Taxonomy of the Ephippiger ephippiger complex (ephippiger, cruciger and cunii), with special reference to the mechanics of copulation (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae)
[EN] The status of Ephippiger ephippiger, E. cruciger and E. cunii is investigated and the distinguishing characters are evaluated. It is found that only the spurs on the cerci and the receiving sockets on the female are important in coupling. These female receptor structures have largely been ignor...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 1985 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) |
| Repositorio: | DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:digital.csic.es:10261/170172 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10261/170172 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Orthoptera Tettigoniidae Ephippiger |
| Sumario: | [EN] The status of Ephippiger ephippiger, E. cruciger and E. cunii is investigated and the distinguishing characters are evaluated. It is found that only the spurs on the cerci and the receiving sockets on the female are important in coupling. These female receptor structures have largely been ignored in taxonomic accounts. Other parts of the genitalia, such as titillators, which do not have any precise fit with feinale structures, unlike the genitalia of some insects, prove to be individually rather variable and consequently of limited value in species or subspecies separation. Since in close confinement fertile mating between these three forms occurs freely, and because the other morphological differences of size, appearance and colour, are relatively insignificant, it is concluded that there are no grounds for continuing to regard them as distinct species. There are mechanical barriers to mating between members of this group and E. terrestris and in theory with other species of the genus. On the basis of these interpretations it is suggested that there may be similar grouping-s among other Ephippiger species. It is also concluded that there is little value in the division of E. ephippiger into the seven currently recognised subspecies, and that of those considered the only forms that warrant such treatment are E. e. ephippiger, E. e. vitium and E. e. cunii. Otherwise it is better to refer to the races by their locality. |
|---|