Orchamus yersini subsp. yersini Brunner von Wattenwyl 1882
Creators: name: Ünal, Mustafa
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2016
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Orthoptera
Pamphagidae
Orchamus
Orchamus yersini
Orchamus yersini yersini (brunner von wattenwyl, 1882)

description: Orchamus yersini yersini (Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1882)
(Figs. 35, 270, 274, 296–297)
Porthetis Raulinii Lucas, 1854: Yersin 1860: 529.
Pamphagus Yersini m.: Brunner von Wattenwyl 1882: 197, 200.
Pamphagus Yersini Brunn.: I. Bolívar 1899: 596; Werner 1901: 282.
Orchamus yersini (Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1882): Kirby 1910: 349; Uvarov 1942; Ramme 1951: 411, 412; Descapms & Mounassif 1972: 252; Presa & Garcia 1983: 20; Naskrecki & Ünal 1995: 408, partim; Heller et al. 1998: 60; Massa 2009: 87, 99; Hollier 2008: 110; Hollier & Maehr 2012: 73.
Orchamus yersini yersini Brunner, 1882: Willemse & Kruseman 1976: 142; Otte 1994: 177.
Orchamus davisi Uv.: Ramme 1951: 411, 412, partim.
Orchamus davisi Uvarov, 1949: Karabağ 1958: 125, partim.
Acinipe davisi (Uvarov, 1949): Weidner 1969: 162, partim; Demirsoy 1973: 427, partim; Demirsoy 1977: 84, partim.
Acinipe davisi (Uvarov, 1949): Naskrecki & Ünal 1995: 408.
Type locality. Greece: Crete, Candia. Lectotype: male (NMW).
Material examined. TURKEY: Asia Minor, Gülek, Taur. Cilic., 1897, 1♂, 2♀ (leg. M. Holtz) (det. Mistshenko as Orchamus davisi) (ZIN); GREECE: [Crete], Candia, 1855, 1♂ (Lectotype), 1♀ (Paralectotype) (leg. D. Dohrn), another label: Candia, Prof. Zeller, Coll. Br.v.W., nr. 10986 (det. Br. v.W. as P. yersini m.) (det. Ramme as Orchamus yersini) (NMW); SYRIA: Syrien, 1♂, Türk, 1870 (det. Holdhaus as P. yersini) (NMW); without label, 1♂, 1♀ (det. Ebner as Pamphagus yersini) (NMW); Gödl. Syria, 1856, 2♀ (det. Holdhaus as P. yersini) (NMW); Ladakia, 1♂ (leg. D. Leuthner) (det. Br. v.W. as P. yersini) (det. Ramme as Orchamus davisi Uv.) (det. Massa as Orchamus davisi Uvarov); Syria, 1♂, 1♀ (ZIN); LEBANON: Beyruth [Beirut], 1♂ (det. Holdhaus as P. yersini) (det. Ramme as Orchamus yersini) (NMW); Beirut, nr. 32, 1♀ (leg. Tindermann) (det. Br. v.W. as Pamphagus yersini) (NMW); Beiruth, 1879, 2♀ (leg. Začh); Beyruth, 1♀; Beirut, 1♂, 1♀ (leg. Lederer) (det. Br. v.W. as Pamphagus yersini) (female det. by Ramme as Orchamus yersini) (NMW).
Remarks. Lucas (1854: 167) described Orchamus raulinii as “ Acinipe Raulinii, Lucas ” from Candia, Crete after a single female. Yersin (1860: 529) described the male of O. raulinii as “ Porthetis Raulinii Lucas, 1854 ” for the first time after some specimens collected by M. Truqui from Beirut, but it was a misidentification. Brunner (1882: 200) realised this mistake and described “ Pamphagus Yersini m.” after his own material from Candia and Beirut. Brunner (1882) in describing this species also used Yersin’s description, and recorded as Candia, despite Yersin (1860) not giving any record from Candia. However, Brunner had also his own material (Brunner 1882: 201) gave them as “c.m.” [collectio mihi] labelled as Candia and Beyruth (see Material examined above). Therefore he gave the distribution of this species both Candia and Beirut. On the other hand Brunner (1882: 197) gave O. raulinii Lucas in the key with a question mark under his new species, O. yersini although he stated (Brunner 1882: 201) the differences between O. raulinii and O. yersini. Uvarov (1942: 347) stated that Brunner introduced a confusion by quoting the distribution of O. yersini as “Candia (Yers. c.m.). Ausserdem in Beiruth (c.m.)” and Brunner’s Crete record was due to a mistake. Therefore he proposed (Uvarov 1942: 348) “Beyrut” as the type locality of O. yersini. But this cannot be considered a valid lectotype designation according to the rule of the ICZN (Article 76.2). Ramme (1951: 411) giving the only male collected from Candia as “Typus” designated the lectotype and the type locality of this species, but Harz (1975: 108) gave the type specimens as syntypes again “Typ: ♂♀” and the type locality as Candia. According to Hollier (2008) the male holotype of O. yersini was shown as in the NHMUK London by the OSF that time (Eades et al. 2016). Descamps & Mounassif (1972: 252), Willemse & Kruseman (1976: 142) and Massa (2009: 87) gave the type specimens data as “Candia, ♂ holotype, ♀ allotype”. Actually there is a holotype label on the male and an allotype label on the female collected from Candia in the NMW, but this labelling is certainly incorrect. As mentioned by Hollier (2008) the original description was based on both sexes (more than one specimen). Therefore it is not possible to be a holotype.
On the other hand it was considered that “ yersini ” is a replacement name for “ raulinii Yersin, 1860 ” (nec. raulinii Lucas, 1854) (Hollier 2008) probably because of the dubious description of O. yersini (Brunner 1882). However, Yersin (1860) described only the previously unknown male of O. raulinii (Lucas), which was in fact a male of O. yersini. Later Hollier & Maehr (2012: 73) corrected this misunderstanding homonymy.
The lectotype male from Candia was designated by Ramme (1951) and all the other syntypes in the collections are paralectotypes. Therefore the type locality is Candia, Crete. Nevertheless, I agree with Uvarov (1942) that there was confusion by Brunner (1882). Probably the confusion derived not only from the quoted distribution of O. yersini but also from the labelling of two types from Candia, Crete (the male lectotype and female paralectotype). This species has never been found from Crete since its description although many important studies were carried out including faunistic ones (Ramme 1927, Descamps & Mounassif 1972, Harz 1975, Willemse & Kruseman 1976: 142, Willemse 1984, Willemse & Willemse 2008, Massa 2009). Moreover, according to Willemse & Kruseman (1976: 143) “it is astonishing that since Brunner’s record of 1882 or the year of the locality label, 1855, no further material from Crete has become available”. Massa (2009: 89) discussed this problem, and according to him “Probably there was an earlier confusion of localities by Dohrn, before Brunner received these specimens”. I think it is sufficiently clear that there is a mislabelling of the lectotype of this species and the correct type locality should be Beirut. It should be corrected by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
The Gülek population from Turkey in the ZIN undoubtedly belongs to this subspecies. It is the evidence of its presence in Turkey.
description: Published as part of Ünal, Mustafa, 2016, Pamphagidae (Orthoptera: Acridoidea) from the Palaearctic Region: taxonomy, classification, keys to genera and a review of the tribe Nocarodeini I. Bolívar, pp. 1-223 in Zootaxa 4206 (1) on pages 67-68, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4206.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/208260