Metaleptobasis diceras ( Selys, 1877 )

Ellenrieder, Natalia Von, 2013, <p> <strong> A revision of <em> Metaleptobasis </ em> Calvert (Odonata: Coenagrionidae) with seven synonymies and the description of eighteen new species from South America </ strong> </ p>, Zootaxa 3738 (1), pp. 1-155: 29-32

publication ID

http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3738.1.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:77D1A6F6-C320-442B-AF31-83324E5EAF3B

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E187ED-662A-FFA7-D7A8-FC20E653F8FF

treatment provided by

Felipe

scientific name

Metaleptobasis diceras ( Selys, 1877 )
status

 

Metaleptobasis diceras ( Selys, 1877)  

Figs. 1f View FIGURE 1 ; 3f View FIGURE 3 ; 4f View FIGURE 4 ; 5f View FIGURE 5 ; 6a View FIGURE 6 ; 8f View FIGURE 8 ; 9f View FIGURE 9 ; 10f View FIGURE 10 ; 11f View FIGURE 11 ; 12f View FIGURE 12 ; 13b View FIGURE 13 ; 14d

Leptobasis diceras Selys, 1877: 102–103   [8–9 reprint] (description ♂ ♀; ♂ missing S7–10).

Metaleptobasis diceras Calvert (1907: 386   ; inclusion in genus);— Calvert (1909: 197–198, Pl. VI, figs. 106–107; perhaps in part, illustrations of mesanepisternal horns of a possible ♂ torso from Brazil, Bahia, with distal abdominal segments of a Telagrion longum   glued to it);— Sjöstedt (1918: 21; comparison with M. amazonica   );— Cumming (1954: 29–31; inclusion in key to males, proposed grouping);— Heckman (2008: 396–397, fig. 3.1.456; in key, in part, illustration of ♂ mesanepisternal horns and genital ligula; illustrations from Calvert 1909 correspond to Telagrion longum   );— Garrison & von Ellenrieder (2009: 48; mention);— Garrison et al. (2010: 284, figs. 1828, 1832; mention, illustrations of ♀ posterior lobe of pronotum and mesanepisternal horns).

Metaleptobasis manicaria Williamson, 1915: 603–608   ; Pl. 38 figs. 13–18; Pl. 39 figs. 1–2 (description ♂, illustrations mesanepisternal horns, S10, and wings);— Ris (1918: 130; comparison with M. foreli   );— Geijskes (1932: 260–261; description ♀, illustrations posterior lobe of pronotum and mesanepisternal horns);— Cumming (1954: 29–31; inclusion in key to males, proposed grouping);— Rácenis (1955: 18, fig. 2a; in key, illustrations posterior lobe of pronotum and mesanepisternal horns of ♀);— Michalski (1988: 46; mention from Trinidad, inclusion in key);—De Marmels (1990: 327; mention);— De Marmels (1992b: 64 View Cited Treatment , fig. 46; mention, illustration of ♀ posterior lobe of pronotum);— Daigle (2004: 197; comparison with M. lillianae   );— Lencioni (2006: 165, figs. 103 A–H; mention, wing scan of ♂, reproduction of drawings of ♂ S10, posterior lobe of pronotum and mesanepisternal horns of ♂ ♀);— Heckman (2008: 402–403, fig. 3.1.465; in key, illustrations from Williamson 1915 of ♂ wings, mesanepisternal horns, and S10)— Garrison & von Ellenrieder (2009: 49; mention);— Garrison et al. (2010: 284, figs. 1824,1825, 1829, 1834, 1835, 1837, 1839; mention, illustrations of ♂ head, posterior lobe of pronotum, pterothorax, wings, genital ligula, and S10);— Tennessen (2012: 95; mention). New synonymy.

Metaleptobasis fernandezi Rácenis, 1955: 18   , fig. 2b (description ♀, key, illustrations posterior lobe of pronotum and mesanepisternal horns);—De Marmels (1990: 327; mention);— Heckman (2008: 399; in key, in part; fig. 3.1.460 on page 398 from De Marmels 1992b corresponds to M. bicornis   ). New synonymy.

Telagrion diceras   — Lencioni (2006: 198, figs. 132 A–D; in part, illustration of syntype ♂ mesanepisternal horns and genital ligula).

