Exosehirus essedonius, Gapon, 2021

Gapon, Dmitry A., 2021, Revision of the genus Exosehirus (Heteroptera: Cydnidae), with the description of two new species, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae (Acta. Ent. Mus. Natl. Pragae) 61 (1), pp. 133-161 : 151-158

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.37520/aemnp.2021.007
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FE96D8BE-6087-436C-8728-7BE849CA13B7
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EC7368-FFDA-FF8D-FC56-F92DFB62F7E6
treatment provided by	Carolina
scientific name	Exosehirus essedonius
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

Exosehirus essedonius sp. nov.

( Figs 2C View Fig , 3D, E, J View Fig , 4D, I View Fig , 5C, D View Fig , 6J–L View Fig , 10 View Fig , 15 View Fig )

Type material. Hඈඅඈඍඒඉൾ:J* [mounted on rectangle, with dissected terminalia placed in microvessel],“Akmol.obl., bereg / oz.Kirey / L.Arnoldi 8. V. 1957 g. [ KAZAKHSTAN, KൺඋൺǤൺඇൽൺ Pඋඈඏ., Nura Distr., shore of Lake Kerey, 50°05′15.7″N 68°40′15.7″E] // solonchak na okraine pod vybrosami [edge of salt marsh, under coastal debris] ( ZISP).Pൺ*©ൺඍඒඉൾඌ (all in ZISP): Without exact locality: “Sch…” [illegible handwriting; possibly “Shalkar” in Akmola Prov., taking into account the participation of the collector in A. Negri’s trip to Bukhara in 1820, whose route passed near this lake], date unknown, E. Eversmann leg., 1* J. RUSSIA: IඋΚඎඍඌΚ Pඋඈඏ.: Irkutsk [possibly incorrect labeling], date unknown, B. Jakovlev leg., 1* ♀. KAZAKHSTAN: AΚආඈඅൺ Pඋඈඏ.: Burabay Distr., Kokshetau Mts near Tersakkan River, 53°03′07.2″N 70°08′12.6″E, 31.v.1958, Sokolova leg., 1* ♀. Kඒඓඒඅඈඋൽൺ Pඋඈඏ.: Aral Distr., N coast of Barsa-Kelmes, former island in the Aral Sea, 45°38′04.2″N 59°52′00.8″E, 1977, collector unknown, 1* ♀. KൺඋൺǤൺඇൽൺ Pඋඈඏ.: Ulytau Distr.: Dzhezkazgan – Manadyr, c. 48°10′56.6″N 69°08′54.3″E, 31.v.–1.vi.1958, L. Arnoldi leg., 1* J; Karazhar locality, near the confluence of Kara-Kengir and Sarysu Rivers, 47°27′59.6″N 68°00′30.6″E, 27.v.1962, G. Medvedev leg., 1* J; Zhanaarka Distr.: floodplain of Taldy-Manaka [intermittent salt stream], 48°26′52.8″N 71°19′24.7″E, 6.v.1959, I. M. Kerzhner leg., 1* J; Sopka Koksengir S of Zhanaarka railway station, 48°22′17.0″N 71°31′25.0″E, 10.vii.1959, on Ceratocarpus, A. F. Emeljanov leg., 1* ♀, 13.viii.1960, on Atriplex cana, I. Kerzhner leg., 1 J.

Additional material examined. KAZAKHSTAN: Aඅආൺඍඒ Pඋඈඏ.: Zhambylskiy Distr., Ak-kul’ Lake, 30 km W of “Aulie-ata [Termez]”, 7,8. v.1937, F.Lukjanovitsh, 1 ♀ [the specimen is included in this species conditionally, since it lacks the head and genitalia necessary for species identification].

