Carpocoris mediterraneus atlanticus
Carpocoris mediterraneus atlanticus
Previously assumed Carpocoris cf. fuscispinus.
Full identification bellow.
Associated info:
http://www.insecte.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=58355
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=48289
http://astrid.cruaud.free.fr/WebSite/Publications_files/Lupoli_2013_Carpocoris_Pentatomidae_Zootaxa.pdf
comments (9)
Short story: In 2007 Ribes et al. examined an extensive series of specimen identified as Carpocoris fuscispinus and mediterraneus from all over the range of these two species. They concluded that all differences were too variable and with too many intermediates, so they synonymized mediterraneus with fuscispinus. A number of French and Italian Heteropterists did not agree and refused to accept the synonymy, at first without delivering a published response to dispute the findings by Ribes et al. We've had some rather intense discussions on the matter in the French forum at insecte.org and, at the time, I had trouble recognizing the morphological differences they were putting forward.
http://www.insecte.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=58355
Finally in 2013 they made good on this and published an article restoring the species mediterraneus to full species status, mainly based on DNA-analysis (Lupoli et al., 2013).
They also published a few morphological characters and going by these your photo may well be mediterraneus rather than fuscispinus, but of course these characters are hard to interpret (or Ribes wouldn't have discarded them as insufficiently diagnostic).
Please refer to the article by Lupoli et al. for these characters (mainly the shape of the pronotum). Also note their remarks on distribution, both geographically and altitude wise.
I'm still having too much trouble to reliably recognize the differences in pronotal shape in all cases were distribution would dictate one species or the other, but often this is also due to sub-optimal perspective such as is the case here.
A fully dorsal view, as well as an exact location, would be helpful imho.
The publications are these:
Ribes, J.; Gapon, D.; Pagola-Carte, S. (2007) On some species of Carpocoris Kolenati, 1846: new synonymies (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae: Pentatominae). -- Renker, C. (Hrsg.): Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Hannes Günther. Mainzer naturwissenschaftliches Archiv, Beih.31, pp.187-198.
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=48289
Lupoli, R., Dusoulier, F., Cruaud, A., Cros-Arteil, S. & Streito, J.C. (2013) Morphological, biogeographical and molecular evidence of Carpocoris mediterraneus as a valid species (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). - Zootaxa, vol.3609(4), pp.392-410.
http://astrid.cruaud.free.fr/WebSite/Publications_files/Lupoli_2013_Carpocoris_Pentatomidae_Zootaxa.pdf
Posted 8 years ago, modified 8 years ago
On Google Earth, please follow this directions:
Lat: 39°58'58.30"N
Lon: 8°33'18.91"W
Altitude ~350m
Fully dorsal view, here:
https://www.jungledragon.com/image/46703/carpocoris_cf._fuscispinus_-_dorsal_view.html/zoom
Thanks so much!
Posted 8 years ago, modified 8 years ago
I've taken the liberty to use your image in a collage side-by-side with a 100% fuscispinus from the Netherlands. If you disagree with this usage of your image let me know and I'll remove it pronto(!)
Please compare the collage to the images on page 400 in Lupoli at al. (2013) linked above.
Looking at your images I would have thought that it must be mediterraneus, mostly due to the relatively sharp angle in the anterolateral margins of the pronotum. The bulge on the posterolateral margins is hard to estimate under various perspectives, hence my request for the dorsal one.
The side-by-side is quite shocking to me, but mostly concerning my own fuscispinus. Especially the way the posterolateral bulge comes out would be much more like mediterraneus in Lupoli et al. Looking again and again at the images in that document I can't help thinking they "cheated" on drawing the lines to exaggerate the point they are trying to make. I think that on their image of fuscispinus the horizontal line is a little too high on the left hand side, the diagonal red line is (therefor) too far to the right at the top and the bottom position is hard to find when you are trying to duplicate this and seems to be far on the "inside" as well IMHO. All that resulting in a much bigger, clearer bulge. If I redraw the lines on their image I get a smaller bulge too, more like the one drawn on my fuscispinus in the side-by-side above. I can appreciate that they would exaggerate a little in drawing their lines to get the point across, but I have had trouble "recognizing" this on various images before, so to me this "character" is near unusable. Posted 8 years ago, modified 8 years ago
That pretty much leaves me with just the shape of the anterolateral margins. For one thing, this is fairly badly influenced by the exact viewing angle or positioning/posture of the (collection) specimen if you will, and to add insult to injury, as Ribes had already mentioned I think, it seems to be all fairly variable between individuals. I could totally understand the point Ribes et al. made at the time, that all these characters seem to be more of a "sliding scale".
The identifcation problem supposedly is limited to specimen with the colouring of your example here. Specimen such as your other mediterraneus are not problematic due to the contrasting spots on scutellum en connexivium:
According to Lupoli et al. in their concept of fuscispinus these spots are "almost always absent". They go on to mention that the pronotum should be used for ID on specimen without these spots (hence with a more typical fuscispinus-like colouring), like the one discussed here. But I'm having trouble interpreting the pronotal characters as documented in their article on a number of specimen I've been trying to ID this way. Like I said: Your specimen would seem to be a better fit for the characters they use for mediterraneus, but I'm having trouble when I apply the same to my fuscispinus from the Netherlands, and on other specimen I've tried them on, so I'm hesitant to use that.
Next they mention some other things that may or may not be influenced by environmental factors, but in their experience would still be quite indicative of mediterraneus. One such "secondary character" is the colour of the legs. Orange in almost all mediterraneus and hardly ever orange on fuscispinus. Your specimen here has (mostly) orange legs.
The last thing to consider is distribution. The location you provided is here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/39°58'58.3"N+8°33'18.9"W/@39.9828592,-10.7964609,7z
That is just on the edge of the area that Tamanini once indicated as possible for fuscispinus (cf. fig,7 page 405), but Lupoli et al. have only found 1 specimen that they would identify as fuscispinus from Portugal and that one is from much higher up the mountains (Serra da Estrela, Guarda).
All in all your specimen seems to tick all the boxes that they provide for mediterraneus, even if it has the typical overall fuscispinus colouring:
- posterolateral margin almost straight, hardly bulging out (as drawn in the side-by-side above)
- anterolateral margin sharply concave, best appreciated in these images I think:
- legs orange
- location fairly unlikely for fuscispinus in Portugal
Even if I have problems fully applying/recognizing the character for the posterolateral margin on my fuscispinus from the Netherlands, it still all fits your specimen to indicate mediterraneus according to the recognition criteria provided by Lupoli et al. so I think we should probably just go with that and name this specimen accordingly (Carpocoris mediterraneus atlanticus) as their publication is the most recent "state of art" to follow. Posted 8 years ago, modified 8 years ago
You're also very good in finding the edges of the system itself ;) Posted 8 years ago