# P. Wahlbergi & P. Ocellata



## MantisSouth (Oct 18, 2005)

Alright.. all over the internet.. I've seen these variations of these names..

Pseudocreoboter Wahlbergi

Pseudocreobotra Wahlbergi

Pseudocreoboter Ocellata

Pseudocreobotra Ocellata

Which is it?


----------



## Andrew (Oct 18, 2005)

Pseudocreobotra


----------



## MantisSouth (Oct 18, 2005)

For both?


----------



## Christian (Oct 19, 2005)

Hi.

Yes, they are both valid species. There is a third, _Pseudocreobotra amarae_, but I did not seen that one for myself yet.

Regards,

Christian


----------



## Orin (Oct 19, 2005)

The male genitalia of 'both' are the same so the only name that's valid is the older one: Pseudocreobotra ocellata


----------



## Orin (Oct 19, 2005)

Oh yeagh, the species name NEVER starts in a capital letter.


----------



## Christian (Oct 19, 2005)

Hi.

Orin wrote: "The male genitalia of 'both' are the same"

I did not manage to look at the genitalia yet. However, there are some distributional and morphological differences, so it would be premature to reject _wahlbergii_. However, if you know a paper on this issue I am not aware of, please let me know.

There are a few cases where the male genitalia of two closely related species are not distinguishable, however, the femelas clearly show differences. I remember a case in the genus _Catasigerpes_. So, just a generic revision may clarify the situation (or not...). The possibilities are: 1. the three species are maintained; 2. at least _wahlbergii _may become a subspecies of _ocellata_; 3_. ocellata _is the only, very variable species.

Regards,

Christian


----------

