Arsapnia coyote (Nelson & Baumann)

Baumann, Richard W. & Stark, Bill P., 2017, Variation In The Epiproct Of Arsapnia Decepta Banks, 1897 (Plecoptera: Capniidae), With Comments On Arsapnia Coyote (Nelson & Baumann 1987), Illiesia 13 (1), pp. 1-21 : 17-20

Arsapnia coyote (Nelson & Baumann)

Coyote Snowfly

( Figs. 67-72 )

Capnia coyote Nelson & Baumann, 1987b:487 .

Holotype

♂, (United States National Museum), Little Rock Creek , Cooper Canyon Campground , San Gabriel Mountains , Los Angeles Co., California

http://lsid.speciesfile.org/urn:lsid:Plecoptera.speciesfile.org: TaxonName:4978

Arsapnia coyote: Murányi, Gamboa & Orci, 2014:14

http://lsid.speciesfile.org/urn.lsid:Plecoptera.speciesfile.org: TaxonName:465452

Material examined. USA: California: Los Angeles Co., Little Rock Creek, Cooper Canyon Campground, San Gabriel Mountains , 31 March 1981, R. W. Baumann, J. Stanger, 3♂ ( BYUC). San Bernardino Co., East Fork of West Fork before Mohave River above Silverwood Lake , 9 January 1988, R.W. Baumann, C. R. Nelson, 1♂ ( BYUC) .

Male epiproct (n = 2). Length 575-618 μm, width at midlength 223-236 μm, Body of epiproct expanded into convex ear-like lobes near midlength ( Figs. 67, 70 ). Width across neck 67-83 μm. Shape and general structure similar to those of populations of A. decepta examined. Left side setal spines in clusters of 25-28, and 28-32 on the right.

Tergal process (n = 2). Bearing a slight to moderate notch of posteromedian margin ( Figs. 67-70 ). Dorsolateral lobes bearing patches of small conical tubercles. Width of process across anterior margin 200-280 μm.

Comments. Arsapnia coyote is presently considered an endemic to southern California and the sister species of A. decepta ( Nelson & Baumann 1987b) . The two species overlap in many morphological features including epiproct width and setal spine counts, however two of the three longest epiprocts among specimens studied are of this species, and the epiproct length/width ratios (2.58 and 2.61 respectively, Table 6 ) for these two specimens are the highest observed. Nelson & Baumann (1987b) distinguished the two species, in part, by virtue of a flatter dorsal epiproct surface and smaller epiproct depth (compare Figs. 69 and 72 with Figs. 4 and 18 ). Recently, Heinold et al. (2014) supported recognition of A. coyote as a distinct species based on their report of an average genetic divergence of

1.9% between males of A. coyote and A. decepta .

Figures

Figs. 67-72. Arsapnia coyote male reproductive structures. 67-69. Little Rock Creek, Los Angeles Co., California.70-72. Mohave River, San Bernardino Co., California. 67. Abdominal segments 7-10, dorsal. 68. Epiproct apex and setal spine clusters. 69. Epiproct, oblique lateral. 70. Abdominal segments 7-10, dorsal. 71. Epiproct apex and setal spine clusters. 72. Epiproct apex, lateral.

Figs. 1-6. Arsapnia decepta male reproductive structures, Redstone Creek, Larimer Co., Colorado. 1. Abdominal terga 7-10. 2. Epiproct, dorsal. 3. Epiproct apex, dorsal. 4. Epiproct, lateral. 5. Epiproct, anterodorsal. 6. 7th tergal process, anterodorsal. (ad = anterior declivity; b = base; bs = basal strut; bu = bulb; ds = dorsal sclerite; n = neck; pd = posterior declivity; sc = setal spine cluster; tp7 = tergal process of segment 7; vs = ventral sclerite).

Figs. 13-18. Arsapnia decepta male reproductive structures, 13-15. Bear Canyon, Pima Co., Arizona, 16-18. Carr Canyon, Cochise Co., Arizona.13. Abdominal terga 7-10. 14. Epiproct, dorsal. 15. Setal spine clusters, dorsal. 16. Epiproct, dorsal. 17. Setal spine clusters, dorsal. 18. Epiproct, lateral.