Types. Lectotype ♂ * designated here: BRAZIL, Pará {1°27'S, 48°29'W}, Bates   leg., [ IRSNB]; 1 ♀ paralectotype *: same data [ IRSNB]. GoogleMaps  

Specimens examined. Total: 66 ♂, 15 ♀: 1 ♂ lectotype, 1 ♀ (he) paralectotype; TRINIDAD, St. Andrew County: 17 ♂, 2 ♀ (he), forest cut and forest 2 mi SE of Valencia on Eastern Main road (10°37'26''N, 61°10'55''W, GoogleMaps  

42 m), 7 iv 1980, J.A. & RWG leg. [ RWG]; 2 ♂, same but [NE]; 2 ♂, same but [ USNM]; 1 ♂, same but [ FSCA]; 1 ♂, 7 mi E Valencia (10°39'36''N, 61°7'48''W) GoogleMaps   , 7 iv 1965, TWD [ TWD]; 1 ♂, same but [ DRP]; 1 ♂, Manzanilla Ward, Tributary Oropuche River , 7 mi E Valencia {10°38'N, 61°6'W GoogleMaps   , 20 m}, 15 iv 1965, TWD leg. [ FSCA]; 2 ♂, same but   16 iv 1965, [ RHMN]; 1 ♂, same but [ RWG]; 8 ♂ paratypes of M. manicaria, Cumuto   {10°35'N, 61°12'W GoogleMaps   , 57 m}, 8 iii 1912, E.B. Williamson, L.A. Williamson & B.J. Rainey leg. [ UMMZ]; 18 ♂ paratypes of M. manicaria   , same but   10 iii 1912 [ UMMZ]; 2 ♂ paratypes of M. manicaria   , same but [ USNM]; 4 ♂ paratypes of M. manicaria   , same but [ FSCA]; 1 ♀ (he), swamp just N of Sangre Grande, on Eastern Main road (10°34'N, 61°8'W, 44 m) GoogleMaps   , 13 i 1981, RWG leg. [ RWG]; VENEZUELA: 1 ♀ (he), no locality   , xii 1941, P.J. Anduze leg. [ FSCA]; Delta Amacuro State: 1 ♀ (he) holotype of M. fernandezi, Jotacuay   , shaded forest along swamps and small streams   , 18 xii 1952, F. Fernández Y. & J. Rácenis [ MIZA]; GUYANA, Barima-Waimi Region, 1 ♀ (an), Mabaruma {8°12'N, 59°47'W GoogleMaps   , 13 m}, 27 xii 1945 [ BMNH]; Potaro-Siparuni Region, 1 ♀ (an), Kamana {4°50'N, 59°56'W GoogleMaps   , 1002 m}, 6 i 1946 [ BMNH]; SURINAM, Sipaliwini Dis.: 1 ♂, Sipaliwini, large savannah, Mauritia swamp {2°6'N, 56°2'W GoogleMaps   }, 11 vi 1972, D.C. Geijskes leg. [ RMNH]; 2 ♂, same but   , 30 vi 1972 [ RMNH]; 1 ♀ (he), same but   15 vi 1972 [ RMNH]; 1 ♂, same but small pool in forest   , 11 iii 1961, D.C. Geijskes [ RMNH]; BRAZIL, Pará State: 1 ♀ (he), Floresta Nacional de Carajás, Parauapebas , Buritizal I (6°5'13''S, 50°8'50''W, 682 m) GoogleMaps   , 7 ix 2006, N. Ferreira, Jr. & L.L. Dumas leg. [ DZRJ]; 2 ♂, same but   23 ix 2007, N. Ferreira, Jr. & V. Alecrim leg. [ DZRJ]; 1 ♀ (he), same but (6°4'57''S, 50°8'5''W, 682 m) GoogleMaps   , 25 iii 2006, N. Ferreira, Jr. leg. [ DZRJ]; Maranhão State: 1 ♂, Carolina, Serra Grande (7°42'8''S, 47°24'12''W), malaise trap GoogleMaps   , 13 xii 2001, F.L. Oliveira & J. Vidal leg. [ INPA]; Rondônia State: 1 ♂, Porto Velho, T 5 aleatorio (8°46'S, 63°54'W, 86 m) GoogleMaps   , 13 v 2010, Nogueira & Mendes leg. [ MZUSP]; 1 ♂, 1 ♀ (he), Abuná {9°42'S, 65°23'W GoogleMaps   , 112 m}, 25 iii 1922, J.H. Williamson & J.W. Strohm leg. [ USNM]; 1 ♂, 1 ♀ (he), same but [ FSCA]; 1 ♀ (he), same but   10 iii 1922 [ UMMZ]; Bahia State: 1 ♀ (he), Bahia {12°59'S, 38°31'W GoogleMaps   }, M. Berol leg. [ RMNH]; Mato Grosso State: 1 ♂, Barra do Tapirape {14°51'S, 57°45'W GoogleMaps   , 187 m}, xii 1965, B. Malkin leg. [ RMNH]; PERU, Madre De Dios Dep. : 1 ♂, Manu, Parque Nacional Manu, Pakitza, Radial II, saw grass bog {11°55'S, 71°15'W GoogleMaps   , 250 m), 17 ix 1989, J. Gelhaus [ USNM]; 1 ♀ (he), Explorer's Inn on Río Tambopata , 39 km SW Puerto Maldonado, main trail (12°50'18''S, 69°17'59''W, 300 m) GoogleMaps   , 21 vii 2002, DRP & N. Smith leg. [ DRP]; 3 ♂, Pakitza, Reserved Zone , Parque Nacional Manu, T 2 to R2 to T1 to base camp (11°55'48''S, 71°15'18''W, 250 m) GoogleMaps   , 17 ix 1989, J.A. Louton leg. [ USNM]   .

