Eupholidoptera werneri Ramme, 1951

Ciplak, Battal, Heller, Klaus-Gerhard & Willemse, Fer, 2009, 2156, Zootaxa 2156, pp. 1-75: 22-23

publication ID

http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5319580

DOI

http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5319580

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/AD38C73D-B902-FFDE-FF70-ED15FD37EFEC

treatment provided by

Felipe

scientific name

Eupholidoptera werneri Ramme, 1951
status

 

Eupholidoptera werneri Ramme, 1951  

( Figures 16, 61, 107, 153, 197, 237, Appendix)

Eupholidoptera werneri Ramme, 1951: 201–202   .

Type information: Holotype M, SYRIA, Abde , 19.5.1935 (F. Werner) ( NHW)   ; Paratype 1M, same data as holotype; Paratype 1M (labelled as “Typus von chabrieri II   ”) ( ZMB)   .

Material examined: Paratype 1M ( ZMB)   .

Distribution: This species is known only from the type material from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

Remarks. Ramme (1951) described E. werneri   from Abde, Syria. The description was based only on males and the original description only lists males (holotype, paratype) under material examined. Although Ramme did not mention any female there is a figure of a female subgenital plate in Ramme (1951: p. 202). In NHW there are two more specimens of E. werneri   : (1F with the 4 labels (i–iv) (i) coll. Br. V. W. = coll Lederer, Beirut; (ii) 1874; (iii) 1874 Chabrieri nach Fieber, and (iv) Eupholidoptera werneri Rme, Ramme   det.; 1M with 2 labels (i–ii); (i) Saida Oberthuer, Coll. B. v. W, and (ii) Eupholidoptera werneri Rme, Ramme   det.) (Susanne Randolf; personal communication) which were identified as E. werneri   by Ramme, though not mentioned in the original description. Salman (1983) reported this species from South Anatolia ( Hatay) assuming to describe the female for the first time (but see above). Later, Naskrecki & Ünal (1995) reported six juveniles and two males assigned to E. werneri   from the same province of Turkey. However, later Salman (personal communication) decided that the specimens from South Anatolia ( Hatay) which he identified as E. werneri   in fact did belong to a new species (After examination of 2 males and 2 females of these specimens we support his opinion) and the occurrence of E. werneri   in Turkey remains doubtful. The specimens from Naskrecki & Ünal (1995) were used to describe E. akdeniz Ünal & Naskrecki, 2002   .

E. werneri   and E. cypria   are two closely related species both of which are described in the same publication by Ramme, 1951. Salman (1983) described the mainland population of E. cypria   from Hatay, Turkey as a separate subspecies ( E. cypria turcica   ) and this subspecies was later recorded from Latakia, Syria (see above). The main differences between E. werneri   and its close relative E. cypria   are the shape of female subgenital plate (compare Figures 197, 198) and the long unfused apical arms of the titillators (compare Figures 153 and 154). Since there were no females of E. werneri   available during this study it was not possible to determine if the female subgenital plates are different as figured by Ramme (1951). Since Ramme (1951) described both E. cypria   and E. werneri   in the same publication the second species is treated here on the basis of his figures and description. However, the confirmation of E. werneri   as a distinct separate species requires new material from the type locality.

ZMB

Museum für Naturkunde Berlin (Zoological Collections)

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Orthoptera

Family

Tettigoniidae

Genus

Eupholidoptera

Loc

Eupholidoptera werneri Ramme, 1951

Ciplak, Battal, Heller, Klaus-Gerhard & Willemse, Fer 2009
2009
Loc

Eupholidoptera werneri Ramme, 1951: 201–202

Ramme, W. 1951: 202
1951