Sphenarium purpurascens Charpentier, 1842
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.804182 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:27748C60-F64A-4E2C-B5CD-8DB413480DF4 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6029372 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A12C6E25-AC10-3B70-2CBE-D4E5FE0FA85C |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Sphenarium purpurascens Charpentier, 1842 |
status |
|
Sphenarium purpurascens Charpentier, 1842 View in CoL
(http://lsid.speciesfile.org/urn:lsid: Orthoptera .speciesfile.org:TaxonName:36986)
Description. External morphology ( Figs. 8 View FIGURE 8 A, B; 9A, B, C, D, E, F): total body length ranging from 18.01 to 30.24 mm in females and 16.04 to 28.14 mm in males. In most cases: antennae filiform, slightly shorter in females or longer than head and pronotum together in males; head subtriangular-compressed, wider than long with spherical eyes in females or subtriangular-elongated moderately longer than wide with oval eyes in males; fastigium notably reduced, less than a half the length of interocular space in females or moderately elongated, nearly half the length of interocular space in males; tegmina spatula-like; subgenital plate of males rounded, moderately developed posteriorly; dorsal ovipositor valves lanceolate, moderately elongated towards the apex. Male genitalia: bridge of epiphallus as long as the length of lateral plates in most cases ( Figs. 5 View FIGURE 5 A; 10A-I, D-I, G-I). Ectophallus in dorsal view ( Fig 10 View FIGURE 10 A-II, D-II, G-II) with lateral borders of ramus strongly concave; basal emargination of cingulum moderately developed; interspace between apodemal plates of cingulum moderately open. Ectophallus in posterior view ( Fig. 10 View FIGURE 10 B, E, H) without a conspicuous sclerotized hollow in the sheath; inflections of supraramus moderately developed with distal margins dorsally directed in most cases; valves of cingulum small, triangular, slightly developed (morphotypes 1 and 2; Figs. 10 View FIGURE 10 C, F, respectively) or notably developed posteriorly (morphotype 3; Fig. 10 View FIGURE 10 I). In lateral view of endophallus ( Fig. 10 View FIGURE 10 A-III, D-III, G-III) pseudoarch elongated, loosely joined to the valves of cingulum; aedeagal valves long with smooth ventral borders and an apical spine slightly longer (morphotypes 1 and 3; Fig. 10 View FIGURE 10 A-III, G-III, respectively) or shorter (morphotype 2; Fig. 10 View FIGURE 10 D-III) than the base of aedeagal sclerites (see Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 E); aedeagal valves and sclerites together about twice (morphotypes 1 and 3; Fig. 10 View FIGURE 10 A-III, G-III, respectively) or 1½ fold (morphotype 2; Fig. 10 View FIGURE 10 D-III) the length of dorsal inflections of endophallic apodemes (see Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 F).
Colouration. Ground colours vary from green, beige, brown or grey ( Fig. 9 View FIGURE 9 A, B, C, D, E, F). Body uniformly coloured with ground colours ( Fig. 9 View FIGURE 9 F) or with the following colour traits: antennae black, yellow or orange; fastigium reddish or brownish; lateral postocular bands whitish or yellowish; dorsomedial line frequently present, narrow, whitish or reddish; dorsal shades frequently present, black, purple, brown or grey, covering partially ( Fig. 9 View FIGURE 9 E) or entirely ( Fig. 9 View FIGURE 9 A, C) the dorsal portion of the body; lateral shades often present; lateral bands of blotches not evident; ventral bands of pronotum generally present, wide and whitish; mesonotum partially or entirely black; light lateral blotches of 1st abdominal segment generally present and whitish; hind femora frequently with upper medial area black to brown and lower medial area whitish or yellowish; frequently knees of hind femora black laterally, brownish to reddish dorsally; hind tibia black, yellow or orange.
Diagnosis. Sphenarium purpurascens mainly differs from its congeners in the following combination of male genitalia characters: lateral borders of ramus of cingulum strongly concave, inflections of supraramus moderately developed, aedeagus valves moderately long and its apical spine of aedeagus always present slightly longer or notably shorter than the base of aedeagal sclerites.
Distribution. This species is distributed in elevations ranging approximately from 800 to 2700 m a.s.l. from the southern Altiplano to the Sierra Madre del Sur in the Mexican states of Guanajuato, Hidalgo, Mexico, Mexico City, Michoacan, Oaxaca, Puebla, Queretaro, Tlaxcala, and Veracruz ( Fig. 7 View FIGURE 7 A). The distribution of S. purpurascens is interrupted at the Tehuacan valley and somewhat delimited by the higher mountains of the Mexican Volcanic Belt, Sierra Madre Oriental and Sierra Madre del Sur. Across this geographic range the morphotype 1 of this species has the widest distribution, whereas the morphotype 2 is restricted to the central valleys of Oaxaca and the morphotype 3 is found in separate populations in the inner slopes of the Sierra Madre del Sur, Oaxaca ( Fig. 7 View FIGURE 7 A & C). Previously, lower and southern ranges were recognized for S. purpurascens ( Kevan, 1977) . However, these assumptions were based on two misidentified male nymphs from 1.0 mi W Puerto Angel, Oaxaca (resembling S. histrio nymphs); and three adult females from Las Margaritas, Chiapas, apparently corresponding to S. purpurascens but probably mislabelled. Moreover, during our fieldwork we did not find S. purpurascens beyond the above-specified ranges.
Material examined. Lectotype m ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 A) and paralectotype f ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 B) from Mexico (V. Charpentier); designation: Kevan (1960, unpublished results); location: Berlin Zoological Museum (BZM), Berlin, Germany. We were able to examine only the external morphology of this material. Additional material: 459 m, 361 f, from 100 localities. Locality information and depositories of these examined specimens is provided in Appendix Table 5.
Taxonomic discussion. Charpentier (1842) described this species apparently based on two females and males syntypes from an unspecified Mexican locality. After its original description the taxonomic status of S. purpurascens remained unchanged until Boyle (1974) and Kevan (1977) recognised it as a subspecies, S. purpurascens purpurascens . Recently, Pedraza-Lara et al. (2015) and Sanabria-Urbán et al. (2015) proposed the elevation of this species at the species level considering principally its morphological distinctiveness. Based on the morphological, genetic and geographical cohesiveness of this species we also consider S. purpurascens as a valid species within the genus.
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 |