Leptochilus (Lionotulus) turcicus Gusenleitner, 1971
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2025.2460842 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F770A468-8720-FFB8-019F-F51ED9C6BF04 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Leptochilus (Lionotulus) turcicus Gusenleitner, 1971 |
status |
stat. nov. |
Leptochilus (Lionotulus) turcicus Gusenleitner, 1971 stat. nov. *
Material examined
IRAQ: Kurdistan, Duhok, Bessre, Bablo village , 1065 m, 36.8675°N 43.120556°E, 5–6 May 2023, 1 ♂ ( MSVI, PQ676391 ); Kurdistan, Duhok, Mangeshke, 806 m, 36.923884°N 43.159401°E, 13 May 2023, 1 ♀ ( MSVI, PQ676393 ); Kurdistan, Duhok, SW of Ashewa, 1100 m, 37.013611°N 43.284444°E, 1–4 June2024, 1 ♀ ( MSVI, PQ676392 ) GoogleMaps .
Remarks
Gusenleitner (in Bytinski-Salz and Gusenleitner 1971) described the subspecies Leptochilus mimulus turcicus (Figure 3a-b) from Turkey and Israel, differentiating it from the nominotypical subspecies from the Balkan Peninsula based on few characters: coarser sculpture of T2 and S2, T3–T6 entirely black in the female, and ventral face of flagellum orange. The study of type specimens and new material revealed, however, further differences [characters of nominotypical L. mimulus in square brackets]: pronotal carina lower on sides and pronotal humeri evenly rounded (Figure 3c) [pronotal carina higher on sides and humeri obtusely but distinctly angled, especially in the male (Figure 3d)], interspaces on mesoscutum and scutellum strongly shiny with few scattered micropunctures (Figure 3e) [weakly shiny with denser micropunctures (Figure 3f)], dorsal faces of propodeum sparsely punctate and mirror-like shiny above dorsal carinae [densely punctate with micropunctate interspaces, not so shiny], dorsal carinae of propodeum blunt but strongly developed (Figure 3g) [sharp but weak (Figure 3h)], lateral faces of propodeum very shallowly depressed and separated from dorsal faces by blunt hints of lateral carinae [flattened and without hints of lateral carinae delimiting them], apical emargination of female clypeus deeper and evenly concave with more protruding and sharp lateral teeth (Figure 3i) [shallower and more or less flattened medially, with less protruding and blunt lateral teeth (Figure 3j)], tegula with ferruginous discal spot (Figure 3c) [black and white without ferruginous (Figure 3d)], female with legs largely reddish in addition to yellow markings [black with yellowish markings only], male F11 shorter, stouter and more curved in lateral view and broader in dorsal view (Figure 3k) [longer, narrow and weakly curved in lateral view and narrower in dorsal view (Figure 3l)], digitus with more projecting and apically reflexed ventrobasal angle (Figure 3m) [less projecting and not reflexed], apical part of aedeagus parallel-sided [constricted in basal half and then apically expanding (Figure 3n)], ventral lobes of aedeagus longer and with less produced apical part, ventral
Figure 3. a–c, e, g, i, k, m, Leptochilus (Lionotulus) turcicus Gusenleitner , stat. n. d, f, h, j, l, n, Leptochilus (Lionotulus) mimulus Gusenleitner. a, habitus of male, dorsal view. b, habitus of female, dorsal view. c–d, anterior half of mesosoma of male, dorsal view. e–f, mesoscutum and scutellum of female, dorsal view. g–h, propodeum of female, posterior view. i–j, clypeus of female, frontal view. k– l, apex of male flagellum, lateral view. m–n, male genitalia, from left to right: aedeagus in ventral view, aedeagus in lateral view, digitus+volsella.
margin weakly reflexed and in ventral view forming semielliptical lobe (Figure 3m) [shorter and with ventrally produced apical part, almost divided into two parts, ventral margin strongly reflexed and in ventral view forming subtriangular lobe (Figure 3n)], median sclerite in lateral view with expanded apical part and apically subtruncate [barely thickened apically and with almost pointed apex]. This series of characters does not support the recognition of the taxon turcicus as a mere subspecies of L. mimulus and is further supported by genetic data, as DNA barcoding revealed a genetic distance of 3.17% between Greek L. mimulus mimulus and Iraqi L. mimulus turcicus ( Table 1). Similar values of genetic distance have been observed to indicate intraspecific variability in other genera of Eumeninae ( Selis et al. 2024a, 2024b); however, a comparison with the related Leptochilus tarsatus (de Saussure) showed comparable values, as the latter species differs from L. mimulus mimulus by 6.66–6.84% and from L. mimulus turcicus by 4.90–5.07%, indicating the diagnostic value of such genetic distance in the L. tarsatus group, and these values are also much higher than the intraspecific distances observed in the three barcoded taxa (0.00% in both subspecies of L. mimulus and 0.00–0.15% in L. tarsatus ). The combination of several morphological differences, genetic distance and geographic separation does not support the treatment of L. mimulus turcicus as a mere subspecies, leading to its elevation to the species rank.
Distribution
Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Iraq * ( Castro and Dvořák 2010).
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 |