Diagnosis. Eyes smaller than in E. validus , E. sargon and E. elamensis sp. nov. (ocular index 4.07–4.69 vs. 3.31–3.89). Preocular part of head usually with more sharply curved lateral margins than in all previous species ( Figs 3D, E View Fig ). Body usually slightly shinier, head, pronotum, and scutellum usually slightly darker than those in E. validus and E. elamensis sp. nov. Punctation on pronotum, scutellum, and hemelytra slightly larger and deeper than usual in E. validus . Pale stripes on lateral margins of hemelytra posteriorly wider than in E. elamensis sp. nov. ( Fig. 2C View Fig ). Pronotum with anterolateral margins less widely diverging posteriorly than in other congeners ( Fig. 3J View Fig ). Other characters of habitus as in E. validus .

Pygophore ( Fig. 4D View Fig ) as in E. validus and E. elamensis sp. nov. Median notch of posteroventral margin of pygophore slightly wider and deeper than in E. elamensis sp. nov.

Parameres ( Fig. 4I View Fig ) as in E. elamensis sp. nov.

Aedeagus ( Figs 5C, D View Fig , 6J–L View Fig , 10 View Fig ) similar to that of E. validus . Ventrolateral lobes slightly narrower, with narrower bands at mesal margins. Dorsolateral lobes much shorter, dilated and broadly rounded apically; apex of each lobe ventrally with transverse sclerite bearing rather large denticle at each end, directed anterodorsad. Dorsoapical lobes similar to those of E. elamensis sp. nov., but their spicules slightly thicker, much more strongly diverging apically; bases of spicules in anterior view without groove-like impression, their ventral margins convex, dorsal margin almost straight; extreme apex of spicule slightly curved ventrally, pointed in posterior view, and slightly widened and rounded in dorsal view. Vesica as long as in E. validus , but much wider at base, without membranous tubercle at base of ventral wall.

Female terminalia ( Fig. 15 View Fig ) similar to those of E. validus . Extreme lateral ends of gonocoxites II curved inward even more than in E. elamensis sp. nov. Transverse fold on ventral surface of posterior intervalvular membrane medially very short, not forming triangular projection.

Anterior part of gynatrial sac similar to that of E. validus , but arcuate sclerites reinforcing base of gynatrial cone slightly thicker. Gynatrial cone longer than in E. validus , but slightly shorter than in E. elamensis sp. nov.; its posterior wall before apex significantly ventricose, resulting in base of spermatheca displaced anteriad and not visible in posterior view. In this view, lateral margins of gynatrial cone parallel, rectangularly rounded apically. [In the female from Kokshetau, inside the gynatrial cone, there are two small sclerotised areas visible apically, probably located at the ends of the canals, which are poorly distinguishable due to the strongly thickened walls of the gynatrial cone]. Proximal part of spermathecal duct wider, slightly longer than in E. validus ; middle part slightly shorter, considerably widening towards middle; distal part slightly shorter. Basal part of spermathecal capsule slightly longer. Ring sclerites smaller than in E. validus and E. elamensis sp. nov., with broader margins than in typical cases in E. validus . Posterior pouches spaced apart, their posterior margins widely rounded on lateral parts, slightly convex on mesal parts.

Measurements (n = 10; mm). Body: length 4.65–6.05, width 2.85–3.45; ratio body length / pronotum width 1.80– 1.92; head: length 0.91–1.09, width 1.20–1.36, ratio width / length 1.22–1.35; synthlipsis 0.81–0.95; ocular index 4.07–4.69; length of antennal segments I–V: 0.25–0.32: 0.34–0.43: 0.35–0.39: 0.52–0.57: 0.67–0.70; pronotum: length 1.30–1.60, width 2.68–3.15, ratio width / length 1.91–2.06; scutellum: length 1.83–2.48, width 1.70–2.13, ratio length / width 1.07–1.22.

Etymology. The species name is an adjective derived from the Ancient Greek Ἐσσηδόνες [= Essēdónes], the name of the people who, according to Herodotus, inhabited Central Kazakhstan in ancient times.

