Togoperla fortunati (Navas)

(Figs. 15‐20)

Paragnetina fortunati Navas, 1926:106 .

Holotype ♂ (MNHN), Kweiyang [Guiyang], Guizhou Province, China

Togoperla grahami Banks:1940:176.

Holotype ♂ (USNM), Lin Ngai Si, near Kuanshien [Guanxian], Sichuan Province, China

Material examined. China: Kwieyang, Kouy‐ Tcheou, Fujian Province, 1906, P.P. Cavalerie and Fortunat, 1 ♂ (MNHM, T. fortunati holotype) . Sichuan Province, Lin Ngai Si, near Kuanshien, 3500’, 20 September 1930, D.C. Graham, 1 ♂ (USNM, T. grahami holotype) . Sichuan Province, Emei Shan, 710 m, 20 June 1979, 1 ♂, 1 ♀ (ZIAS) . Sichuan Province, Won Chuan, August 1938, D.C. Graham, 1 ♀ (USNM) . Sichuan Province, Kuanshien, 3‐13 July 1937, 1 ♂, 3 ♀ (MCZ) .

Adult habitus. General color brown to dark brown. Ocellar area covered by dark brown quadrangular spot and area forward of M‐ line with smaller triangular dark area (Fig. 15); occiput pale brown. Pronotum dark brown with scattered rugosities. Wings brown with pale costal area. Femora banded, pale basally and dark apically; tibiae dark brown.

Male. Forewing length 20‐22 mm. T 5 produced into an emarginate lobe; T 6‐9 with large mesal, membranous field covered with fine setae (Fig. 16). Projecting portion of hemitergum about twice as long as basal callus in dorsal aspect, gradually tapered to rounded tip in lateral aspect (Fig. 18). Aedeagus cylindrical, relatively straight and armed with microtrichia and small triangular spines over most of apical half (Fig. 17); apex terminating in a slender cylindrical lobe armed with fine brown setal spines; basolateral lobes absent.

Female. Forewing length 24‐26 mm. Subgenital plate covers most of sternum 9 and is slightly emarginate or entire on posterior margin (Fig. 19). Vagina constricted near midlength; accessory glands less than half as long as vagina (Fig. 20).

Egg. Outline oval. Collar absent. Chorion smooth, similar to T. canilimbata .

Larva. Unknown.

Remarks. This species is known from southwest China, primarily from the T. fortunati and T. grahami

21

22

type series. Sivec et al. (1988) listed it as valid, but erroneously placed T. canilimbata as a synonym; had T. canilimbata and T. fortunati remained synonyms, the former species would have priority. As discussed above under T. canilimbata, these species are now regarded as distinct, primarily due to differences in leg banding patterns and distribution.

25