Lectotype designation for Metaleptobasis diceras   . To establish the correct application of the name I examined the male and female syntypes from IRSNB, and in order to preserve stability of nomenclature and ensure a consistent application of the name, I hereby designate the male syntype illustrated here ( Figs. 1f i View FIGURE 1 ; 3f i View FIGURE 3 ; 4f i View FIGURE 4 ; 5f i View FIGURE 5 ; 6a i View FIGURE 6 ; 8f i View FIGURE 8 ) as lectotype of Metaleptobasis diceras   to act as the unique name-bearing type of this taxon. Original type labels accompanying lectotype are as follows (handwriting in italics): [Pará] [ Bates   ]. Thorax is pinned, head and S4-6 are glued to a card, and S1–3 placed inside a small vial. Additional labels accompanying the specimens include: [Syntype / Leptobasis diceras Selys   /1877 ♂] [Desseiné par /Santos 2–x–1964] [Lectotype /designated 10/2012 /by N. von Ellenrieder].

Characterization. Head. Labrum mostly pale; extension of black on dorsum of head limited; postocular lobes slightly angled ( Fig. 1f View FIGURE 1 ); eyes in life green dorsally and brown ventrally ( Fig. 13b View FIGURE 13 ). Thorax. Pronotum anterior lobe ( Figs. 4f View FIGURE 4 ; 5f View FIGURE 5 ) smooth; anterior area of propleuron with a sub-vertical crest (l.c.), prominent and denticulated (in all examined specimens from Trinidad, Venezuela, Guyana, Surinam, lectotype and paralectotype from Pará, Brazil, and some specimens from Peru) to low and smooth with denticulation restricted to ventral portion of crest to absent (in remaining specimens from Brazil and Peru); propleuron with a sub-vertical crest parallel and posterior to the denticulated crest (l.c.); anterior and middle lobes of pronotum separated dorso-laterally by a groove (g.); anterior margin of middle lobe of pronotum smooth; pronotum posterior lobe in males and andromorphic females trilobed, with median lobe with a short conical dorsal prominence, and in heteromorphic females bilobed or trilobed with median lobe directed dorsally with margin sinuous antero-dorsally, lateral lobes shorter than medial lobe; mesanepisternal horns with bases adjacent ( Fig. 4f View FIGURE 4 ); in males and andromorphic females ( Figs. 4f i View FIGURE 4 – iii; ix; 5f i–v; x) horns as long as about 1.5 times mesostigmal plate width, of medium thickness, slightly compressed antero-posteriorly, directed antero-dorsally at an angle of about 45° with dorsum, with tips rounded, in heteromorphic females ( Figs. 4f View FIGURE 4 iv–viii; 5f vi–ix) horns limited to transverse bases with antero-lateral free portion short or absent; mid-dorsal dark stripe as wide as about 0.25 of mesanepisterna, with sides about straight, slightly widening posteriorly ( Fig. 3f View FIGURE 3 ); Pt sub-rectangular, with anterior and posterior sides longer than distal side ( Fig. 6a View FIGURE 6 ). Abdomen. Male genital lobe short, less than 0.50 of anterior hamule height, smoothly curved ( Fig. 8f View FIGURE 8 ); male posterior hamule digit-like and small, with at most only tip surpassing ventral margin of genital fossa in lateral view; curvature of basal segment of genital ligula marked by a slight concave depression; genital ligula distal segment pear-shaped, distinctly widened sub-apically, apex with a shallow u- or v-shaped incision, with a narrow ectal fold (e.f., Fig. 8f View FIGURE 8 ); posterior margin of female S8 sternum smooth, lacking any denticles, spines, or processes, distal end of ovipositor reaching apex of cercus to slightly longer than cercus ( Fig. 9f View FIGURE 9 ); medial portion of male S10 posterodorsal margin ( Figs. 10f View FIGURE 10 ; 11f View FIGURE 11 ; 12f View FIGURE 12 ) projected posteriorly, with a longitudinal slit, and dorsal prominence curved surrounding slit, with margins thickened and apressed; male cercus cylindrical at base, then depressed dorsoventrally, in dorsal view ( Fig. 10f View FIGURE 10 ) curved medially gradually forming an arch of about uniform width, slightly widened sub-apically and then constricted proximally to apex; cercus tip rounded in dorsal view ( Fig. 10f View FIGURE 10 ), with a small point directed ventrally on medial end ( Figs. 11f View FIGURE 11 ; 12f View FIGURE 12 ); ratio of male cercus length to S10 maximum length in lateral view 1.3–1.5; ratio of male cercus length to paraproct length in lateral view 0.60–0.70; male paraproct in lateral view ( Fig. 12f View FIGURE 12 ) with sides about parallel along medial third and slightly widened at sub-quadrate tip; tip with a transverse subapical ridge on medial surface ending on a ventral bicuspidate apical tooth directed medially ( Figs. 10f View FIGURE 10 ; 11f View FIGURE 11 ).

