Posted by Paul Beuk on 08-10-2015 13:28
#10
I tentatively would say this is
canariensis after examination of the genitalia. Unfortunately, the images provided by Carles-Tolrá, when he re-instated it as valid species, are not quite comparable for both species. Firstly, the images of
speciosa proper are much darker than those of
canariensis which makes it difficult to discern the different structures very well. Secondly, the image of the
speciosa genitalia supposedly in ventral view, is much more posteriorly directed than that the corresponding image for
canariensis. If I were to give orientation (anatomically; so as if the cerci were located posteriorly),
canariensis would have images in posteroventral and anteroventral directions (90 degree difference);
speciosa would have them in posteroventral and ventral directions (45 degree difference). Most structures I can see I can match in the images for
canarienses (including the apparently smaller surstyli, that remain well separated) but I cannot say they might not match that of
speciosa. I need to get my hands on a true
speciosa for dissection...
By the way, what was the exact date these specimens were collected (and were they collected the same day; one headless, the other complete)?
Edited by Paul Beuk on 08-10-2015 13:29