Lestes praemorsus (Selys, 1862)
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6CAAAAD8-0347-43C8-B3E9-D7011B436C19 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15839349 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7FE24-FFC3-FFFB-FF55-1BCFE4D7FDAC |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Lestes praemorsus |
| status |
|
6. Lestes dorothea versus Lestes praemorsus View in CoL
According to van Tol (1992), M.A. Lieftinck never mentioned L. dorothea in his publications. At the same time from the textual annotations and very detailed drawings in Lieftinck (1949) one can see that the anal appendages of L. praemorsus (his figs 19–20, reproduced here as Fig. 1a–b View FIGURE 1 ) are very similar to L. dorothea ( Fig. 5a, c View FIGURE 5 ), while substantially differ from L. decipens ( Lieftinck 1949: figs 18–19, reproduced here as Fig. 1c–d View FIGURE 1 ; see also Fig. 5e–g View FIGURE 5 ). Both L. praemorsus and L. dorothea have the paraprocts the same diverging and concealed under the cerci in dorsal view. In lateral view, the paraproct of L. praemorsus ( Fig. 1a–b View FIGURE 1 ) also has the distal part as in L. dorothea ( Fig. 5c View FIGURE 5 ), that is narrower than in L. decipiens ( Fig. 1c–d View FIGURE 1 ), although in Lieftinck’s figures of the latter ( Fig. 1c–d View FIGURE 1 ) is not as broad as in the Cambodian specimen ( Fig. 5g View FIGURE 5 ). Even the lateral view of the cerci is very similar in L. praemorsus ( Fig. 1a–b View FIGURE 1 ) and L. dorothea ( Fig. 5c View FIGURE 5 ), with the inner expansion well seen, while it is scarcely seen in L. decipiens ( Figs 1c–d View FIGURE 1 , 5g View FIGURE 5 ).
These facts suggest that it is L. dorothea rather than L. decipiens which would more naturally be considered as a subspecies or synonym of L. praemorsus . It is difficult to evaluate the difference between L. praemorsus ( Fig. 1a–b View FIGURE 1 ) and L. dorothea ( Fig. 5a, c View FIGURE 5 ), if any, without specimens of the former in our disposal. L. praemorsus was described by a female specimen ( Selys 1862), but it would be more informative to compare males. So, topotypic male specimens of L. praemorsus from Manila should be compared with the holotype and other specimens of L. dorothea . This is to be a matter of further study. For the time being we prefer to retain L. dorothea in the species rank.
In the current sense, L. dorothea co-occurs with L. decipiens in the vast area from the Western Ghats of India to Indochina, without ‘transitory’ specimens known. As being nearly identical in the general appearance, except for the end of abdomen in both sexes, they obviously are closely related to each other. Nevertheless, their broad cooccurrence suggests that they are full species reproductively isolated from each other, and the strong difference in their male paraprocts may contribute to this isolation.
7. The problem of Lestes praecellens
Another potential junior synonym of L. praemorsus s. str. and/or L. dorothea (depending on the resolution of their taxonomic relationships, see above) is Lestes praecellens , described from south and south-west Java ( Lieftinck 1937) and also known from Sumatra ( Dow et al. 2024). The photographs of the holotype, male, and allotype, female, of this species are shown in Figs 14–15 View FIGURE 14 View FIGURE 15 and very well correspond to the precise drawings by Lieftinck (1937). In the original description this species was compared only to specimens of “ L. praemorsa ” from Malay Archipelago, which actually were L. decipiens . Lieftinck (1937) indicated three diagnostic differences of L. praecellens from L. decipiens in the sense of this paper: (i) absence of black spots on the metopleurae (metepimeron and metepisternum) and lower surface of synthorax ( Lieftinck 1937: fig. 2, reproduced here as Fig. 1i View FIGURE 1 ; Fig. 14a–b View FIGURE 14 ); (ii) the black dorsal stripe on S2–S7 not constricted before the posterior widening ( Fig. 14a–b View FIGURE 14 ), and (iii) paraprocts “divaricate, abruptly turning into narrow, finger-shaped processes not visible in dorsal view” ( Lieftinck 1937: 63, fig. 3, reproduced here as Fig. 1j View FIGURE 1 ; Fig 15b–c View FIGURE 15 ). It is clear that the character (iii) is the same as in L. dorothea and L. praemorsus . The allotype of L. dorothea exhibits the character (i) of L. praecellens as having no black spots on the metapleurae ( Fig. 7c View FIGURE 7 ). Perhaps the same is the holotype, although the metepisternum is somewhat obscured by pruinescence ( Fig. 7a View FIGURE 7 ). But all our specimens of L. dorothea , including the two males from Kerala, the Western Ghats, have two roundish black spots at the lower margin of the metepimeron (e.g. Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 ) and some black underside the thorax. As to the character (ii), the dorsal black stripe on S2–7 is somewhat constricted in the Cambodian and Thai males of L. dorothea but almost not constricted, as in L. praecellens , in the two specimens from Kerala. Perhaps the characters (i) and (ii) are not so reliable, at least in L. dorothea .
The allotype of L. praecellens ( Figs 14a View FIGURE 14 , 15d–e View FIGURE 15 ) does not show noticeable differences from females of L. dorothea ( Figs 8 View FIGURE 8 , 12a–e View FIGURE 12 ), both sharing the pruinosity of the end of abdomen confined to S10, gradually tapering cerci with black tips and a concave ovipositor lower margin.
A sound difference between L. praecellens and L. dorothea is seen in the paraproct shape in lateral view, which in L. praecellens has a narrow base gradually tapering to the distal part ( Lieftinck 1937: fig. 3; reproduced here in Fig. 1j View FIGURE 1 ; Fig. 15b View FIGURE 15 ), but a thick base abruptly narrowing to the distal part in L. dorothea ( Figs 5c View FIGURE 5 , 6e View FIGURE 6 , 11c View FIGURE 11 ). This character was not discussed by Lieftinck (1937). Strikingly, one of two our male specimens from Kerala, Western Ghats–that from Mankulam Power Station, of 19 vi 2024, has the paraprocts ( Fig. 11f View FIGURE 11 ) with a much narrower base exactly as in L. praecellens ( Fig. 1i View FIGURE 1 )! This fact can be interpreted in two ways:
1. A more likely option is that the thickness of the paraproct shape base has a great intra-species variability. This matter is to be further investigated. Since the only currently recognisable difference between L. praecellens and L. dorothea is confined to this character only, its intra-species variability would mean that L. praecellens is a junior subjective synonym of L. dorothea , and maybe also to L. praemorsus (see above). It should be added that in his later work, Lieftinck (1949) depicted the male anal appendages of L. praemorsus and mentioned L. praecellens in another context but, unfortunately, did not compare them, in spite of the striking structural similarity.
2. A less likely option is that L. praecellens is a species different from L. dorothea and differing from it in much narrower male paraprocts. It this case its range extends from Java to the Indian Peninsula, where it does not exhibit the character (i) and co-occurs with L. dorothea .
Hence, the actual status of L. dorothea is a matter of future research which should involve numerous specimens originating from India to Indonesia.
Two more species have been described by M.A. Lieftinck as related to L. praemorsus : Lestes pertinax Lieftinck, 1932 from New Guinea ( Lieftinck 1932), also known from Malay Peninsula ( Orr 2005; Dow et al. 2024) and L. praevius Lieftinck, 1940 from Borneo and Enggano ( Lieftinck 1940). Fortunately, both they well differ from all above discussed taxa in having the cerci evenly curved and the paraprocts simply conical, as in L. decipiens , but divaricate, as in L. dorothea ( Lieftinck 1940) .
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.