No species identified
The species on this photo is not identified yet. When signed in, you can identify species on photos that you uploaded. If you have earned the social image editing capability, you can also identify species on photos uploaded by others.
By Ernst
All rights reserved
Uploaded May 2, 2020. Captured Sep 28, 2014 13:34 in 675 Truemans Rd, Fingal VIC 3939, Australia.
comments (5)
I will keep searching. O yes and I checked and noticed that you study very late. Posted 5 years ago, modified 5 years ago
From the catalogue at https://books.google.nl/books?id=UWifn5wT6D8C&pg=PA363
Elasmostethus emeritus (Fabricius, 1775) [as Cimex e.]; distr. QLD.
Elasmostethus ligatus ligatus (Erichson, 1842) [as Rhynocoris l.]; distr. NSW, QLD, SA, TAS, VIC.
Elasmostethus ligatus placidus (Walker, 1867) [as Acanthosoma p.]; distr. SA.
Elasmostethus lineus (Dallas, 1851) [as Acanthosoma l.]; distr. WA, SW.
Elasmostethus nigropunctatus (Reuter, 1881) [as Stictocarenus n.]; distr. TAS
Elasmostethus suffusus (Distant, 1900) [as Stictocarenus s.]; distr. TAS
Elasmostethus taeniolus (Dallas, 1851) [as Cuspicona t.]; distr. NSW, SA, VIC, WA.
This being found in VIC it would seem a good idea to look at the original descriptions for ligatus and taeniolus first:
- - - - -
Elasmostethus ligatus:
Erichson (1842) Beitrag zur Insecten-Fauna von Vendiemensland, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der geographischen Verbreitung der Insecten. - Archiv für Naturgeschichte, vol.8, pp.83-278.(p.278)
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13672461
The Atlas of living Australia has images for ligatus:
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/urn:lsid:biodiversity.org.au:afd.taxon:a9163906-16c0-4952-9ea2-f64bbf8ffb2c#gallery
I can't seem to make that fit the original description ... ?!? The images on ALA seem to come from various sources, possibly with quite questionable trustworthiness?
The (much more elaborate) original description of the subspecies ligatus placidus (as Acanthosoma placida Walker, 1867) is here:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/21342447
That description clearly coincides much better with your image than with the images on ALA
- - - - -
Elasmostethus taeniolus:
Dallas (1851) List of the Specimens of Hemipterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum, Part I. (p.299)
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/18106527
This description seems to come quite close to your specimen (but not really 101%)
- - - - -
At the genus level ALA has some images that are very close to yours:
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/urn:lsid:biodiversity.org.au:afd.taxon:556b8d1d-be7c-4677-9802-ff90c463ea16#gallery
One of these is by
Maybe you can ask him why this wasn't identified to species level ?!?
Posted 5 years ago, modified 5 years ago
The two species mentioned above (E. ligatus and taeniolus) are taken from the Zoological Catalogue of Australia, as listed/linked above. After reading up and finding most of the older publications they refer to, I can only come to the conclusion that their listing of taeniolus as a separate species is erroneous.
Dallas described the species as Cuspicona taeniola. Stal (1876) transferred it to Stictocarenus. All more recent publications referenced (Breddin 1903, Kirkaldy 1909, Kumar 1974) have it as a junior synonym. In fact, Kumar (1974) is listed as the reason for having it as a species in its own right, but after reading that, it would seem that this is based on a misunderstanding. Kumar specifically lists it as a synonym of ligatus (pg.51) while stating "but most of the original material is missing) and only later (pg.52) refers to it in the section "Material examined", stating that he saw a specimen that he designates as lectotype of Cuspicona taeniola, which doesn't imply that he reinstates the species, but merely that this was the closest thing to a type of ligatus that he was able to review in order to confirm the synonymy of Stictocarenus with Elasmostethus (Stictocarenus ligatus being the type species for Stictocarenus).
Then the Zoological Catalogue goes on to explain that there is an alternative taxonomic arrangement (referring to Kirkaldy 1909) with taeniolus being a junior synonym of ligatus, whereas in fact this is the only arrangement ever since around 1900 or some such.
So: From all this, for the moment, I would assume the Zool.Cat. to be in error on this point and thus assume that ligatus (==taeniolus) to be the only Elasmostethus known from VIC according to the catalogue, making it likely IMHO that the image by Ernst above shlould be this species (and thus the images presented by ALA for ligatus to be some bogus naming error).
I'll try checking all this maybe with the authors or maybe another expert (David Rider?), but for now I think it's fair to assume Elasmostethus ligatus.
Refs:
Breddin (1903 ) Über missdeutete und neue Hemipteren-Arten der indoaustralischen Fauna.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7660670
Kirkaldy (1909) Catalogue of the Hemiptera (Heteroptera) w. Biol. & Anat. Ref. etc.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/15000725
Kumar (1974) A Revision of World Acanthosomatidae
https://dacemirror.sci-hub.im/journal-article/dc02de25e55afe9171dbe6f267ea6225/kumar1974.pdf Posted 5 years ago, modified 5 years ago