Blaptica dubia(Serville, 1838) and B. interior Hebard, 1921 were considered to be cryptic species. The characteristics originally proposed for their identification are not reliable.Thus the relationship between the tw...Blaptica dubia(Serville, 1838) and B. interior Hebard, 1921 were considered to be cryptic species. The characteristics originally proposed for their identification are not reliable.Thus the relationship between the two species should be re-considered. As a comparative approach and to analyze intraspecific variability, morphological and morphometric methods were performed. Traditional and new characters such as wing shape and pronotum contour were utilized. We found significant differences between both species(p <0.05) in the shape of the wing, but there was an overlap of values. We did not find differences in the body measurements or in the shape and size of the pronotum between the species. The variability gradient does not allow an accurate identification of species neither with the male genitalia or the pronotal macula.Based on the obtained results, B. interior Hebard 1921 is considered to be a junior synonym of B. dubia(Serville, 1838).展开更多
基金funded by the Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental,Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales,Universidad de Buenos AiresCentro Nacional de Diagnóstico e Investigación en Endemo-Epidemias,Administración Nacional de Laboratorios e Institutos de Salud "Dr.Carlos G.Malbrán"
文摘Blaptica dubia(Serville, 1838) and B. interior Hebard, 1921 were considered to be cryptic species. The characteristics originally proposed for their identification are not reliable.Thus the relationship between the two species should be re-considered. As a comparative approach and to analyze intraspecific variability, morphological and morphometric methods were performed. Traditional and new characters such as wing shape and pronotum contour were utilized. We found significant differences between both species(p <0.05) in the shape of the wing, but there was an overlap of values. We did not find differences in the body measurements or in the shape and size of the pronotum between the species. The variability gradient does not allow an accurate identification of species neither with the male genitalia or the pronotal macula.Based on the obtained results, B. interior Hebard 1921 is considered to be a junior synonym of B. dubia(Serville, 1838).
