Eupholidoptera tucherti Harz, 1988

Ünal, Mustafa & Gorochov, Andrei V., 2024, Tettigoniinae (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) from South-West of Turkey, with an incognito new species and comments on the genus Eupholidoptera, Zootaxa 5474 (1), pp. 21-34 : 29

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5474.1.2

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:AB216FB8-F402-4E54-8A8B-95D5B8D69506

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12526962

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A63987F5-FFF0-5366-FF57-744A75A0FE0E

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Eupholidoptera tucherti Harz, 1988
status

syn. nov.

Eupholidoptera tucherti Harz, 1988 View in CoL syn. nov.

(Figs. 17a, b)

Material examined. Antalya Prov., Kaş Distr., Kaş-Elmalı Road, near to Kuruova Pass , 36°25.594´N, 29°40.025´E, 1550 m, 20.9.2011, 7 males, 8 females (leg. M. Ünal & A. Gorochov) ( AİBÜEM) GoogleMaps .

Remarks. Eupholidoptera tucherti was described by Harz (1988) after 2 males from İztuzu beach of Dalyan in Muğla Province. The type specimens are lost ( Hollier & Bruckner 2015: 197). This species is validly treated in a revisional study by Çıplak et al. (2009), which was separated from its supposed allies E. karabagi and E. prasina by the apical part of titillators. In the last paper the authors studied 2 males, 1 female from Dalyan and Marmaris in Muğla Province, and 1 male from Antalya Province which in fact do not belong to E. tucherti . On the other hand, Salman (1990: 105) had already synonymized E. tucherti with E. krueperi . But none of the subsequent researchers considered and cited Salman (1990). The interesting point that E. tucherti (= E. krueperi ) is not close relative of E. prasina and E. karabagi , and they are easily separated each other. In the present paper Salman’s proposal (1990) has been re-examined in detail and agreed with his thought. As Salman (1990) stated, the original description of E. tucherti including measurements and figures perfectly match with E. krueperi [not so similar to E. prasina or E. karabagi ]. One male and 1 female collected by Heller ( Çıplak et al. 2009) are morphologically E. prasina . The photograph of the female subgenital plate, sent by Heller, perfectly matches with E. prasina rather than the others, and the images of the live specimens (given as E. tucherti ) in the OSF ( Cigliano et al. 2024) also correspond with E. prasina (but never similar to E. krueperi and E. karabagi ). Besides, the type locality of E. tucherti is placed within the distributional areas of E. krueperi and E. prasina . For all these reasons, following Salman (1990), E. tucherti is proposed as a junior synonym of E. krueperi again.

GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF