Acrotona (Phanerosphena) rougemonti ( PACE 1991) Assing & Schülke & M.R & A.S, 2013
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.5341014 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5443073 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D57426-8E5A-FFB4-FF1A-FB28D837FD7F |
treatment provided by |
Marcus |
scientific name |
Acrotona (Phanerosphena) rougemonti ( PACE 1991) |
status |
comb. nov. |
Acrotona (Phanerosphena) rougemonti ( PACE 1991) View in CoL , nov.comb.
Material examined Saudi Arabia: 1♂, 3♀♀, Khamis Mushayt , Wadi Bishah, 18°20'01''N, 42°42'13''E, 1990 m, 27.IV.2011, leg. Sharaf ( cAss) GoogleMaps ; 1 ex., Wadi Aljora near Abadan, 17.29°N, 43.07°E, 465 m, 12.XI.2012, leg. Sharaf ( cAss) GoogleMaps .
Comment: This species, the type species of the subgeneric name Phanerosphena PACE 1991, was previously known only from two localities in Yemen ( PACE 1991) and originally described as Atheta (Phanerosphena) rougemonti . An examination of the above material, which represents the first record from Saudi Arabia, revealed that A. rougemonti is a close relative of Acrotona pellucida (FAUVEL 1878) and A. oxypodoides ( BRUNDIN 1952) . In his revisionary work, BRUNDIN (1952) attributed them to Acrotona THOMSON 1859 , which in those days was regarded as a subgenus of Atheta THOMSON 1858 , but today is treated as a distinct genus by most authors. Subsequently, A. pellucida and A. oxypodoides were assigned to the genus Paradilacra BERNHAUER 1909 (see SMETANA 2004) and then reinstated in Acrotona by ASSING (2010). Acrotona rougemonti , A. pellucida , and A. oxypodoides are distinguished from other Acrotona species particularly by a different morphology of the median lobe of the aedeagus, of the parameres, and by longer and more slender legs, suggesting that both taxa form separate lineages. On the other hand, a close relationship is indicated by similar external characters and a similar morphology of the spermatheca. In consequence, until the systematic affiliations have been thoroughly studied based on a phylogenetic approach, Phanerosphena is proposed to represent a subgenus of Acrotona . Other species that have been attributed to Phanerosphena are: Atheta perlaeta PACE 1986 (= A. tronqueti PACE 1988 ) (Himalaya, Oriental region), A. retroarmata PACE 1998 ( Hong Kong), A. alboguttata BERNHAUER 1915 (Afrotropical region), A. tridentata (KRAATZ, 1859) (Oriental region), A. coprophila CAMERON 1950 (Oriental region), and A. spinosa SCHEERPELTZ 1962 ( China, Thailand). However, at least A. retroarmata is unlikely to be correctly assigned to Phanerosphena, as can be inferred from the illustrations provided by PACE (1998).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |