Pseudophlepsius septentrionalis Zachvatkin 1953

P. septentrionalis Zachvatkin, 1953 stat. n. Figs 1, 8–9, 20–22, 38–43, 60–62, 68–70, 77 Description. In appearance, shape of apodemes, styles, pygofer lobes, and 2 nd valvulae of ovipositor indistinguishable from P. binotatus (Figs 8–9, 20–22, 60–62, 77). Unlike other members of the genus, aedeagus with narrow subapical lobes of stems in lateral view (Figs 38, 40, 42; marked with arrows on Fig. 38) and very wide angular and obliquely cut apices in dorsal view (Figs 39, 41, 43). Since three studied males were collected in widely separated geographical locations (Fig. 1), this suggests that such aedeagus shape is diagnostic character of this taxon. Apical parts of subgenital plates as a rule distinctly shorter than in two other species of Pseudophlepsius (Figs 68–70). Body length: ♂, 4.9–5.7 mm; ♀, 6.3–6.6 mm. Calling signal. Unknown. Hosts. Was collected only twice in addition to the type series, from Hamaecytisus ruthenicus in Rostov Oblast, southern European Russia and from Calophaca soongorica in the southwestern part of the Tarbagatai Mtn. Range, eastern Kazakhstan. The type specimens were apparently collected from H. zingeri (Zachvatkin, 1953). Distribution. Steppes of European Russia and the northern half of Kazakhstan; also, penetrates into the forest zone (Fig. 1). Remarks. The level of differences in aedeagus and subgenital plate shape between P. septentrionalis and the two other taxa is about the same as between the two recognized species of closely related genus Eremophlepsius Zachvatkin, 1924 (Tishechkin, 2023). In addition, their shape remains constant in males from different parts of the range. Also, P. septentrionalis differs from the two other taxa in ecological preferences, as it lives in more northern regions in mixed-grass steppes and even penetrates into the forest zone. On this basis, we consider this taxon a separate species, P. septentrionalis Zachvatkin, 1953 stat. n. The male from the putative type series of P. septentrionalis has shortened and smoothly rounded apodeme lobes (Fig. 20). Still, we believe that this is the result of intraspecific variability or, perhaps, a deformity, since the other two studied males belonging to the same taxon have apodemes of the usual shape. Also in this specimen, the basal part of right style somewhat damaged (Fig. 60), but the left style has typical shape (Fig. 68).