Phaneroptera nana nana (Fieber, 1853)

Ünal, Mustafa, 2025, Taxonomic notes on Phaneropterinae and Tettigoniinae (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) from the Palaearctic Region, Zootaxa 5687 (1), pp. 1-77 : 8-10

Phaneroptera nana nana (Fieber, 1853)

( Figs. 1–2 )

Material examined. SE Turkey, 12 km from Hakkari, 1500 m, 1 female (leg. Hacker) (allotype of Phaneroptera hackeri ) .

Remarks. This single female is the allotype of P. hackeri . It was studied from the photographs of OSF ( Figs. 1–2 ). This female is a member of Phaneroptera . However, the male holotype of P. hackeri belongs to the genus Nephoptera Uvarov (see Nephoptera hackeri below).

Genus Nephoptera Uvarov, 1929 s. lat.

Type species: Nephoptera tibialis Uvarov, 1929

Nephoptera Uvarov, 1929 : Uvarov, 1929: 630; Bey-Bienko, 1954: 58 in the key, 87; Ragge, 1956: 279; Bey-Bienko, 1958: 3 in the key; Ragge, 1959: 425, 428; Mirzayans et Morales-Agacino, 1969: 28; Cejchan, 1969: 224; Cejchan, 1974: 91.

Pseudanerota Bey-Bienko, 1951 : Bey-Bienko, 1951: 134. Type species Phaneroptera persica Uvarov, 1929 ; Bey-Bienko, 1954: 58 in the key, 85; Ragge, 1956: 279 as synonym; Bey-Bienko, 1958: 3 in the key; Ragge, 1959: 425 as synonym.

Remarks. This genus was established by Uvarov (1929: 630) for a single species, N. tibialis Uvarov, 1929 . Bey-Bienko (1951: 134) described the genus Pseudanerota for two species, Pseudanerota robusta Bey-Bienko, 1951 and Phaneroptera persica Uvarov, 1929 . He designated the latter one as the type species. Bey-Bienko (1954) gave more details for these genera. However, Ragge (1956: 279) in his revision, synonymizing the genus Pseudanerota Bey-Bienko, 1951 , accumulated these three species under Nephoptera Uvarov, 1929 . Later, Bey-Bienko (1958: 1) proposed a generic key for Phaneropterini in Iran and gave these two genera as valid taxa, and he described Pseudanerota richteri Bey-Bienko, 1958 . Ragge (1958), describing a new species, Nephoptera bienkoi , synonymized Pseudanerota Bey-Bienko one more time and included the above five species in this genus. Steinmann (1966: 416) described a new Nephoptera , N. sinica , from China. This was the first record of this genus outside of Iran. Later, Mirzayans and Morales-Agacino (1969: 28) described N. dezfouliani in Iran. Cejchan (1969: 224) described N. bienkoi afghana as the first species of this genus from Afghanistan, and he ( Cejchan, 1974: 91) described one more species, N. dlabolai , from Iran. Present day, eight species and subspecies of Nephoptera mentioned above are known from Iran, Afghanistan and China.

On the other hand, Harz (1988: 137) described Phaneroptera hackeri from the SE of Turkey. Recently, Koçak et Kemal (2009: 5–6), describing Phaneroptera (Erdemia) erdemi from SE of Turkey, established a new subgenus of Phaneroptera , Erdemia Koçak et Kemal, 2009 . They included Phaneroptera hackeri Harz in this new subgenus and designated it as the type species of Erdemia . However, Harz (1988) and Koçak et Kemal (2009) were not aware that these two species belong to the genus Nephoptera . Taylan et al. (2021), following Harz (1988) and Koçak et Kemal (2009), recorded P. (Erdemia) hackeri from Hakkari Province of Turkey.

Due to the incorrect matching of male and female, an identification error by Harz (1988) caused further taxonomic problems. Harz (1988), describing Phaneroptera hackeri , used 1 male and 1 female, and he selected the male as the holotype. But in the present study, it appears that these two specimens belong to different taxa. While the male (holotype) is a member of Nephoptera , the female (allotype) is Phaneroptera (see Phaneroptera nana above). Koçak and Kemal (2009), unaware of this, selected the female as the holotype of their new species Phaneroptera (Erdemia) erdemi . Because the male examined by them is the same as the male of P. hackeri , but the female is different from its female. They ( Koçak et Kemal 2009: 6) mentioned the close similarity of the males of both species, P. hackeri and P. erdemi . Koçak and Kemal (2009) actually described the female of P. hackeri under the new species, P. erdemi , for the first time. Therefore, these two species are synonyms with each other. But the subgenus Erdemia as a valid taxon is transferred to the genus Nephoptera herein. Previously, Mirzayans et Agacino (1969) suggested that the re-grouping of two distinct groups of Nephoptera species as a new subgeneric or generic taxon. Ragge (1959) and Cejchan (1974) also mentioned these two distinct species groups. Koçak et Kemal (2009) unawaredly made this generic separation in another genus, Phaneroptera .