Dimensions. Males (n 10): Hw 20.9 ± 0.5 [19.8–21.4]; abdomen 36.2 ± 0.8 [35–37.8]; total length 43.7 ± 1 [41.9–45.1]. Females (n 10): Hw 22.2 ± 0.7 [21.2–23.5]; abdomen 35.9 ± 0.6 [35–36.8]; total length 43.5 ± 0.5 [42.9–44.2].

Diagnosis. Metaleptobasis diceras   shares head dorsum with black pattern limited to isolated stripes, base of mesanepisternal horns adjacent, and presence of two sub-vertical crests on anterior portion of propleuron with M. lillianae   , M. longicauda   , M. silvicola   , and M. truncata   . In M. diceras   and M. lillianae   the anterior crest originates as a continuation of a longitudinal latero-ventral crest on propleuron extending dorsally, separated from anterior margin of anterior lobe of pronotum, while in M. longicauda   , M. silvicola   , and M. truncata   it originates as a ventral extension of anterior margin of anterior lobe of pronotum. Metaleptobasis diceras   differs from all of them by genital ligula distal segment pear-shaped in ventral view ( Fig. 8f View FIGURE 8 ; vs. subrectangular, Figs. 8p–q View FIGURE 8 , aa, ad), and further from M. lillianae   by distal free portion of horns directed anterodorsally or reduced ( Figs. 4f View FIGURE 4 ; 5f View FIGURE 5 ; directed laterally in M. lillianae   , Figs. 4p View FIGURE 4 ; 5p View FIGURE 5 ), pterothoracic mid-dorsal stripe about as wide as 0.25 of mesepisterna ( Fig. 3f View FIGURE 3 ; vs. about as wide as 0.33 in M. lillianae   , Fig. 3p View FIGURE 3 ), and by male cercus in dorsal view curved medially and slightly widened sub-apically ( Fig. 10f View FIGURE 10 ; about straight and narrowing to tip in M. lillianae   , Fig. 10p View FIGURE 10 ). It can be further distinguished from M. longicauda   , M. silvicola   , and M. truncata   by anterior and middle lobes of pronotum separated dorso-laterally by a groove (g., Fig. 5f View FIGURE 5 ), vs. separated by a narrow fissure (f., Figs. 5q View FIGURE 5 , aa, ad); from M. longicauda   and M. truncata   by its rectangular Pt, with anterior and posterior sides clearly longer than distal side ( Fig. 6a View FIGURE 6 ), and by its male cercus tip depressed dorso-ventrally ( Fig. 12f View FIGURE 12 ; in M. longicauda   and M. truncata Pt   is trapezoidal, with anterior side shorter than distal side, and male cercus tip is sub-cylindrical, Figs. 6b, c View FIGURE 6 ; 12q View FIGURE 12 , ad), and from M. silvicola   by mesanepisternal horns of males and andromorphic females about as long as 1.5 times the width of a mesostigmal plate ( Fig. 5f View FIGURE 5 ; vs. about twice as long the width of mesostigmal plate, Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 aa), pterothoracic mid-dorsal stripe about as wide as 0.25 of mesepisterna ( Fig. 3f View FIGURE 3 ; vs. about as wide as 0.16, Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 aa), male cercus slightly widened sub-apically and constricted in dorsal view, and tip of male paraproct with ventral bicuspidate tooth pointed medially and with an inner transverse sub-apical ridge ( Figs. 10f View FIGURE 10 ; 11f View FIGURE 11 ; vs. male cercus of uniform width sub-apically in dorsal view, and tip of male paraproct with a single triangular medio-ventral tooth and with two sub-apical ridges, Figs. 10 View FIGURE 10 aa; 11aa).

