Conochironomus nuengthai sp. n.

(Figs. 2 A; 3A, B)

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:1EF933B0-8EC4-4146-A47B-E250E0D9F1B2

Type-material. Holotype: ♂, slide mounted, uncleared, in Euparal (by Reiss), at ZSM; THAILAND: Chang Mai, Zoo, 19–26.ii.1990 (Malicky). Paratype ♂ as holotype, except 2–9.iv.1990.

Description. MALE (n = 2). Body apparently uniformly brown without delimited thoracic vittae (from specimens mounted uncleared into Euparal. All tibiae paler in distal third; tarsomeres missing. Mensural features as in Table 1. Genitalia (Figs. 2 A; 3A, B) with few median anal tergite setae far anterior to broad base of anal point, which tapers evenly to end near level of inferior volsellae apices. Superior volsella characteristic, somewhat cuneate with gently convex inner and posterior margins, microtrichiose across median 1/3 (both dorsal and ventral); inner rounded apex with 2 stronger, medially directed setae (perhaps absent in some specimens); bare digitiform projection arising dorsally near middle of volsella, curving, then narrowing beyond posterior margin of volsella, ending prior to median apex of volsella. Small tubercle near base of gonocoxite. Median volsella absent. Inferior volsella substantially fused to medial margin of gonocoxite, with recurved simple setae, none directed posteriorly. Gonostylus with strong creases on inner surface (Fig. 3 B).

FEMALE, PUPA, LARVA unknown.

Etymology. Derived from the Thai words nùeng and thai, meaning the ‘first’ Thai species. This combination of a numbering and a location term follows a style used by the group of M. Sasa in naming C. tobaterdecimus (see below) and many other species. However, this approach to naming is not generally recommended. Epithet is to be treated as noun in apposition for the purposes of nomenclature.

Remarks. Both specimens are somewhat damaged, lacking antennae and with no leg complete. Each tibial comb is typical for the genus, with a protruding central spur (Cranston & Hare 1995: fig. 1f). Subtle differences, especially in the shape of the superior volsellae (Fig. 3 A versus Fig. 3 C), led F. Reiss (pers. comm. c. 1996) to differentiate this species from the one below. I concur.