Introduction

Caelifera from the Iberian Peninsula have long been studied (Vandelli 1797, Rambur 1838, Bolívar 1876a, 1876b, 1876c, 1900, Cazurro 1888) and their diversity has led to many Spanish, European and American entomologists studying them in detail. The last, particularly, have taken advantage of their more or less sporadic visits to the Peninsula to collect specimens, the result of which has been the publication of many papers on specimens collected within the geographical and political boundaries of the peninsular territories of Spain, Portugal, and the Balearic Islands.

Of particular note among such publications, due to their number, are the catalogues and checklists, annotated to varying degrees, by Clemente et al. 1987, Défaut (1987), Gangwere & Llorente (1992), Gangwere & Morales (1970), Herrera (1982), Ragge (1965)— which were used to make catalogues and checklists at European level, for example, those of Heller et al. 1998 and Schmidt & Lilke (1996).

In these and other lists, several species cited as belonging to the fauna present in the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearic Islands are surprising. In some cases the species are cited as new for Iberian fauna, even though their current known distribution makes their presence doubtful. In other cases, the cited species have been collected just once, often more than a century ago, and have not been collected again even after systematic sampling. Other species are included, despite being excluded from the Iberian fauna by different authors in their revisions. In contrast, the subspecific category is sometimes not included in the lists, though since it affects widely distributed taxa, it is quite important.

Explanation of this has diverse causes. In some cases the lists have been made without the necessary information and with no criticism of extant data. In other cases, mistaken identifications are simply accepted or maintained. On the other hand, due to the geographical position of the Iberian Peninsula, the lists sometimes include alien species which, carried by winds across the Straits of Gibraltar, may arrive in the Peninsula or its islands and be collected sporadically; as a consequence, such species are frequently considered as belonging to the Iberian fauna.

Lastly, it should be taken into account that the Arán Valley, which is located on the northern slopes of the Pyrenees and consequently, outside the Peninsula from a biogeographical point of view, is considered by many to form part of the Iberian Peninsula, as are the species that inhabit it. As a consequence, several species collected in this valley are considered as belonging to the Iberian fauna, which affects their biogeographical category as well as the definition of Iberian fauna.

In view of this situation and with the intention of bringing coherence to the lists of the Caelifera taxa living in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands, and as a first step to a general study of the same, we present a critical catalogue of these species. Using as a starting point the most recent list of Iberian Caelifera fauna (Clemente et al., 1987), ours takes into account the contributions made in the last 20 years.

Material and Methods

The work of Heller et al. (1998), which rested on a thorough review of the literature up to 1998, is the starting point for the present catalogue. But since that work does not take into account the subspecific category, other papers have also been considered: Llorente & Presa (1997) in the case of Pamphagidae, Clemente et al. (1987) for Catantopidae, Ragge & Reynolds (1998) for Gomphocerinae and Schmidt & Lilke (1996) for Oedipodinae. For other groups, several literature sources were consulted.

When conflicting opinions exist concerning the validity of a given taxon, its distribution area, etc., we have generally chosen the most recent opinion. In some cases, especially for several species and subspecies of Gomphocerinae, when one of the proposals includes acoustic production, the date criterion has not been respected, since the sound produced by orthopterans is of high taxonomic value.

The catalogue is organised as follows. First, is a list of the taxa with stable populations in the considered area, as verified by the authors or other specialists. Therefore, these species should be considered as constituents of the fauna of the Iberian Peninsula. If a taxon not appearing in the reference lists is included in this list, the reference which supports its inclusion is mentioned. Species of Iberian fauna considered threatened (Presa et al. 2006) are marked with an asterisk.

Three more lists follow: the first includes the species living in the Arán Valley which are not present in the Iberian Peninsula; the second includes alien species, whose presence in the considered area is doubtful; the third includes the species which, in our opinion, should be removed from the Caelifera taxonomical lists referring to the Iberian Peninsula.

In all cases, the reference that supports the inclusion of each taxon in a particular list is given. Where appropriate, other interesting data, such as the date of the last known capture, the cause of inclusion in the list, etc., are given.

All the lists have been systematically arranged following Heller et al. (1998).

Results

Discussion

For the Oedipodinae, some very recent studies propose new taxa, others propose a change of genus with some genera becoming new synonyms. In our opinion, judgement on these new taxa, as well as on taxonomical changes, should be reserved, since some as yet unpublished information (Larrosa Pérez 2005) offers other possible interpretations. To avoid conflict with the general criteria adopted, the most recent reference has been respected.

As regards species living in the Arán Valley, but not present in the Iberian Peninsula, we believe with almost complete certainty, they are not present in the Iberian Peninsula. In the two considered cases, they are species of very particular distributions and biological demands (Gosálvez et al. 1984, Voisin 2003), which make it virtually impossible for them to be present on the southern slopes of the Pyrenees.

Future consideration should be given to some possible changes to species considered doubtful in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands. Cases of Pamphagidae species based on specimens from northern Africa are, in our opinion, labelling errors (Llorente & Presa 1997). Thus, these species have never been, and never will be, collected in the Iberian Peninsula. As for E. tergestinus and C. variabilis, despite the lack of captures and because they are species living in very particular habitats (Voisin 2003), it is possible that they could be found in still unknown places, as has occurred in other areas (Voisin 2003, Lluciá Pomares 2002) or with other species, as P. platypygius (Presa et al. 2006). The case of the two Chorthippus species is similar to the above: only the original description of Ch. ariasi exists, no specimens reside in any collection. Taking into account the description and the comments made by Bolívar (1908), Ch. ariasi is almost certainly a synonym of Ch. binotatus. Although only one specimen is known (kept at the MNCN in Madrid), the case of Ch. chloroticus is, in our opinion, similar to the above; it should be regarded as a new synonym of Ch. jacobsi, taking into account its morphology, collecting locality and the opinion of Bolívar (1908), who thought it very similar to Ch. biguttulus.

Finally, as regards the Caeliferan fauna living in the Iberian Peninsula, only the species included in the “List of species belonging to the Iberian-Balearic fauna” should be taken into account. Other species, e.g., Bohemanella frigida strandi, Gomphocerippus rufus, Epacromius tergestinus and Celes variabilis, could be added, but only with the relevant notations. For the elaboration of identification keys or other studies, the inclusion or not of alien species should be left to the authors' discretion.