Paul Beuk wrote:
I tentatively would say this is canariensis after examination of the genitalia. Unfortunately, the images provided by Carles-Tolrá, when he re-instated it as valid species, are not quite comparable for both species. Firstly, the images of speciosa proper are much darker than those of canariensis which makes it difficult to discern the different structures very well. Secondly, the image of the speciosa genitalia supposedly in ventral view, is much more posteriorly directed than that the corresponding image for canariensis. If I were to give orientation (anatomically; so as if the cerci were located posteriorly), canariensis would have images in posteroventral and anteroventral directions (90 degree difference); speciosa would have them in posteroventral and ventral directions (45 degree difference). Most structures I can see I can match in the images for canarienses (including the apparently smaller surstyli, that remain well separated) but I cannot say they might not match that of speciosa. I need to get my hands on a true speciosa for dissection...
By the way, what was the exact date these specimens were collected (and were they collected the same day; one headless, the other complete)?