Leptoplectus similis Kurbatov, 1991
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.15298/rusentj.31.1.07 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10978655 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/36578799-3673-FFEE-FC26-FE88FAF75B2A |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Leptoplectus similis Kurbatov, 1991 |
status |
|
Leptoplectus similis Kurbatov, 1991 View in CoL
Figs 30–39 View Figs 27–39 .
The difference between Leptoplectus similis and L. illex Kurbatov, 1992 actually is represented only in the inversion of the aedeagus ( Figs 30–31 View Figs 27–39 ). However, no geographical isolation between the two species has been detected. Studies on Sakhalin have shown that these species can coexist not only in the same geographical location but even in the same substrate sample. At the same time, the study of aedeagus of 24 males of these species from Sakhalin, Kunashir and continental Far East has shown, that apical lobe of aedeagus varies in its form, without giving clear correlation with geographical distribution. The figures ( Figs 32–39 View Figs 27–39 ) demonstrate the variability in the apical lobe of L. similis . The difference in length and shape of the lateral spine is largely apparent: in different specimens, the spine is curved differently towards the observer. A similar variability in the apical lobe exists in L. illex . Thus, I see no reason for maintaining two species and synonymize Leptoplectus illex Kurbatov, 1992 with Leptoplectus similis Kurbatov, 1991 (syn.n.).
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 |