Andromorphic females (about 15%), share with males the trilobed pronotal posterior lobe ( Fig. 4f View FIGURE 4 ix) and mesanepisternal horns as long as about 1.5 times mesostigmal plate width, of medium thickness, slightly compressed antero-posteriorly, directed antero-dorsally at an angle of about 45° with dorsum, with tips rounded ( Fig. 5f x View FIGURE 5 ). Heteromorphic females (about 75%) differ from males in morphology of both pronotal posterior lobe (bilobed or trilobed with margin sinuous antero-dorsally and posterior margin of median lobe directed dorsally; Figs. 4f View FIGURE 4 iv–viii), and mesanepisternal horns (limited to their transverse bases with antero-lateral free portion short to absent; 5f vi–ix).

Remarks. Calvert (1909: 197–198) described the distal abdominal segments of a male, missing from Selys’s syntype male, from Bahia in Brazil as those of M. diceras   . His illustrations of the mesanepisternal horns agree with those of a Metaleptobasis   , but the description and illustrations of the male caudal appendages do not fit within those of any known species in the genus, and match those of Telagrion longum   instead. The specimen is deposited at the Museum of Comparative Zoology and unfortunately was not available for loan as per Museum’s policy. During his visit to this institution, F. Palacino-Rodriguez kindly examined the specimen at my request and observed (Palacino-Rodriguez in litt.): ‘the abdomen is joined to the rest of the body by a thin piece of wood and the last four segments are different in coloration from the remainder of the abdomen, light brown whereas the remainder of the abdomen is red dorsally. It is evident that S8–10 have been glued to the rest because they are not aligned with the remainder of the abdomen and there are traces of glue.’ I believe that this exemplar represents a chimera, with the abdomen of a specimen of Telagrion longum   mistakenly attached to the torso of a Metaleptobasis   specimen. Calvert did not provide descriptive notes of the head and thorax of this specimen other than mentioning the width of the pterothoracic mid-dorsal dark stripe, and without direct examination I am unable to determine the identity of that portion of the chimera. However, if Calvert’s drawings of the horns are accurate, it does not correspond to M. diceras   because it shows horn bases as separated (1909: Pl. VI, fig. 106), and in M. diceras   horn bases are adjacent ( Fig. 4f View FIGURE 4 ), and the torso of this specimen could possibly correspond to M. selysi   instead.

Williamson (1915) expressed doubts about the name association made by Calvert (1909) for the specimen from Bahia as M. diceras   . However, based on some minor differences of the color of the head and the proportions of the quadrangle between a series of males he collected in Trinidad with Selys’s description of Leptobasis diceras   , he considered his species to be different and described it as a new species, M. manicaria   . After examining large series of specimens I established that the color of the paler areas of the head of M. diceras   can be variable depending on age and preservation, ranging from pale brown to blue or dark brown, and that the proportions of the male quadrangle of the male syntype of M. diceras   noted by Selys were in error and actually match the measurements of Williamson (ratio of anterior side of quadrangle to posterior side in the lectotype is 0.42 in FW and 0.66 in HW). My examination and comparison of the male types of M. diceras   and M. manicaria   allows me to conclude that they are conspecific, sharing all diagnostic characters of head, thorax, and genital ligula, and therefore I consider M. manicaria   to be a junior subjective synonym of M. diceras   .

