Canthophorus impressus hajastanicus, Gapon, 2018

Canthophorus impressus hajastanicus n. ssp. ( Figures 1 F View Figure 1 , 3 G View Figure 3 , 5 A View Figure 5 , 7 H View Figure 7 , 8 L View Figure 8 , 10 C View Figure 10 , 12 D View Figure 12 )

Type material

Holotype: Armenia: Aragatsotn Prov., “gora Kizilziarat [ Gekhmakhan or Ziarat-Kizyl Mt. , 40°16 ʹ 12.3 ʺ N 44° 53 ʹ 39.5 ʺ E]/Novobayaz.[etskiy] u.[ezd] Eriv.[anskoy] g. [ubernii]/[Ya.G.] Efremov. [1.VII. 1]909.”, ♀ ( ZISP) GoogleMaps . Paratypes: Georgia: Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti, Lebarde, “Sev.-Kav. Kraystazra” [ North-Caucasian Regional Plant Protection Station ], 22.VII.1922 (N. Arkhangel’ skiy), 1♀ ( ZISP) ; Samtskhe-Javakheti: Tambovka nr “Toporovan” [Paravani] Lake, 26.VI.1909 (Berg), 1♀ ( ZISP) ; Bakuriani, 11.VI.1910 (Mlakosevich), 1♀ ( ZISP) ; gorge of Paravani Riv., 5 km upstream of Akhalkalaki , 1950 m amsl, 24. VII.1980 (M.G. Volkovitsh), 2J, 1♀ ( ZISP) ; Armenia: Aragatsotn Prov.: “gora Kizilziarat [ Gekhmakhan or Ziarat-Kizyl Mt. , 40°16 ʹ 12.3 ʺ N 44°53 ʹ 39.5 ʺ E]/Novobayaz.[etskiy] u.[ezd] Eriv.[anskoy] g.[ubernii]/[Ya.G.] Efremov. [1.VII. 1] 909.”, 4J, 7♀ ( ZISP), 1♀ ( MNHN) GoogleMaps ; upper reaches of Mantash Riv., “Alagez” [ Aragats Mt. ], c. 2000 m amsl, 16. VI.1934 (Ter-Minassjan), 1J, 2♀ ( ZISP), 1♀ ( MNHN) [paratypes of C. mixtus ] ; NW slope of “ Alagez ” [ Aragats Mt. ] 3000 m, 29.VII.1935 (Rikhter), 1♀ ( ZISP) [paratype of C. mixtus ] ; Kotayk Prov., Agmagan[-Karadag], “pr. alp. Šiš- kara [?] 10,000”, 16.VII. [19]26, “pr. alp. Ciċagio [?] 9000”, 1.VIII. [19]26 (A. Schelk), 2J ( ZISP) ; Gegharkunik Prov., Lchashen Settlm. env. , 2100 m amsl, 30.VII.1980 (M.G. Volkovitsh), 1♀ ( ZISP) ; Syunik Prov., E slopes “Karutdzhukh” [ Kaputjugh] Mt. , 2050–2700 m amsl, mountain steppe, alpine meadows, 17.VIII.1959 (V. Zaitzev), 1J ( ZISP) . Azerbaijan: Ordubad (V. Jakovlev coll.), 1♀ ( ZISP) . Turkey: Ardahan Prov., Ardahan , 30.VI.1910 (Nesterov), 1♀ ( ZISP) . Russia: Khabarovsk Terr.: Khor Riv., spurs of Sikhote-Alin , 56 “verst” [60 km] from Amur Riv., 1909 (Efremov), 1♀ ( ZISP) . China: Sichuan, “Sztschwah, Ta-tsien-lu” [Sichuan, Kangding ] (“St. Breuning ded.”), 1J ( ZISP) .

Diagnosis

Membrane brownish, opaque ( Figure 1 F View Figure 1 ). Sensory process of paramere rather widely rounded at apex ( Figure 3 G View Figure 3 ). Spicule at dorsolateral lobes of conjunctiva smoothly curved in middle ( Figure 7 H View Figure 7 ). Posterior pouches of gynatrial sac shorter than in nominotypical subspecies, as long as wide or slightly longer than wide, not narrowed at base, lying on posterior margin of gynatrial sac, with inner margins passing into the posterior margin ( Figures 10 C View Figure 10 , 12 D View Figure 12 ).

Variability

Proximal part of spermathecal duct shorter than or as long as, and sometimes (several specimens from Gegharkunik Prov.) longer than median part. In two females from Aragats Mt. and Lchashen, posterior pouches of gynatrial sac only slightly shorter than in nominotypical subspecies; in remaining specimens they much shorter; in another female from Aragats Mt., posterior pouches extremely small. Both posterior pouches in two females from Tambovka and Lchashen, and only right pouch in female from Bakuriani with small shapeless patches of sclerotisation inside. One female examined from China having brownish membrane corresponding to diagnosis of the new subspecies, and at the same time rather long posterior pouches with inner margins passing into posterior margin of gynatrial sac.

Remarks

The single female examined from Khabarovsk Territory completely matches the diagnosis of the new Transcaucasian subspecies. The taxonomic position of Far Eastern populations of C. impressus needs to be clarified, but as yet I place this specimen together with the Chinese female, partially corresponding to the subspecific diagnosis, in the new subspecies that can be polytopic. On the other hand, it is impossible to exclude erroneous labelling of these two specimens collected more than 100 years ago. The following data may be indirect evidence of mislabelling of these two specimens. Judging by the original labels from cotton pads, specimens from the vicinity of “Kizilziarat” Mt. and from the banks of the Khor Riv. were collected by different persons, by Ya.G. Efremov in the first case and by N.E. Efremov in the second case; based on the registration numbers on the original labels, these specimens were received in the ZISP in 1910; judging by the identity of the paper, handwriting and ink of the labels under all these specimens, they were mounted simultaneously by one preparator who may have confused the labels, and pinned under one specimen from Armenia the label for the Khabarovsk Territory, because of the identical surnames of the collectors. The doubt about the correctness of labelling in the case of the specimen from Sichuan is based on the fact that no more specimens of C. impressus are known from northwestern, northern or north-eastern territories of China, and the distances to the nearest localities where the species was found in the north-east of Mongolia and in eastern Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are more than 2000 and about 2500 km in a straight line, respectively.

Measurements

Body 4.70–7.15 in length, 3.10–4.30 in width; pronotum 2.55–3.80 in width; head 1.25–1.57 in width; ocular index 3.27–3.60; length of antennal segments I–V: 0.27–0.35: 0.35–0.55: 0.38–0.57: 0.53–0.77: 0.64–0.87.

Etymology

The name is derived from the Latin Hajastania, denoting Armenia which included the largest part of the subspecies range in antiquity after the fall of the Achaemenid Empire.

Distribution

Figure 15. Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Russian Far East[?], and China, Sichuan[?].