Sureyaella bella Uvarov, 1934

Ünal, Mustafa, 2025, Taxonomic notes on Phaneropterinae and Tettigoniinae (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) from the Palaearctic Region, Zootaxa 5687 (1), pp. 1-77 : 41-42

Sureyaella bella Uvarov, 1934

Material examined. Turkey: Ankara Prov., Şereflikoçhisar, Şekerköy , 1060 m, 25.6.2018, 1 male, 4 females (in alcohol), plus 4 females ; Karaman Prov., Ayrancı, Çat Köyü , 1715 m, 37°11.092´N, 33°54.553´E, 27.6.2019, 1 male, 1 female, (2 males nymph) (all leg. M. Ünal ) ( AİBÜEM) .

Genus Anterastes Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1882

Remarks. Uluar et al. (2023) investigated the genera Anterastes Brunner and Koroglus Ünal, 2002, using molecular methods. They made taxonomic decisions based on their phylogenetic trees, despite a lack of clear morphological support. They characterized this situation as indicative of “cryptic or morphologically poorly diverged species.”

Conversely, the morphologically distinct genus Koroglus was synonymized with Anterastes , even though the molecular results actually support its separate identity ( Uluar et al. 2023: 560, Fig. 2 ). They suggested that Koroglus is either a polytomy or a sister branch within the Anterastes species, as stated on page 556. However, in the phylogenetic tree presented on page 560, Koroglus disparalatus Ünal, 2002 (listed as A. disparalatus ) is represented as a basal branch, akin to the outgroups.

Overall, the findings of Uluar et al. (2023) are contradictory, leading to confusion in the taxonomy of this group. On one hand, they present morphologically indistinguishable new species, while on the other hand, they include the morphologically distinct genus Koroglus ( K. disparalatus ) among the unrecognizable Anterastes species.

Uluar et al. (2023: 568) stated, “ We attempt to provide a reconciliation for the taxonomy of Anterastes + Koroglus using a data-based approach without subjective personal decision ”. However, as molecular biologists know, the selection of populations and/or haplotypes, as well as their distribution, significantly influences phylogenetic trees. This makes their selection process vital (see the remarks on Bolua turkiyae above). These selections are made personally (subjectively) by researchers like Uluar et al. (2023). For example, the inclusion or exclusion of a single haplotype from a specific population can alter the results and analyses regarding the placement of other haplotypes. If incorrect or incomplete information is used to support these findings, the resulting taxonomic decisions should be approached with suspicion.

Here are three examples provided: 1), on page 568, it is stated that “… distributions of sister group pairs, namely A. uludaghensis / A.davrazensis and A. turcicus / A. niger are separated by almost 1000 km without any records in between. ” However, there are indeed records of A. davrazensis between the two type localities, such as Barla Mountain, Afyon, and Çay ( Ünal 2012: 34, 35; Ünal 2018: 28; see also remarks). These records have been overlooked once again (refer to the genus Bolua mentioned above). Additionally, it’s worth noting that the type locality of A. uludaghensis, Uludağ , is actually about 400 km away from the type locality of A. davrazensis, Mt. Davraz. 2), Uluar et al. (2023: 572) stated about A. muratdagensis that “…it can be well diagnosed from other members of the group by its range allopatric to all other members of the genus. ” However, there are numerous records of A. burri from Murat Dağ and nearby mountains and regions ( Ünal 2006: 181, 2012: 32, 2018: 27). Unfortunately, Uluar et al. (2023) did not mention these records. In fact, A. burri is distributed continuously along the inner Aegean Mountain Ridge, extending from Mt. Uludağ in the north to Mt. Emir Dağ and Ahır Dağ in the south. This species is found not only at the tops of mountains but also in the valleys and regions between them. If some of the populations recorded by Ünal (2006, 2012, 2018)—such as those on Mt. Nalbant, Mt. Türkmen, Mt. Akdağ, Mt. Acem, and others—are considered and included in the molecular phylogenetic analyses, the results will probably be transformed to reflect a typical intraspecific study for A. burri . 3) There is some confusing information regarding the new species, as the same figures were used for A. boreoanatoliensis and A. muratdagensis in Figure 6 on page 570 and Figure 7 on page 571, respectively.

I would like to emphasize a fundamental approach. Due to geographical distance, allopatric populations of a single species inherently exhibit some genetic differences. If there are populations that are morphologically indistinguishable but genetically distinct in the same location, they may be considered cryptic species.

In this paper, the genus Koroglus Ünal, 2002, which has previously been shown to have distinct differences in previous studies ( Ünal 2006, 2012, 2018), is listed. The unrecognizable new species described by Uluar et al. (2023) are proposed as synonyms of the related species listed below.

Figures

FIGURES 1–32. 1–2 Phaneroptera nana nana, 1 female habitus, lateral view; 2 ovipositor, lateral view. 3 Nephoptera (s. str.) tibialis, ovipositor. 4 Nephoptera (s. str.) persica, male cercus. 5–8 Nephoptera (s. str.) richteri, 5 male habitus, lateral view; 6 female habitus, lateral view; 7 male subgenital plate, ventral view; 8 male end of abdomen, lateral view. 9–10 Nephoptera (Erdemia) bienkoi, 9 male end of abdomen, lateral view; 10 ovipositor, right side (mirror view). 11–17 Nephoptera (Erdemia) afghana, 11 male habitus, lateral view; 12 male head and pronotum, lateral view; 13 male habitus, dorsal view; 14 male end of abdomen, lateral view; 15 male last tergite, dorsal view; 16 male left cercus, dorsal view; 17 male subgenital plate, ventro-lateral view. 18–21 Nephoptera (Erdemia) hackeri, 18 male end of abdomen, lateral view; 19 male subgenital plate, ventral view; 20 female habitus, lateral view; 21 ovipositor, right side (mirror view). 22–32 Nephoptera (Exonephoptera) sinica, 22 male habitus; 23 female habitus; 24 male body, lateral view; 25 male subgenital plate, ventral view; 26 female end of abdomen, ovipositor; 27 female pronotum, dorsal view; 28 ditto, lateral view; 29 female tympanal organ; 30 ovipositor; 31 male subgenital plate, ventral view of apical part; 32 male end of abdomen, lateral view. Figures 1–10, 18–19 and 22–26 are from OSF. Figures 27–32 are from Steinmann, 1966.