Bionomics. According to the label data, some specimens of this species were collected on Atriplex cana and Cera- tocarpus spp. (both Amaranthaceae ), as well as from salt marshes.

Distribution. Kazakhstan; the record from Irkutsk Province of Russia seems doubtful and requires confirmation.

The records of Exosehirus validus for Kazakhstanian Atyrau Province, Lake Inder (Kං*©ංඍඌ*üൾඇκඈ 1954) and Kyzylorda Provence, “Yani-Kyrgan” [Zhanakorgan] (Oඌ*üൺඇංඇ 1910) probably concerns E. essedonius sp. nov.

Exosehirus marginatus ( Signoret, 1881)

( Figs 2D View Fig , 3F, K View Fig , 4E, J View Fig , 11 View Fig , 16 View Fig , 17 View Fig )

Lalervis marginatus Signoret, 1881: 656 [laps. саl., the specific name marginatus is mistakenly placed under the generic name Lalervis Signoret, 1881 instead of the specific name expansa Signoret, 1881 placed under Adomerus Mulsant & Rey, 1866 ]

Adomerus marginatus : SංǤඇඈ*©ൾඍ (1884: 48).

Sehirus marginatus : Pඎඍඈඇ (1886: 9); Oඌ*üൺඇංඇ (1906: 26); Vංൽൺඅ (1950: 44).

Sehirus (Tritomegas) marginatus : Sඍංർ*üൾඅ (1961: 677).

Exosehirus marginatus : WൺǤඇൾ*© (1963: 108); Lංඇඇൺඏඎඈ*©ං (1984: 2); Lංඌ (1999: 223; 2006: 142).

Material examined. AZERBAIJAN: DඓΗൾൻඋൺංඅ Dංඌඍඋ.: Karabakh Range, “Sirak [Sirik Settlm.] 45 km [25 km on a map] SW Füzuli ”, 39°28′26.1″N 46°52′22.5″E, 14.vi.1985, M. G. Volkovitsh, 1 ♀ ( ZISP). TURKEY: Nංසൽൾ Pඋඈඏ.: Çiftehan Town, 37°30′52.9″N 34°46′47.4″E, “Toros”, 22.v., 11.vi.1958, G. Seidenstücker leg., 1* J, 2*+ 1 ♀♀ ( ZISP).

Diagnosis. Head, pronotum and scutellum blackish, hemelytra blackish-brown. Body with dull sheen; as a whole, coarser punctured than usual in E. validus . Pale stripes on lateral margins of hemelytra wide throughout up to posterior margins of coria, occupying entire width of each exocorium, sometimes only very narrow mesal part of latter remaining dark anteriorly ( Fig. 2D View Fig ). Dorsum substantially more convex than in all previous species. Eyes relatively small. Preocular part of head usually about the same shape as in E. essedonius sp. nov., but slightly more widely rounded anteriorly ( Fig. 3F View Fig ). Pronotum with anterolateral margins diverging posteriorly more widely than in E. essedonius sp. nov. and less widely then in other congeners ( Fig. 3K View Fig ). Apex of scutellum wider than in all previous species. Peritreme of scent glands narrow throughout. Evaporatorium clearly punctate.

Pygophore ( Fig. 4E View Fig ) slightly wider than in previous species. Its posteroventral margin slightly obtuse angularly convex, straight laterally. Posterolateral angles of pygophore slightly more prominent in dorsal view. Posterodorsal margin and mesal parts of posterolateral margins without thin line of desclerotisation. Dorsal infolding slightly longer than ventral one. Each lateral side of dorsal infolding near margin of genital opening with deep, sharply outlined, semicircular impression. Mesal parts of lateral infoldings more strongly depressed than in previous species, weakly sclerotised. Genital opening with deep paramere sockets.

Parameres ( Fig. 4J View Fig ). Distal part of corpus wider on its mesal part. Hypophysis shorter, its extreme apex less sharply curved anteriad than in previous species.

