Lestes decipiens Kirby, 1893
|
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-FFD3-FFED-FF55-18F7E4F6FA29 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Lestes decipiens Kirby, 1893 |
| status |
|
3. Lestes decipiens Kirby, 1893 is bona species
In order to simplify further reading by making our taxonomic treatments uniform throughout further text, we have to start with a taxonomic revision based on literature only. Both L. praemorsus (sub. L. praemorsa ) and L. decipiens were described at the species rank ( Selys 1862; Kirby 1893). Their type localities were fairly distant: Manila, the Philippines for L. praemorsus and four localities on the island of Ceylon for L. decipiens .
The description of L. praemorsus was based on a single female ( Selys 1862), which made its further comparison with other taxa difficult. Fraser (1933: 33) incorrectly claimed the existence of the male allotype of L. praemorsus from the current Myanmar, as follows: “The type, a female from Manila, Philippines, is now in the Selysian collection. The allotype, a male, also in the same collection, was taken at Puepoli, Burma, in June”. However, the original description of L. praemorsus ( Selys 1862) claimed the male to be unknown. But the male specimen from Puepoli cannot be the allotype, since the allotype is a member of the type series by definition, and the type series contains only specimens upon which the original description was based, regardless of further literature. Hence the additional male specimen in Selys’ collection has no taxonomic value. Fraser’s statement concerning the presumed allotype was also rejected by Lieftinck (1949: 33–34), as follows: “The first reference known to me in which a ♂ of this insect is mentioned, is a note of De Selys on a single specimen from Puepoli, in Burma, of which this author writes: “Le mâle des Monts Carin pris à Puepoli par M. Fea appartient au type de l’espèce par ses appendices anals supérieurs noirs au bout et aussi à l’extrême base” ” [The male from the Carin Mountains taken at Puepoli by Mr. Fea belongs to the type of the species because of its upper anal appendages black at the tip and also at the extreme base]. (Ann. Mus. civ. Genova (2) 10, 1891, p. 495–496). This statement does not necessarily imply that the two sexes, from such remote localities, are really con-subspecific, and since no description of this ♂ was given I have not followed Fraser, who proclaimed that the Burmese ♂ is the allotype of praemorsus ”. It should be added that Lieftinck’s reasons make no sense from the formal reasons: the Puepoli specimen would not be an allotype even if it were conspecific with the holotype and its description were published after the original description. Actually, Lieftinck (1949) just challenged the opinion by the species’ author, de Selys-Longchamps (based on the coloration of the appendages of different sexes!), that the additional Myanmar male was conspecific to the holotype from the Philippines, a doubt which we fully agree (see below).
Kirby (1893: 566) abstained from providing a factual differential diagnosis of L. decipiens , providing only the following note: “Allied to L. praemorsa ( Philippines) and L. quercifolia, De Selys (Menado and Sulu), but apparently distinct”.
Fraser (1933: 33) assumed L. decipiens as the junior synonym of L. praemorsus , with the following note: “Owing to the gradual development of melanosis, a large number of varying forms are found ranging from pale brown with distinct markings in the teneral condition to melanotic forms which are quite black and exhibit no markings. Kirby’s form, known as L. decipiens , is merely one such as the last, very heavily pruinosed.” This point of view was based on his above discussion and incorrect assumption of the existence of the male allotype of L. praemorsus from the current Myanmar. Note that Fraser did not consider structural characters in the above statement.
It was Lieftinck (1949) who considered and illustrated both taxa in detail, based on specimens of praemorsus s. str. from the Philippines and New Guinea and specimens of decipiens from the Kodagu District of India and Java. His detailed key and fine drawings of the appendages ( Lieftinck 1949: figs 19–20), reproduced here as Fig. 1a–d View FIGURE 1 , show a drastic difference in the paraprocts, which are diverging and concealed under the cerci in dorsal view in praemorsus s. str. ( Fig. 1a–b View FIGURE 1 ) while directed caudad and well seen in dorsal view in decipiens ( Fig. 1c–d View FIGURE 1 ). In lateral view, the paraproct of praemorsus s. str ( Fig. 1a–b View FIGURE 1 ) has the distal part narrower than in decipiens ( Fig. 1c–d View FIGURE 1 ). In spite of these drastic differences, Lieftinck (1949) considered the taxon decipiens as a subspecies L. praemorsus decipiens rather than a full species L. decipiens . This point of view was assumed by later authors (e.g. Hämäläinen & Pinratana 1999; Orr 2005; Do & Dang 2007; Roland et al. 2010; Tang et al. 2010; Kosterin 2011; 2012a,b; 2014; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2020a; Kosterin et al. 2012; Yokoi & Souphanthong 2014; Kosterin & Chartier 2017; Zhang 2019; Kalkman et al. 2020; Kosterin & Smith 2020; Keetapithchayakul et al. 2023; Dow et al. 2024) and is the current consensus.
However, Lieftinck was far from being certain in this solution, which was just preliminary, as follows from the following citations: “This statement [by Selys, that the Puepoli male was praemorsus , see the citation above] does not necessarily imply that the two sexes, from such remote localities [the Philippines and Myanmar], are really con-subspecific” ( Lieftinck 1949: 33–34). “I prefer for the present to take a very broad view and to recognize two races only; and although the present situation is not wholly satisfactory, any attempt to a further splitting up of the western subspecies decipiens has proved to be futile. On the other hand, a small number of undescribed races seem to exist in the eastern part of the Archipelago, but there is no doubt much intergradation; and a long series of topotypes of praemorsus from the Philippines is necessary to justify the separation of these subspecies.” ( Lieftinck 1949: 35–36).
On the other hand, he wrote: “The two subspecies are easily separated by differences which may be seen from the following comparison and from the drawings” ( Lieftinck 1949: 35–36). Curiously, some species assumed by him as distinct in fact exhibited much less difference. For instance, the species described by him 12 years before, Lestes praecellens , is very similar to praemorsus s. str. but not to decipiens (see below).
Thus, the preliminary solution of Lieftinck (1949) to consider the taxon decipiens as a subspecies of L. praemorsus looks strange even for his time and in view of his own earlier works. We find it not justified, while the original species status of L. decipiens fits much better the evidence presented by Lieftinck (1949) himself. Further in this paper one will see that the anal appendages of L. dorothea are again nearly identical to praemorsus s. str. but not to decipiens . In fact, that Lieftinck’s solution to consider decipiens as a subspecies of praemorsus obscured further species comparisons and resulted to a nomenclatural mess in Lestes .
Unfortunately, we have no topotypic specimens of praemorsus s. str. from Luzon, an utmost need of which was stated by Lieftinck (1949) still 76 years ago. However, based on a detailed key and illustrations by Lieftinck (1949: figs 19–20; our Fig. 1a–d View FIGURE 1 ) showing the profound differences in the paraprocts, we restore the species rank of L. decipiens :
Lestes decipiens Kirby, 1893 , bona species
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.