Rácenis (1955) described the female of M. manicaria   based on specimens from Jotacuaro, Delta Amacuro, Venezuela, which he identified by comparing associated males with paratypes of M. manicaria   . Even though in his key for females he states that the mesanepisternal horns are ‘separated at base’, in the description he mentions that they are as in the male and his illustration also seems to indicate that their bases are adjacent. In the same publication he described M. fernandezi   , based on a single female collected together with the M. manicaria   series. I believe that Rácenis (1955) described the andromorphic female of M. diceras   as the female of M. manicaria   , and the heteromorphic female of the same species, already described by Geijskes (1932) as M. manicaria   , as M. fernandezi   . Comparison of the paralectotype female of M. diceras   , also a dimorphic female, with the holotype of M. fernandezi   , confirms that they correspond to the same species, and I consider M. fernandezi   a junior subjective synonym of M. diceras   .

Based on Calvert’s (1909) description of a chimera including the abdomen of a male Telagrion longum   as representing a complete male of M. diceras, Lencioni (2006)   transferred Leptobasis diceras   to Telagrion   . Selys’s (1877) Leptobasis diceras   , described based on an incomplete male and a complete female from ‘Para’, Brazil, is with no doubts a Metaleptobasis   , since both lectotype male and paralectotype female show the diagnostic characters of this genus, including an angulate frons (rounded in Telagrion   ), no pale postocular spots (present in Telagrion   ), pterothorax pale orange with dark color limited to a mid-dorsal dark stripe with metallic reflections (olive green-blue lacking metallic reflections in Telagrion   ), vein descending from quadrangle forming an unbroken line to wing margin (broken in Telagrion   ), Fw CuA extending for ten or more cells (for less than nine in Telagrion   ), and male genital ligula lacking a well developed inner fold (with a well developed inner fold in Telagrion   ). Examination of further specimens from Pará State in Brazil and elsewhere allowed me to associate numerous complete males matching all diagnostic characters of the incomplete lectotype male, leaving no doubts about the male appendages illustrated by Calvert (1909) as those of M. diceras   representing a misidentification.

Habitat. Forest near rivers, small streams, swamps, small pools, and bogs.

Distribution. Trinidad and Venezuela south to N Brazil and E Peru ( Fig. 14d).

IRSNB

Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique

USNM

Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History

FSCA

Florida State Collection of Arthropods, The Museum of Entomology

UMMZ

University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology

MIZA

Museo del Instituto de Zoologia Agricola Francisco Fernandez Yepez

RMNH

National Museum of Natural History, Naturalis

INPA

Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazonia

MZUSP

Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Odonata

Family

Coenagrionidae

Genus

Metaleptobasis

Loc

Metaleptobasis diceras ( Selys, 1877 )

Ellenrieder, Natalia Von 2013
2013
Loc

Telagrion diceras

Lencioni, F. A. A. 2006: 198
2006
Loc

Metaleptobasis fernandezi Rácenis, 1955: 18

Heckman, C. W. 2008: 399
Racenis, J. 1955: 18
1955
Loc

Metaleptobasis manicaria

Tennessen, K. J. 2012: 95
Garrison, R. W. & von Ellenrieder, N. & Louton, J. A. 2010: 284
Garrison, R. W. & von Ellenrieder, N. 2009: 49
Heckman, C. W. 2008: 402
Lencioni, F. A. A. 2006: 165
Daigle, J. J. 2004: 197
De Marmels, J. 1992: 64
Michalski, J. 1988: 46
Racenis, J. 1955: 18
Cumming, R. B. 1954: 29
Geijskes, D. C. 1932: 260
Ris, F. 1918: 130
Williamson, E. B. 1915: 608
1915
Loc

Metaleptobasis diceras

Garrison, R. W. & von Ellenrieder, N. & Louton, J. A. 2010: 284
Garrison, R. W. & von Ellenrieder, N. 2009: 48
Heckman, C. W. 2008: 396
Cumming, R. B. 1954: 29
Sjostedt, Y. 1918: 21
Calvert, P. P. 1909: 197
Calvert, P. P. 1907: 386
1907
Loc

Leptobasis diceras

Selys, E. 1877: 103
1877