Aedeagus ( Fig. 11 View Fig ) is significantly different from those of all other species of the genus. It is difficult to homologise parts of the conjunctiva with those of other species; I present below the version of homologisation that seems to me to be the most probable, and which requires some deviation from the topographic principle of naming structures.

Theca without paired tubercles before apex on ventrolateral walls and without unpaired tubercle on ventral part of apical margin.

Conjunctiva robust, longer than theca and phallobase combined; in middle at border of basal and apical parts, sharply curved dorsally at a right angle. Basal part of conjunctiva slightly narrowed after its base, with slightly concave ventral wall here. Ventrolateral lobes lying most distally on basal part of conjunctiva along its longitudinal axis; those lying on slightly elevated common base and looking like slightly spaced, short, finger-like outgrowths with widely rounded apices directed posteriad and slightly diverging; any sclerites on these lobes absent. Dorsolateral lobes large, utricular, located on lateral walls of basal part of conjunctiva much more basal than ventrolateral lobes. These lobes with two short apices. In ventral view, each lobe widening triangularly from its base, one of apices (slightly longer) directed posteriad, other one directed anteriad, lateral wall between them straight. Anterior margin of lobe along its entire length with long, narrow plate-like sclerite forming two sharp denticles directed inward; denticle located at extreme lateral end of sclerite larger, denticle lying before of mesal sclerite end smaller [the shape of these sclerites strongly resembles that of the sclerites on the dorsolateral lobes of Exosehirus essedonius sp. nov.; this provide additional support to the chosen scheme of homologisation]. In lateral view, shape of dorsolateral lobe close to triangular, anterodorsal margin of lobe at its extreme base with wide conical tubercle adjacent to lateral wall of conjunctiva; this margin before apex with small, narrow, flattened triangular tubercle. Distal part of conjunctiva, lying at right angles to axis of its basal part, not separated by any depression or constriction, slightly wider than basal part, truncate apically. Dorsoapical lobes, lying on anterior wall of distal part of conjunctiva, slightly spaced, rather large, utricular basally, tapering at apex, directed anteriad. Dorsal wall of each lobe with long, narrow sclerite; this sclerite very narrow on extreme posterior part, forming there subterminally long narrow curved conical spine directed dorsally and curved anteriad; remainder of sclerite weakly C-shaped, slightly widening towards diverging rounded anterior ends; ventral wall of sclerite membranous, except for extreme apex. Vesica lying on anterior wall of extreme apex of conjunctiva; its basal part rather long, approximately as wide as in E. validus , tapering distally, arcuately curved, directed ventrally and passing between ventrolateral lobes of the conjunctiva. Walls at extreme base of vesica slightly sclerotised, base of ventral wall without membranous tubercle. Two thin and rather long sclerotised apical spicules extending close to extreme base of vesica and fused with its lateral walls; these spicules slightly arcuate, directed ventrally, with slightly diverging apices. Distal part of vesica prolonged as very thin filament much longer than vesical basal part.

Note. Another version of the homologisation of conjunctival parts is that the structures recognised above as dorsolateral lobes correspond to the ventrolateral lobes of other species, dorsoapical lobes to the dorsolateral lobes, spicules at the base of vesica to the dorsoapical lobes, and ventrolateral lobes are a new formation. In this case, the conjunctiva is not subdivided into the basal and apical parts.

If the bend in the middle of the conjunctiva is mentally straightened and the length of its ventral wall at the base is reduced, the conjunctiva will become similar to that of other species of the genus. And then it will be clear that the scheme of homologisation, chosen here as the main one is more realistic.

Female terminalia ( Figs 16 View Fig , 17 View Fig ). Notch of posterior margin of sternite VII broadly rounded, almost semicircular. Common posterior margin of paratergites VIII almost straight. Paratergites IX smaller than in previous species. Posterior limb of gonangulum rather longer than in other species of the genus. Gonocoxites I with slightly convex posterior margins converging at an obtuse angle, with rounded lateral angles; their external surfaces strongly convex on anterior part, more coarsely rugose than in previous species, with high and wide rib along mesal margin. Mesal widened parts of gonocoxites II larger than in previous species, with wide truncated anterior angles, gradually tapering laterad; extreme lateral parts very short and thin, with lateral ends bent mesad.