Furthermore, it is event in the present study that Nephoptera sinica Steinmann, 1966 cannot be included in these two groups of Nephoptera , due to distinct generic characteristics. Therefore, one more subgenus, Exonephoptera subgen. nov. is needed to be added to Nephoptera .

The genus Nephoptera is recorded from Turkey for the first time.

Nephoptera is separated into 3 subgenera. The differences among these 3 groups are much beyond the species groups with clear characteristics as seen in the following key.

Key to subgenera of Nephoptera s. lat.

1. Antero-ventral corner of paranota broadly rounded ( Figs. 24, 28 ). Male subgenital plate ( Figs. 24, 25, 31, 32 ) with styli; its posterior margin with a shallow incision. Basal fold of ovipositor shaped as a very narrow and small horizontal projection ( Fig. 26 ). Ovipositor ( Figs. 26, 30 ) strongly (under right angle) upcurved, sharply pointed at apex, with fine serration................................................................................... Exonephoptera Ünal , subgen. nov.

- Antero-ventral corner of paranota more or less angular ( Figs. 5, 6, 12, 20 ). Male subgenital plate (7, 17, 19) without styli; its posterior margin with a deep incision. Basal fold of ovipositor strongly developed, large, inflated or widened ( Figs. 3, 10, 21 ). Ovipositor ( Figs. 3, 6, 10, 20, 21 ) less upcurved; with large apical denticles ( Fig. 10 ), if with fine serration then its apex blunt ( Figs. 6, 21 ).......................................................................................... 2

2. Male last tergite ( Figs. 9, 14, 15, 18 ) strongly developed, elongated, inflated, and/or enlarged, reaching beyond of cerci. Posterior margin of female last tergite ( Fig. 21 ) with a distinct median projection........... Erdemia Koçak et Kemal, 2009

- Male last tergite ( Fig. 8 ) short and broad, with a truncate hind margin, never prolonged posteriorly, shorter than cerci. Posterior margin of female last tergite ( Fig. 3 ) without any projection............................ Nephoptera Uvarov, 1929 s. str.

Subgenus Nephoptera Uvarov, 1929 s. str.

Figures

FIGURES 1–32. 1–2 Phaneroptera nana nana, 1 female habitus, lateral view; 2 ovipositor, lateral view. 3 Nephoptera (s. str.) tibialis, ovipositor. 4 Nephoptera (s. str.) persica, male cercus. 5–8 Nephoptera (s. str.) richteri, 5 male habitus, lateral view; 6 female habitus, lateral view; 7 male subgenital plate, ventral view; 8 male end of abdomen, lateral view. 9–10 Nephoptera (Erdemia) bienkoi, 9 male end of abdomen, lateral view; 10 ovipositor, right side (mirror view). 11–17 Nephoptera (Erdemia) afghana, 11 male habitus, lateral view; 12 male head and pronotum, lateral view; 13 male habitus, dorsal view; 14 male end of abdomen, lateral view; 15 male last tergite, dorsal view; 16 male left cercus, dorsal view; 17 male subgenital plate, ventro-lateral view. 18–21 Nephoptera (Erdemia) hackeri, 18 male end of abdomen, lateral view; 19 male subgenital plate, ventral view; 20 female habitus, lateral view; 21 ovipositor, right side (mirror view). 22–32 Nephoptera (Exonephoptera) sinica, 22 male habitus; 23 female habitus; 24 male body, lateral view; 25 male subgenital plate, ventral view; 26 female end of abdomen, ovipositor; 27 female pronotum, dorsal view; 28 ditto, lateral view; 29 female tympanal organ; 30 ovipositor; 31 male subgenital plate, ventral view of apical part; 32 male end of abdomen, lateral view. Figures 1–10, 18–19 and 22–26 are from OSF. Figures 27–32 are from Steinmann, 1966.