Lispe candicans Kowarz, 1892
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.33910/2686-9519-2020-12-2-158-188 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:8F60709F-933E-4219-BB23-C13FF4CADAB9 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A0FC6C-1F5D-FFE7-DC3E-9155FDB9A952 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Lispe candicans Kowarz, 1892 |
status |
|
Lispe candicans Kowarz, 1892 View in CoL Figs 10–15 View Figs 10–15
Lispe obscurior Strobl, 1883 , type locality: Croatia, Zadar GoogleMaps , 44.2°N 15.2°E, type specimens lost ( Hennig 1960)
Lispe uroleuca Pandelle, 1899 , type locality: France, Aude GoogleMaps , 42.9°N 3.0°E, type in MNHN ( Hennig 1960)
Lispe simonyii Becker, 1910 View in CoL , type locality Yemen, Sokotra. Status of this taxon is doubtful as discussed in Remarks below.
Lispe candicans Kowarz, 1892 View in CoL ( Hennig 1960; Zhang et al. 2016)
Material examined: ALGERIA, Biskra, April 1905, 8♂, 5♀ ( ZMHU) . EGYPT, Sinai: Yamit (31.28°N 34.16°E), 14 July 1981, A. Valdenberg, 2♂ GoogleMaps ; Nabq (28.20°N 34.43°E), 23 March 1981, A. Freidberg, 1♂, 2♀ GoogleMaps ; 13 March 1982, I. Yarom, 2♂, 1♀ ( TAUI) . GREECE, Athens , 3♂, 2♀ ( ZMHU) . INDIA, Gujarat st.: Naliya env., 23.3°N 68.7°E, 4 October 2012, K. Tomkovich, 2♂ GoogleMaps ; Narajan , 23.67°N 68.53°E, 7–9 October 2012, K. Tomkovich, 18♂, 13♀ GoogleMaps ; Mandvi env., 22.821°N 69.364°E, 10–12 October 2012, K. Tomkovich, 1♀ ( ZMUM) GoogleMaps . ISRAEL: Ma’agan Michael (32.56°N 34.91°E), 17 June 1981, A. Valdenberg, 2♀ ( TAUI) GoogleMaps . MOROCCO, Tan- Tan prov., salt lagoon, 28.204°N 11.779°W, 10 May 2012, N. Vikhrev, 6♂, 3♀ ( ZMUM) GoogleMaps . MOZAMBIQUE, F. Muir , 1♂ ( ZMHU) . OMAN, Al Hikman Peninsula , 20.74°N 58.70°E, 22 November 2011, P. Tomkovich, 2♀ ( ZMUM) GoogleMaps . SENEGAL, Sine-Saloum estuary (14.08°N 16.67°W), 3 March 2007, N. Vikhrev, 6♂ ( ZMUM) GoogleMaps . SPAIN: (Canary Islands prov.), Lanzarote Island , 1890, Simony, 1♂, 1♀ ( ZMHU) ; Zaragoza prov., Monegros , 27 August 2008, J. Almeida, 3♀ ( ZMUM) .
Distribution. Palaearctic: the Mediterranean coast of Europe, Canary Islands, NW Africa, Middle East; Afrotropical: Yemen, Senegal, Mozambique; Oriental: India (Gujarat).
Remarks. In specimens of L. candicans from western localities ( Spain, Morocco, Senegal), the frons is densely whitish dusted (usually silvery-white in males ( Fig. 10 View Figs 10–15 ), yellowish in females ( Fig. 11 View Figs 10–15 )), so the borders between the fronto-orbital plates, the frontal vitta and frontal triangle are hardly distinct. Specimens with less dusted frons and clearer frontal borders are in minority. However, in the East (Middle East and India (Gujarat )) the overwhelming majority of specimens have a less dusted frons. The syntypes of Lispe simonyii Becker, 1910 described from Sokotra have “eastern” frontal pattern. I did not find any reliable character to distinguish West African and Indian females (which I have in large series), males differ as follows: —Vibrissae weak. Surstylus longer and more curved as mammoth tusk ( Fig. 14 View Figs 10–15 ). Sternites 5–6 on internal view as on Fig. 12 View Figs 10–15
...................... West African males —Vibrissae stronger. Surstylus shorter and less curved as elephant tusk ( Fig. 15 View Figs 10–15 ). Sternites 5–6 on internal view as on Fig. 13 View Figs 10–15
............................. Indianmales
These differences would be enough to regard L. simonyii as a valid species, but there is a problem. Nobody examined the genitalia of the true L. candicans from the east part of Mediterranean coast (type locality Greece, Aegina Island, 37.7°N 23.5°E, type lost) or of the syntype of L. simonyii . It is unknown which form inhabits the Middle East. I was able to examine the genitalia of a single male from Nabq in S Sinai. Its sternites 5–6 are of Indian type, but the surstyli are reduced to small protrusions, quite different from the tusk-shape of both Moroccan and Indian specimens. (Note that Nabq is 1500 km from Aegina and 4500 km from S Morocco.) So, at present our knowledge about the variability of the genitalic structures of this Lispe is absolutely insufficient. For the time being I prefer to regard L. candicans in a broad sense and postpone the decision on the taxonomic status of L. simonyii .
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 |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Lispe candicans Kowarz, 1892
Vikhrev, Nikita E. 2020 |
Lispe simonyii
Becker 1910 |
Lispe candicans
Kowarz 1892 |