Eupholidoptera femorata Çıplak, 1999

Ciplak, Battal, Heller, Klaus-Gerhard & Willemse, Fer, 2009, 2156, Zootaxa 2156, pp. 1-75 : 66

publication ID	11755334
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5319686
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/AD38C73D-B956-FF8A-FF70-ED76FB3BEC6F
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Eupholidoptera femorata Çıplak, 1999
status

Treatment

Eupholidoptera femorata Çıplak, 1999 View in CoL

( Figures 50, 95, 141, 187, 227, 231, 234, 240, Appendix)

Eupholidoptera femorata Çıplak, 1999: 77 View in CoL .

Type information: Holotype M, TURKEY: Mersin, Mut, Sertavul Geçidi , 1600 m, 21.9.1995 (B. Çıplak) ( NHM) ; Paratype 1F, same data as holotype ( AUZM) .

Material examined: TURKEY: Mersin : holo- and paratype; 3M, 1F, unterhalb Güzeloluk (22 km von Erdemli) (36°44'N, 34°9'E), 1000 m, 6.7.2002 (K.-G. Heller) ( CH) (sound record); 1M, 2F, bei Uzuncaburç (= Abzweigung nach Diocaesarea) (36°36'N, 33°54'E), 5.7.2002 (K.-G. Heller) ( CH); 1F, Alahan (36°52'N, 33°18'E), 7.7.2002 (K.-G. Heller) ( CH) GoogleMaps .

Distribution: This species is restricted to the western part of Mersin province in Eastern Mediterranean Turkey.

Remarks: Ünal (2006) reported that E. femorata may be a synonym of E. unimacula . This conclusion was mainly based on the probability of the presence of styli at the hind margin of the subgenital plate in the holotype of E. unimacula , since presence/absence of styli was considered to be one of the diagnostic characters of these species by Çıplak (1999). During this study, type material and new specimens of these two species were examined. Although both species share numerous similarities and there is a possibility of loosing of styli in E. unimacula , there are further diagnostic characters that support the assumption that each is an independent evolutionary unit. Especially, the long unfused part of apical arms of the titillators (longer than fused part) and the shallow incision of the female subgenital plate (less than half the medial length) in E. femorata separates it distinctly from E. unimacula , in which the unfused parts of the apical arms are shorter than the fused part and the incision of the female subgenital plate is deeper than half the medial length (compare Figures 226, 227). Thus, each of them was considered to be a separate taxon.