Home > Phylum selection > Arthropoda > Neuroptera
Home How to cite this site Terms & conditions Disclaimer Contact Site tutorial / Help Links	Chrysoperla carnea Subspecies The species is member of a species complex of very closely related species, but subspecies are not recognized. Original description Original spelling: Chrysopa carnea Stephens JF (1835-1837). Illustrations of British Entomology; or a Synopsis of Indigenous Insects. Mandibulata Vol. VI. Baldwin and Cradock, London. (p. 103, issued in 1836) Latin diagnosis: "Flavescente-incarnata, abdominis dorso rufo punctato, antennis pedibusque flavis, alis abbreviatis nervis rufescentibus." Locus typicus: "near London, and in Scotland". Type is in the British Museum of Natural History. Synonyms Synonymy of Chrysoperla carnea (only relatively clear synonyms): Chrysopa carnea Stephens, 1836 (p. 103) Chrysopa carnea carnea Stephens, 1836 Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens, 1836) Chrysoperla carnea carnea (Stephens, 1836) Anisochrysa carnea (Stephens, 1836) Chrysopa affinis Stephens, 1836 (see explanation below) Chrysoperla affinis (Stephens, 1836) Chrysoperla kolthoffi auct. nec Navás, 1927 (a frequent misidentification) Tentative synonyms (placed in synonymy for the sake of nomenclatural stability): Chrysopa microcephala Brauer, 1850 Chrysopa vulgaris Schneider, 1851 Chrysopa lamproptera Stein, 1863 Chrysopa pillichi Pongracz, 1913 Chrysopa proxima Navás, 1918 Cintameva angelnina Navás, 1931 Chrysopa ferganica Navás, 1933 Chrysopa pictavica Lacroix, 1933 Chrysopa carnea adaptata Navás, 1934 Chrysopa lundbladi Tjeder, 1939 Chrysopa canariensis Tjeder, 1939 Chrysopa maderensis Tjeder, 1939 Chrysopa shansiensis Kuwayama, 1962 Chrysoperla carnea nanceiensis Séméria, 1980 Note: This taxon belongs to a complex of morphologically virtually identical species (cryptic species) that differ in their mating vibration types ("songtypes"). Thus, the different species can only be separated alive, and museum specimens (i.e. types!) cannot be assigned with confidence to species. Thus, the many names given to members of the species complex cannot be assigned to the biological species even if well-preserved type specimens are available. The names given in the upper part of the synonymy above can be assigned to the present species with more confidence, because these taxa have all been described from the UK (see explanation below). All other names listed above may refer to this taxon or any of the cryptic species. There are altogether four different songtypes in this species complex in Europe (Cc1 to Cc4, Cc stands for "Chrysoperla carnea"), and it remains unclear which scientific names should be applied to them. There are different opinions, also including the description of new names. The type locality of the nominal Chrysopa carnea and Chrysopa affinis is the UK and from there three songtypes, Cc1, Cc2 and Cc4, are known. Thus, all names for lacewings of this species complex based on UK specimens must refer to either Cc1, Cc2 or Cc4. Song type Cc1 appears to be identical with the species named Chrysoperla lucasina (Lacroix, 1912) which can also be identified on morphological grounds. The types of the taxa described from the UK (i.e. "carnea" and "affinis") do not appear to be Chrysoperla lucasina and consequently must be songtype Cc2 or Cc4. Henry et al. (2002) argue that both taxa, "carnea" and "affinis", are conspecific, the former being the winter form and the latter being the summer form (the species undergoes a color change during winter diapause) and belong to Cc4. Based on the short descriptions ("carnea" is described as rosy and yellow, while "affinis" is described as green) I am inclined to agree with this notion. However, Stephens (1836) writes that he collected the specimens of both species near London in June. Thus, all specimens should normally be summer forms. Consistent with this, some authors doubt the synonymy of "carnea" and "affinis" (e.g. Canard and Thierry (2007) who regard "affinis" to be Cc4 and "carnea" to be Cc2). Obviously, this is a very complicated case of taxonomic confusion and is special, because even the type specimens cannot help much, because the essential differences (the songs) can only be observed in live specimens. I think that this issue cannot be resolved (support for each notion is available), but should be decided, because the different species need unequivocal names. The notion of Henry et al. (2002) has the advantage that the type specimen for the songtype Cc2 has been chosen after the songtype has been established in the live animal. Thus, at least this species would have a "safe" holotype. Therefore, I follow here Henry et al. (2002). The songtype Cc3 has also been described as new species, Chrysoperla agilis, mainly because the other available names cannot safely be identified with any of the songtypes. This songtype appears to be a mainly southern European species, and thus some of the names in the above tentative synonymy for Chrysoperla carnea (especially those based on French or Spanish specimens) might actually be older names for this species. But because this matter might remain unclear forever, I accept here the new species descriptions for songtypes Cc2 and Cc3, and include all other names in the synonymy of Chrysoperla carnea. In summary, I accept the following assignment of names to the European songtypes: Cc1: Chrysoperla lucasina Cc2 ("Slow motorboat"): Chrysoperla pallida Cc3 ("Maltese"): Chrysoperla agilis (not recorded from Germany) Cc4 ("Motorboat"): Chrysoperla carnea Identification Distribution Biology This page has been updated on July 3, 2011 This site is online since May 31, 2005 Copyright © by Nikola-Michael Prpic. All rights reserved.