Bolua turkiyae, Unal, 1999

Ünal, Mustafa, 2025, Taxonomic notes on Phaneropterinae and Tettigoniinae (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) from the Palaearctic Region, Zootaxa 5687 (1), pp. 1-77 : 39-40

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5687.1.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:26BCEC61-944B-4392-90E0-41CD19B5640A

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B8758-BB44-FF82-FF0C-D2B4F56CE524

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Bolua turkiyae
status

 

Bolua turkiyae View in CoL Ünal, 1999

( Figs. 191–216 View FIGURES 173–204. 173–174 View FIGURES 207–235. 207–216 , 323–325 View FIGURES 319–326. 319–320 )

Bolua balikesirensis Uluar et Çıplak, 2022 View in CoL syn. nov.

Bolua bursaensis Uluar et Çıplak, 2022 View in CoL syn. nov.

Material examined. Turkey: Bolu Prov., Gövem Yaylası, 1382 m, 40°38.253´N, 31°24.778´E, 25.10.2022, 1 male, 3 females; Bolu Prov., Hamidiye Köyü, 800 m, 27.7.2021, 4 males, 3 females (leg. M. Ünal ); Bolu Prov., Gerede, AktaŞ II (type locality), 1326 m, 40°39.125´N, 32°20.386´E, 3.8.2021, 1 male, 2 females (leg. A. Erden); Bolu Prov., Feruz Yaylası, 1503, 40°35.271´N, 31°20.507´E, 25.8.2021, 1 male, 5 females (leg. A. Erden); Bolu Prov., Güneyfelakettin, 1210 m, 10.8.2021, 2 males, 2 females (leg. M. Ünal ); Bolu Prov., Mudurnu, Atyaylası Geçidi, 1270 m, 40°20.424´N, 31°02.427´E, 29.7.2021, 1 female (leg. M. Ünal & A. Erden); Sakarya Prov., Hendek, Çukurhan, 250 m, 16.7.1993, 1 female nymph (leg. M. Ünal ) ( AİBÜEM); and all the previous material given by Ünal (1999, 2006, 2018).

Remarks. Uluar et al. (2022) described two new species within the monotypic genus Bolua Ünal, 1999. However, they failed to reference prior published information concerning the distribution and relationships of Bolua ( Ünal 2006: 184; Ünal 2018: 9, 26; Erden et Ünal 2012; Mol et al. 2016). Had they done so, they would have seen that Bolua turkiyae was recorded from numerous localities and that the populations of this species were not as isolated as they had suggested ( Uluar et al. 2022: 227, Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–32. 1–2 ).

Furthermore, Uluar et al. (2022: 234, repeated on 233) stated, “ As documented in the ‘morphology’ part of the Results section, members of Bolua are similar in overall general appearance. Thus, the generic description can be applied to all species for certain features of the head, thorax, and abdomen (Figures…). For this reason, all species are similar in general appearance except for the diagnostic character male cercus, and describing each structure in details is considered unnecessary ” This implies that they morphologically distinguished the two new species from B. turkiyae solely based on the shape of the male cercus.

However, if the figure of the male cercus of B. turkiyae in Uluar et al. (2022: 231, Fig. 9 View FIGURES 1–32. 1–2 ) is compared with the original description of B. turkiyae ( Ünal 1999: 254, Fig. 20 View FIGURES 1–32. 1–2 ) and the figure provided in Ünal (2018: 51, Fig. 136 View FIGURES 125–146. 125–134 ), it can be seen that they do not match. Readers are invited to compare the original male cercus of B. turkiyae ( Ünal 1999) and the cerci of the type specimens presented in the current paper ( Figs. 191–196 View FIGURES 173–204. 173–174 ) with the male cerci of three species illustrated by Uluar et al. (2022: Figs. 9, 10, 11 View FIGURES 1–32. 1–2 ). It will become evident that figures 10 and 11 from Uluar et al. (2022) bear the closest resemblance to B. turkiyae , although they actually belong to B. bursaensis and B. balikesirensi . This is noteworthy because this character is naturally variable even within the same location ( Figs. 191–216 View FIGURES 173–204. 173–174 View FIGURES 207–235. 207–216 ).

