willemsorum n. sp. (43) and P. maculinervis (44).

FIGURES 45 – 51. Dorsal view of the epiphallus of Prionotropis hystrix (45), P. azami (46), P. rhodanica (47), P. appula (48), P. flexuosa (49), P. willemsorum n. sp. (50) and P. maculinervis (51).

FIGURES 52 – 58. Frontal view of penis valves of Prionotropis hystrix (52), P. flexuosa (53), P. azami (54), P. rhodanica (55), P. appula (56), P. willemsorum n. sp. (57) and P. maculinervis (58).

FIGURES 65 – 66. Biometrics of the genus Prionotropis. Ratio length of pronotum / length of hind femora (PL / HFL), length of hind femora / length of tegmina (HFL / TGL), length of pronotum / length of tegmina (PL / TGL) and total length of body / length of tegmina (TL / TGL) in males (65) and in females (66) of Prionotropis appula, P. willemsorum n. sp., P. rhodanica, P. azami, P. hystrix, P. flexuosa, and P. maculinervis.

FIGURE 67. Scatterplot of the first two factors resulting from the PCA analysis of biometrics of Prionotropis appula, P. willemsorum n. sp., P. rhodanica, P. azami, P. hystrix, its synonym P. sontiaca, P. maculinervis and P. flexuosa males (a) and females (b).

FIGURE 68. Length of tegmina of males and females of Prionotropis appula, P. willemsorum n. sp., P. rhodanica, P. azami, P. hystrix, P. flexuosa and P. maculinervis.