Paragus ( Pandasyophthalmus ) abrogans Goeldlin de Tiefenau, 1971

Paragus ( Pandasyophthalmus) abrogans Goeldlin de Tiefenau, 1971 View in CoL

( Figs 45–46 View FIGURE 45–46 )

Paragus ( Pandasyophthalmus) abrogans Goeldlin de Tiefenau, 1971: 272–278 View in CoL

Examined specimens. 1♂, Asir, Abha, Hay Al-Nusub ( Abha Farm Centre), 19.vi–9.vi.2013, Malaise trap, H.A. Dawah ( CERS) ; 1♂, Asir, Abha, Hay Al-Menhel , 24.vii.2013, Malaise trap, H.A. Dawah ( CERS) ; 1♂, same locality but 13.v–3.vi.2015 ( CERS) ; 1♂, Asir, Abha, Madenate Al-Ameer Sultan, Hay Al-Sad , 1–20.xi.2013, Malaise trap, H.A. Dawah ( CERS) ; 1♂, Abha, Al-Souda, Bani Mazen , 10.vi.-9.vii.2013, Malaise trap, H.A. Dawah ( CERS) .

Distribution. This is the first record from Saudi Arabia. It was described from Iran (Polur) and is further recorded from Greece, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uzbeckistan ( Speight 2020).

Remarks. The biology of P. ( Pandasyophthalmus) abrogans is unknown. This species was erroneously synonymized with P. rufocinctus (Brunetti) by Thompson & Ghorpadé (1992). Claussen & Weipert (2004) provided the most comprehensive and reliable key separating this species from other European Paragus (e.g. Pandasyophthalmus species). Vujic et al. (1998) and Claussen & Weipert (2004) provided figures of the male terminalia of P. abrogans and P. rufocinctus , which clearly separated the two species. Also Speight (2020) disagreed with Peck (1988) who considered P. abrogans as a synonym of P. albipes Grimmerthal (described from Estonia and Latvia and not subsequently cited elsewhere), as this synonymy had no explanation or justification. In consequence Speight (2020) considered P. ( Pandasyophthalmus) abrogans to be a distinct species and not a junior synonym of P. albipes as suggested by Peck (1988).