Figures 212–216 View FIGURES 207–235. 207–216 originate from the Bursa and Kütahya Provinces, which are considered the range of B. bursaensis . A careful examination of all cercal figures presented here ( Figs. 191–216 View FIGURES 173–204. 173–174 View FIGURES 207–235. 207–216 ) reveals that the male cerci can exhibit variability, even within the same locality, with examples from both B. bursaensis and B. balikesirensis ( Figs. 191–216 View FIGURES 173–204. 173–174 View FIGURES 207–235. 207–216 , pay special attention to the figures from the same location). The inner tooth of the male cercus of B. turkiyae is located at the distal part of the cercus, either slightly anterior or posterior ( Figs. 193–194 View FIGURES 173–204. 173–174 , 2013–214, etc.), and its apical curvature may be weakly incurved or weakly outcurved, even within the same region ( Figs. 200–201 View FIGURES 173–204. 173–174 , Figs. 202–203 View FIGURES 173–204. 173–174 ). The shapes of the male cerci of B. bursaensis and B. balikesirensis do not have a stability that is different from B. turkiyae , and they can also be found among the populations of B. turkiyae from Bolu Province ( Figs. 191–211 View FIGURES 173–204. 173–174 View FIGURES 207–235. 207–216 ).

Additionally, other morphological characters were not addressed, including the titillator, which is one of the main species characteristics in Tettigoniinae . Although Uluar et al. (2022: 231, 233) provided figures of titillators and ovipositors that appear different, these characters are also variable, similar to the cercus.

The main issue is that, although B. turkiyae is widely distributed, Uluar et al. (2022) only considered certain populations. This creates the impression of a patchy distribution. In reality, the distribution of B. turkiyae extends uninterrupted from the east, in Kastamonu and Çankırı Provinces, to the west, in Balıkesir Province, at various elevations ranging from sea level (Akçakoca in Düzce) to 1950 meters (Keltepe in Karabük). Bolua turkiyae has been recorded in the following provinces: Kastamonu, Çankırı, Karabük, Zonguldak, Bolu, Düzce, Kütahya, Sakarya, Kocaeli, Yalova, Bilecik, and Bursa ( Ünal 1999, 2006, 2018; Çıplak and Heller 2001; Erden 2010; Erden and Ünal 2012: 990–991; Mol et al. 2016), as well as in Balıkesir Province ( Uluar et al. 2022). Most of these records were not cited by Uluar et al. (2022). Additionally, the discussion regarding the relationship of Bolua with Pachytrachis and Pholidoptera (Ünal 2006) was also overlooked in the same paper.

The paper by Uluar et al. (2022) represents a typical intraspecific study, but it lacks important information. As previously mentioned, the distribution of the Bolua populations is not perfectly isolated, contrary to what Uluar et al. (2022) suggest. In studies of this nature, the sampling distribution should accurately reflect the distribution of the taxon being studied. If some populations located between the distribution areas of the three species had been included in the genetic analyses, the results would have probably been different.

Due to these reasons, Bolua balikesirensis Uluar et Çıplak, 2022 , and Bolua bursaensis Uluar et Çıplak, 2022 , are proposed as junior synonyms of Bolua turkiyae Ünal, 1999.

Genus Rhacocleis Fieber, 1853

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Orthoptera

Family

Tettigoniidae

Genus

Bolua

Loc

Bolua turkiyae

Ünal, Mustafa 2025
2025
Loc

Bolua balikesirensis Uluar et Çıplak, 2022

Uluar et Ciplak 2022
2022
Loc

Bolua bursaensis Uluar et Çıplak, 2022

Uluar et Ciplak 2022
2022
Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF