Baetis (Rhodobaetis) heptapotamicus Brodsky, 1930

Sroka, Pavel, Godunko, Roman J., Novikova, Eugenia A. & Kluge, Nikita J., 2012, Contribution to the knowledge of the subgenus Rhodobaetis Jacob, 2003 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae: Baetis) from Central Asia. Part 1, Zootaxa 3311, pp. 42-60 : 46-50

Baetis (Rhodobaetis) heptapotamicus Brodsky, 1930

Baetis heptapotamicus Brodsky, 1930 : Zoologische Jahrbücher, 59: 693, figs 16–18

Baetis mycetopis Brodsky, 1930 syn. nov.: Zoologische Jahrbücher, 59: 691, figs 12–15, nec Kluge, 1982: Vestnik Zoologii, 3: 17, figs 16–28

Baetis heptapotamicus Brod. apud Traver, 1939: Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4 (11): 49 [taxonomy]

Baëtis heptapotamicus Brod. apud Uéno, 1955: Fauna and flora of Nepal Himalaya: 314 [faunistics]

Baetis heptapotamicus Brodskij [sic!] apud Jacob & Zimmermann, 1978: Entomologische Nachrichten, 22 (6): 81 [distribution]

Baetis mycetopis Brodskij [sic!] apud Jacob & Zimmermann, 1978: Entomologische Nachrichten, 22 (6): 81 [distribution]

Baetis heptapotamicus Brodsky, 1930 : Novikova, 1987b: Podenki semeistva Baetidae (Ephemeroptera) fauny SSSR, 70, figs 23.1–23.10 [description of larva and adults, discussion on synonymies] (placed within subgenus Baetis ); Novikova & Kluge, 1987: Vestnik Zoologii, 4: 8 [observation of studied material] (placed within subgenus Baetis ); Kluge, 1995: A catalogue of the type specimens in the collection of the Zoological Institute RAS, 12 [type observation]; Godunko et al. 2004b: Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia, 47 (3–4): 243 [list of species]; Tal’skikh et al. 2007: Trudy Chatkal’skogo biosfernogo gosudarstvennogo zapovednika, 6: 125 [faunistics]; Soldán & Godunko, 2008: Annales Zoologici, 58 (1): 100 [biogeographical analysis]

Baetis mycetopis Brodsky, 1930 : Kluge, 1995: A catalogue of the type specimens in the collection of the Zoological Institute RAS, 13 [type observation]; Godunko et al. 2004b: Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia, 47 (3–4): 242 [list of species]; Soldán & Godunko, 2008: Annales Zoologici, 58 (1): 100 [biogeographical analysis]

Baetis mycetopis apud Kustareva & Ivanova 1984: Bentos pritokov ozera Issyk-Kul’: 21 [faunistics]; Kustareva, 1988: Izvestiia Akademii nauk Kirgizskoi SSR, 4: 84 partim

Distribution. Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan.

Type series. Together with B. issyksuvensis, K. Brodsky (1930) described another two species belonging to the subgenus Rhodobaetis , which we synonymize herein on the basis of our study of the type series of both species and additional fresh material (for details see below).

Holotype of Baetis heptapotamicus fixed by monotypy. The species was described from a single male imago: “1 3 Imago Talassgebirge. Fluß Akssu, 23./7. 1927, N. Kusnezow” [Talas Mts., Ak-Suu stream, July 23, 1927, leg. N. Kusnezow] ( Brodsky 1930: 693, figs 16−18). Kluge (1995: 13) reported one male imago marked as B. heptapotamicus in the ethanol collection of ZIN RAS and marked this specimen as “ holotype ” of B. heptapotamicus . The specimen possesses the original K. Brodsky’ label: “N 118 Аксу. Верхний край каньона. У ручья, вечером 23/ VII – 1927. Н. Кузнецов” [Ak-Suu stream. Upper margin of canyon. At the stream, evening July 23, 1927, leg. N. Kuznetsov], and one label added by N. J. Kluge in 1995: “ Baetis heptapotamicus Brodsky, 1930 Holotypus ”. Two microscopic slides are also housed in the same collection: first − with genitals, forewing, fore and middle legs, labeled as: “N 118 Аксу 23.VII.1927. Н. Кузнецов Baetis heptapotamicus Brodsky, 1930 Holotypus ”; second – with hind wing: “ Holotypus Baetis heptapotamicus Brodsky, 1930 ” (both were mounted and labeled by N. J. Kluge in 1995).

Description of holotype of Baetis heptapotamicus [in addition to Brodsky (1930) and Novikova (1987b)]. Due to long-term storage (initially in formaldehyde and later in ethanol) the color of the preserved male imago B. heptapotamicus has faded and differs markedly from the original color described by Brodsky (1930).

Head and thorax uniformly dark brown. Shape of turbinate eyes same as stated by Brodsky (1930, figs 16a, b). Turbinate eyes moderately high, facetted surface relatively elongated, approximately 1.5 times longer than wide. Facetted surface light reddish-orange; ring around base of facetted surface not preserved; shaft lighter than facetted surface, brownish.

Legs yellowish-brown; femora brown, darker than tibiae and tarsi. General relative tarsal segments length ratio: 1>2>3>4 ( Fig. 7 ). Wings hyaline, transparent. Venations of both wings yellowish-brown. Pterostigma almost transparent, opaque with 4 distinct cross veins (see Brodsky 1930: 694, fig. 18a). Hind wings 2.5−2.6 times longer than wide, with rounded apex; costal projection well developed; three longitudinal veins, cross veins absent (right wing slightly damaged). Third vein ends at approximately half of wing length; one small intercalary vein between second and third veins ( Fig. 5 ).

Abdomen markedly pale, uniformly light brown except last two brown colored segments; specific pattern of terga, consisting of bright red spots and pair of brown dashes and dots ( Brodsky 1930) are not preserved; sterna also without visible traces of dashes and dots. Cerci lost.

Genitals brown (styliger including unistyligers) to light brown (segments I −III of gonostyli). Shape and propositions of individuals segments of genitals generally correctly depicted by Brodsky (1930: 694, fig. 17) ( Fig. 3 ). Unistyligers only slightly elongated, almost as long as wide (distance between unistyligers smaller than unistyliger width at its base); segment I of gonostylus with parallel margins; segment II slender, elongated, only slightly extended towards apex; segment III small, oval or slightly elongated, with distinctly truncate inner margin ( Fig. 3 ). Size (length): body 7 mm; forewing 7 mm.

Holotype of Baetis mycetopis fixed by monotypy. The species was described on the basis of the single male imago collected in Tashkent City ( Uzbekistan) in October 1929 (probably collected at the University building, as this is briefly referred to in the original description). Kluge (1995: 13) published information about the deposition of this specimen in the collection of ZIN RAS and marked this male imago as “ holotype ” of B. mycetopis ; further published detailed information about the content of the original labels being: “ Uzbekistan, Tashkent, Kabinett, x – 1929 leg. K. Brodsky” (original K. Brodsky’ label) and “ Baetis mycetopis Brodsky 1930 Holotypus ” (label added by N. J. Kluge in 1995). Some body parts of the male imago were mounted on slides with Canada balsam ( Figs 4, 6 , 8 ) and accompanied by the original K. Brodsky’ label “ Baetis Ташкент 29” [ Baetis Tashkent 29], and also by N. J. Kluge’ label “ Baetis mycetopis Br Holotypus Uzbekistan, Tashkent Kabinett X – 1929 leg. K. Brodsky”. In the same tube together with the male imago there is also a female imago which is not mentioned in the original description. Its systematic position remains unclear.

Description of holotype of Baetis mycetopis [in addition to Brodsky (1930) and Novikova (1987b)]. Color features of the male imago described by K. Brodsky are evidently (as is the case with B. heptapotamicus ) not preserved due to long-term conservation in formaldehyde and ethanol (as is the case of B. heptapotamicus ). Therefore, the color of the male specimen described here differs from the original description.

Head and thorax light brown to brown, mesonotum intensively brown. Turbinate eyes flattened due to fixation process, visible part of facetted surface uniformly light brown. Shaft color almost invisible, however shaft is presumably lighter in comparison with facetted surface, uniformly colored.

Legs uniformly light yellow to yellow; forelegs light brown. Only femora of forelegs with preserved diffused reddish-brown spot distally. General relative tarsal segments length ratio: 1>2>3>4 ( Fig. 8 ). Wings hyaline, transparent. Venations of both wings yellowish-brown. Pterostigma almost transparent, opaque with 3−4 cross veins (see Brodsky 1930: 692, fig. 15a). Hind wings 2.5 time longer than wide, with rounded apex ( Brodsky 1930: 692, 15b; see also our Fig. 6 ). Costal projection well developed. Three longitudinal veins; cross veins absent. Third vein ends at approximately half of the wing length. Right hind wing with one small intercalary vein between second and third veins ( Fig. 6 ); left hind wing with one intercalary vein between first and second veins, and two intercalaries between second and third vein (see Brodsky 1930: 692, fig. 15b).

Color pattern of abdominal segments figured and described by Brodsky (1930: 692, fig. 13) only partly preserved; general abdomen color light yellow to yellow, except segments IX −X (uniformly yellowish-brown to light brown). Terga II −VI with yellowish-brown area laterally and two central oblique dots of the same color on a light (yellow) background. Sterna with unclear central light line. Cerci lost.

Shape and proportions of individual segments of genitals depicted incorrectly by Brodsky (1930: 692, fig. 14). Author reported and figured presence of rounded protuberances in inner margin of gonostylus segment I. In specimen studied this segment always has parallel margins, without subapical protuberances (see below; Fig. 4 ).

Genitals light brown. Each unistyliger approximately as broad as long, distance between unistyligers smaller than unistyliger width at its base. Gonostylus segment I cylindrical, with parallel margins (right segment slightly tapering towards apex); segment II slender, elongated, curved inwards and slightly extended towards apex; segment III small, oval with distinctly truncate inner margin ( Fig. 4 ).

Size (length): body 7.2 mm; forewing 6.7 mm.

Synonymy of B. heptapotamicus and B. mycetopis . The synonymy of these species was proposed for the first time by Novikova (1987b: 70). Our investigation of the types of both species and additional reared material collected by N. J. Kluge in Talas Mts. ( Kyrgyzstan) in 1986 and by N. J. Kluge and E. A. Novikova in Hissar Mts. ( Tajikistan) in 1981 reveals that B. mycetopis is conspecific with B. heptapotamicus .

We have found no significant differences in the structure of the genitals of type specimens of B. heptapotamicus and B. mycetopis (see above; Figs 3, 4 ). A comparison of the structure of the gonostyli segments of B. mycetopis from K. Brodsky´s collection with material collected and reared in Central Asia in 1981−1986 shows that they significantly overlap (see also Novikova 1987b: 164, fig. 23.1; Fig. 4 ). Moreover, differences in the shape of the turbinate eyes of B. heptapotamicus and B. mycetopis reported in the original descriptions are caused by the fixation process only (the same situation as in B. issyksuvensis ). The color of the facetted surface of the turbinate eyes in B. heptapotamicus specimens reared in 1981−1986 is reddish-orange or slightly darker; with the shaft mainly unicolorous, being of approximately the same color as the facetted surface or paler. This combination of characteristics can be assumed for K. Brodsky´s types. As stated above, during more than 70 years of conservation the color of both males described by K. Brodsky changed substantially, as Novikova (1987b: 70) has already pointed out. However, even the original color of the body of the males described by Brodsky (1930) is similar in both species, bright red, with shades of brown, and with distinct contrasting pattern on the abdominal segments.

Thus, the following new synonymy is proposed: Baetis (Rhodobaetis) heptapotamicus Brodsky, 1930 (= B. mycetopis Brodsky, 1930 , syn. nov.).

The larvae and reared imagos ascribed by Kluge (1982: 17, figs 16−28) to B. mycetopis appear to belong to a different, new species. A description of this material, as well as a description of the larvae and reared imagos of true B. heptapotamicus (= B. mycetopis ) has been prepared but not yet published (preliminary descriptions are available in Novikova 1987b). These issues will be dealt with in incoming contributions.

Nomenclatural remarks and the type locality of B. heptapotamicus . Baetis mycetopis and B. heptapotamicus were described in the same paper by Brodsky (1930) on pages 691 and 693 respectively. The synonymy of these species proposed earlier by Novikova (1987b: 70) in an unpublished manuscript of a doctorate thesis cannot be considered as a valid nomenclatural act, since the work containing this note does not meet the criteria for publication in the sense of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Article 8.5), hence the author cannot be considered the First Reviser (Article 24.2.1). Nonetheless, the proposal of Novikova (1987b) regarding the usage of the specific name B. heptapotamicus as a senior synonym we consider as reasonable for the following reasons:

The male imago of B. heptapotamicus is better preserved. The turbinate eyes maintain their original shape and are not flattened. The genitalia are not damaged; the proportions of the individual gonostyli segments are not changed. Thus, the designation of this specimen as the name-bearing type is justified (Recommendation 24A of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature);

The usage of the species name B. mycetopis may lead to unwanted confusion in the future, since this epithet has been used for at least two different species in the literature; the first being B. heptapotamicus (see the list of synonyms above), the second ascribed by Kluge (1982: 17, figs 16−28) to B. mycetopis appears to belong to a different (probably new) species.

Thus, based on the Principle of Priority and the Principle of the First Reviser (Articles 23 and 24 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) we use the species name B. heptapotamicus as a valid name.

The original description of B. heptapotamicus had been based on the single male imago which is the holotype (according to the Article 73.1.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature).

Holotype: male imago (preserved in 75% ethanol; genitals, fore and hind wings, fore and middle legs on slides), Kyrgyzstan, Talas Region [Таласская область], Western Tian Shan Mountains, Talas-Ala-Too Ridge [Таласский-Ала-Тоо], Chatkal mountain range [Чаткальский хребет], Ak-Suu stream (left tributary of the Chatkal River [Чаткал]), at least above 2480 m a.s.l., 23.vii.1927, leg. N. Kuznetsov.

The holotype is housed in the collection of ZIN RAS.

Description of Baetis (Rhodobaetis) taldybulaki sp. nov. Figures 9–46

Figures

FIGURES 7 – 8. Holotype of Baetis heptapotamicus Brodsky, 1930 (7); holotype of Baetis mycetopis Brodsky, 1930 (8): 7, 8, right foreleg.

FIGURES 3 – 6. Holotype of Baetis heptapotamicus Brodsky, 1930 (3, 5); holotype of Baetis mycetopis Brodsky, 1930 (4, 6): 3, 4, genitals (ventral view); 5, 6, right hind wing.

FIGURES 9 – 13. Baetis taldybulaki sp. nov., male imago, paratypes: (9 – 11, 13); female imago, paratype (12): 9, head, (lateral view); 10, head (dorsal view); 11 a, 11 b, genitals (two separate specimens, ventral view); 12 – 13, right hind wing.

FIGURES 14 – 21. Baetis taldybulaki sp. nov., larvae: 14, labrum (dorsal view); 15, pedicel (dorsal view); 16, surface of pedicel (dorsal view); 17, surface of scape (dorsal view); 18, tip of maxillary palp (ventral view); 19, paraglossa and glossa (ventral view); 20, labial palp (ventral view); 21, labial palp (dorsal view).

FIGURES 22 – 32. Baetis taldybulaki sp. nov., larvae: 22, paraglossa (ventral view); 23, glossa (ventral view); 24, canines and prostheca of left mandible (dorsal view); 25, canines and prostheca of right mandible (dorsal view); 26 – 32, tergalii shape (dorsal view), roman numbers belongs to the respective tergalius pairs.

FIGURES 33 – 38. Baetis taldybulaki sp. nov., larvae: 33, outer margin of femur, proximal part (dorsal view); 34, outer margin of femur, distal part (dorsal view); 35, surface of femur, central part (dorsal view); 36, claw, subapical seta (dorsal view); 37, claw (ventral view); 38, protuberance on claw (ventral view).

FIGURES 39 – 46. Baetis taldybulaki sp. nov., larvae: 39, posterior margin of abdominal tergum III (dorsal view); 40, posterior margin of abdominal tergum VIII (dorsal view); 41, surface of abdominal tergum VIII (dorsal view); 42, inner margin of tergalius IV (dorsal view); 43, paraproct (ventral view); 44, teeth on the inner margin of paraproct (ventral view); 45, egg (general view); 46, chorionic surface and micropyle.