Posterior intervalvular membrane shorter than in previous species, with transverse fold. Lateral parts of latter transverse, wide and very long, originating from anterior margin of posterior intervalvular membrane, with mesal ends forming flaps with pointed apices directed mesad and contiguous; median part small, triangular, originating at some distance from anterior margin of posterior intervalvular membrane, directed posteriad. Extreme lateral parts of posterior margin of transverse fold sharply curved anteriad and continuing into gonapophyses II. Ventral pouches of gynatrium, being formed by double folds in this way, closed laterally and posteriorly, open medially and anteriorly. Apices of gonapophyses II lying anterior to transverse fold, pointed and directed medially. Second rami very thin. Gonapophyses II short, spaced, with apices directed posteriad, without areas of sclerotisation. First rami in form of two thin, closely spaced sclerotised bands, with posterior ends not fused with anterolateral angles of paratergites IX. Anterior limb of gonangulum in form of short acute angle. In normal state, second rami clamped between paired bands of first rami.

Anterior part of gynatrial sac with strongly convex lateral walls. Arcuate sclerites reinforcing base of gynatrial cone very large; on anterior part, those thicker than in E. validus ; their lateral ends prolonged posteriad in form of wide and long, weakly sclerotised plates with convex lateral and straight mesal margins; anteromesal ends continued into narrow, parallel sclerotised bands directed posteriad, reaching base of gynatrial cone. The latter short, triangular, with longitudinally elongated base, flattened laterally. Spermathecal duct attached to its apex, consisting of two parts. Proximal part of duct (corresponding to middle part of all previous species) extremely long, slightly widened at base, slightly narrowed at apex, with almost parallel walls for most of its length; distal part of duct thin, relatively very long. Pump slightly longer, proximal part of spermathecal capsule significantly longer than in other species of the genus. Pouches on posterior part of gynatrial sac narrower than in other species, spaced; each with small rounded projection at base of mesal wall. Dorsal wall of posterior part of gynatrial sac with deep C-shaped folds on sides of midline; along midline, with longitudinal fold passing into gynatrial cone.

Measurements (n = 5; mm). Body: length 4.90–5.70, width 3.25–3.90; ratio body length / pronotum width 1.69–1.74; head: length 1.09–1.20, width 1.39–1.48, ratio width / length 1.21–1.33; synthlipsis 0.94–1.04; ocular index 4.19–4.93; length of antennal segments I–V: 0.32–0.35: 0.36–0.41: 0.36–0.45: 0.51–0.59: 0.62–0.67; pronotum:

length 1.45–1.68, width 2.90–3.38, ratio width / length 2.00–2.01; scutellum: length 2.10–2.55, width 2.00–2.30, ratio length / width 1.05–1.11.

Distribution ( Fig. 1 View Fig ). Azerbaijan (new record), Turkey (SංǤඇඈ*©ൾඍ 1881; Lංඇඇൺඏඎඈ*©ං 1984; Lංඌ 1999: Taurus Mountains – type locality; Öඇൽൾ*© et al. 2006: Çanakkale, Diyarbakır, Gaziantep, Kütahya, Manisa, Mersin), Syria (SංǤඇඈ*©ൾඍ 1881 [exact locality unknown, the point on the map is set approximately in the center of Syria as in 1881]), Iran (G*üൺ*üൺ*©ං et al. 2009: West Azarbaijan Province); the records of this species from the north of the former Iranian Province of Khorasan (Mඈൽൺ*©*©ൾඌ Aඐൺඅ 1996) and from Iraq (Aඅ-Aඅං 1968) raise some doubts.