Canarilabis canariensis, Bonczek & Kočárková & Jurado-Angulo & Kočárek, 2025

Canarilabis canariensis View in CoL sp. nov. has been reported from 22 localities (one locality cannot be exactly geolocalised) on Gran Canaria by Bolivar (1893), Chopard (1954), Brindle (1968), Kruseman & Jeekel (1972), Bivar de Sousa & Sakai (1997), and the GBIF database (GBIF.org, 2024). We present records from four other localities (fig. 7). Eleven records were located exactly by GPS coordinates, which allowed the exact altitude of the find to be evaluated. The lowest confirmed altitude is 37 m, and the highest is 1728 m; the average altitude of Gran Canaria records is 972m. Most records were reported from the central mountainous area of the island, several records from lower altitudes in the northwestern part of the island, and one isolated record was located in the southern part of the island in Puerto Rico (https://www.inaturalist.org /observations/1969226).

Canarilabis hierrensis View in CoL sp. nov. has been reported from 19 localities (five localities cannot be exactly geolocalised) on El Hierro by Chopard (1954), Brindle (1968),

Johnsen (1974), Feliu et al. (2012), and the GBIF database (GBIF.org, 2024). We present records from two other localities (fig. 7). Most of the records from El Hierro were located inland in the central part of the island, but there were also a few isolated findings from the western, southern, and eastern parts. Eleven records were located exactly by GPS coordinates, which allowed the exact altitude of the find to be evaluated. The lowest recorded altitude is 77 m, and the highest is 1315 m; the average altitude is 800.5 m.

Canarilabis maxima View in CoL has been recorded from 34 localities (four localities cannot be exactly geolocalised) on Tenerife by Bolivar (1893), Krauss (1892), Burr (1908), Willemse (1936), Chopard (1954), Brindle (1968), Kruseman & Jeekel (1972), Johnsen (1974), Allcard & Valletta (1978, 1982), Beron (2015), and the GBIF database (GBIF.org, 2024). We present records from another five localities (fig. 7). The distribution on the island is not continuous and is concentrated in three mountain areas:

CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY 94 (2025) 180–206

the Teno Mountains in the western part of the island, the eastern part of the Teide Mountains in the central part of the island and the Anaga Mountains in the eastern part of the island. Only one isolated record from Bremeja Mountain comes from the area south of the Teide Mountains ( Brindle, 1968). Twenty records were exactly located by GPS coordinates and allowed the exact altitude of the find to be evaluated. The highest confirmed altitude is 1,700 m, and the lowest is 50 m; the average altitude of the records is 1,095 m.

Canarilabis alata View in CoL has been reported from 19 localities (two localities cannot be exactly geolocalised) on La Gomera by May (1912), Brindle (1968), Johnsen (1974), Bivar de Sousa & Sakai (1997), and GBIF (GBIF.org, 2024). We present records from another seven localities (fig.7). Canarilabis alata View in CoL has been recorded across all of La Gomera except the northwestern part

CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY 94 (2025) 180–206

of the island (fig. 7). Most records were reported from mountainous central parts ( NP Garajonay and surroundings); several records have been published from eastern and southern parts, which are closer to the coast and have lower altitudes. Seventeen records were located exactly by GPS coordinates, which allowed the exact altitude of the find to be evaluated. The lowest reported altitude is 220 m (locality near the Casas de Taguluche, close to the sea) , and the highest altitude is 1,484 m from the locality above Benchijigua village . The average altitude is 847.5 m .

The distribution of Canarilabis on La Palma remains unclear. In 1957, Lundblad found nymphs in Puntallana ( Brindle, 1968) and identified them as Anisolabis maxima . Brindle (1968) revised the material and confirmed Lundblad’s identification, but no other species of Canarilabis were known at this time. Therefore, Bivar de Sousa & Sakai (1997) considered the record questionable because the nymphs are not sufficient for species identification. There are no other records from La Palma; therefore, there is no possibility to confirm which of the species inhabit this island.