Lestes dorothea (Fraser, 1933)
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6CAAAAD8-0347-43C8-B3E9-D7011B436C19 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7FE24-FFC3-FFFC-FF55-1BCFE4AFFAB1 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Lestes dorothea |
| status |
|
6. Lestes dorothea View in CoL versus Lestes praemorsus
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.
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.