Page 6 - vol64-2011-215-222deidun

a) Pronotum

b) Elytra

Figure 4. Plot of canonical variates 1 against 2. a) Represents the analysis of the pronotum shape in relation to the
sites; b) represents the analysis of the elytra shape in relation to the sites. MAL, Malta; SIC, Sicily; VUL, Vulcano.

that specimens from the Egadian Islands were distinct In contrast, the populations sampled in Vulcano and
from all other P. bimaculata specimens coming from Lipari corresponded to the description for the subspe-
France and western Italy and grossly similar to those cies P. bimaculata marcuzzii, which is distinguished
from the Pelagian Islands. P. bimaculata populations from the nominal subspecies through the morphology of
sampled within this study at Favignana did not exhibit its larger aedeagus and its darker dorsal coloration. P.
morphological features markedly different from those of bimaculata marcuzzii is considered by Marcuzzi (1996)
the nominal subspecies, although such an observation as simply a melanic form of the nominal subspecies. A-
must necessarily be substantiated by a more comprehen- liquò et al. (2006) and Aliquò and Soldati (2010) sub-
sive sampling effort of the P. bimaculata populations in scribe to such a hypothesis, and in fact synonymise such
question. a subspecies with the nominal one. Löbl and Smetana
(2008) consider the subspecies marcuzzii as a valid one,
From a morphological perspective, all the P. bimacu- differently from de Jong (2010). The observation and
lata populations sampled on the Sicilian mainland (i.e. the morphometric analysis of the P. bimaculata speci-
those sub natio concii, sensu Canzoneri, 1968), Lampe- mens sampled within the context of this study in Vul-
dusa, Favignana and the Maltese Islands exhibited the cano and Lipari support the systematic validity of as-
features typical of the nominal subspecies.

220