Ephemera (Sinephemera) shengmi Hsu, 1937

Lei, Zhi-Ming & Zhou, Chang-Fa, 2024, The subgenus Sinephemera Kluge, 2004 in China (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae: Ephemera Linnaeus, 1758), Zootaxa 5517 (1), pp. 1-68 : 55-58

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5517.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B73493AB-2F80-43B2-9396-218EC54A0472
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C513C56F-052F-C12E-FF11-FB40F13EF972
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Ephemera (Sinephemera) shengmi Hsu, 1937
status

Treatment

Ephemera (Sinephemera) shengmi Hsu, 1937 ( Figs 56–59 View FIGURE 56 View FIGURE 57 View FIGURE 58 View FIGURE 59 , 64 View FIGURE 64 )

Ephemera shengmi Hsu, 1937: 440 (male imagine, male subimagine from Sheng-Mi, Kiangsi, China).

Ephemera shengmi — Gui, 1985: 94; You et Gui, 1995: 98 (male); Zhang et al., 1995: 75; Tshernova et al., 1986: 106 (key); Hwang et al., 2008: 164 (list); Zhou, 2013: 187 (list); Zhou et al., 2015: 235 (list). Tshernova, 1973: 331 (male, first description of nymph).

Ephemera formosana Tshernova, 1952: 235 View in CoL (nec Ephemera formosana Ulmer, 1919 View in CoL ), Synonymized by Tshernova, 1973: 331).

Ephemera (Sinephemera) shengmi — Kluge, 2004: 235 (subgeneric combination).

Description (see Hsu, 1937 and Tshernova, 1973).

Diagnosis: In general, the nymphs and adults of this species are slightly smaller and paler than most species in the subgenus Sinephemera except Ephemera glaucops ( Figs 56 – 59 View FIGURE 56 View FIGURE 57 View FIGURE 58 View FIGURE 59 , Fig. 63 View FIGURE 63 ). Both nymphs and imagines of this species can be identified by their pale abdomen (tergites I – VI with one pair of stripes, tergites VII – X with two pairs, Figs 56 – 57 View FIGURE 56 View FIGURE 57 ) and their stripes are slender and shorter than in other species. In adults, the dots and markings on forewings are fewer and smaller than others, and their hindwings have no dots ( Figs 56 – 57 View FIGURE 56 View FIGURE 57 ). The relatively less curved MP 2 is also a good identification character ( Fig. 58D View FIGURE 58 ). In male imagine, the short penes, short forceps and their segments (especially segment II) are good diagnostic structures ( Figs 58G – I View FIGURE 58 ). In nymph, besides the abdominal stripes ( Figs 59A – B View FIGURE 59 ), this species has curved lateral margins of frons and equal mandibular tusks ( Fig. 59C View FIGURE 59 ). Its tergites I–II has no ridge or spine ( Fig. 59D View FIGURE 59 ).

Comparison: this species is close to European species Ephemera glaucops because both of them have: (1) pale body; (2) short penes (almost covered by styliger plate); (3) relatively short forceps, with a relatively long first segment; (4) abdominal tergites only with black longitudinal stripes; (5) tergites I – II without ridge or spine. However, they can be separated by the stripes on tergite II (stripes on tergite II of E. shengmi ( Fig. 57 View FIGURE 57 ) are much shorter or less distinct than in E. glaucops , Fig. 63 View FIGURE 63 ), male genitalia (penes of E. glaucops are slender and sharper ( Fig. 63C View FIGURE 63 ) than in E. shengmi , Figs 58G–I View FIGURE 58 ), and wings (wings of E. glaucops with clear dots besides the median band ( Fig. 63B View FIGURE 63 ), while wings of E. shengmi without additional dot, Fig. 57 View FIGURE 57 ). In nymph, besides the abdominal stripes, the two anterior projections of frons of E. shengmi are larger and wider (half of the frons, Fig. 59 View FIGURE 59 ) than those of E. glaucops (1/3x of the frons, Fig. 63A View FIGURE 63 ). The male genitalia of E. shengmi are also somewhat similar to that of E. bistria sp. nov. ( Figs 11E – F View FIGURE 11 ), but the latter species is much blacker than the former ( Fig. 10 View FIGURE 10 ).

Remarks:The three above mentioned species ( E. bistria sp. nov., E. glaucops , E. shengmi ) have no distinct oblique stripes on their abdomen, which is unique in the subgenus Sinephemera . This character and short penes are common within the subgenus Ephemera , but their MP 2 and CuA are usually fused and their penes with titillators.

Material examined: China: ♂ imagine (neotype), Nanchang , Jiangxi province, leg. Gui Hong & Da-Shou You, 1980-V-21 ; 1 ♂ imagine, Nanchang , Jiangxi province, leg. leg. Gui Hong & Da-Shou You, 1980-V-25 ; 1 ♂ and 16 ♀ imagines, Jiujiang , Jiangxi province, leg. Gui Hong & Da-Shou You, 1980-V-27 ; 50 ♀ imagines, Lushan Mt. , Jiangxi province, leg. Gui Hong & Da-Shou You, 1980- VII- 3 ; 30 ♀ imagines, Liang-Zhong-Chang, Huoshan county , Anhui province, leg. Xing-Yong Wu, 1983- VII- 5 ; 1 ♀ imagine, Dali harbor, Taojiang county , Hunan province, leg. Hong Gui, 1981-IV-25 ; 10♂ and 10 ♀ imagines, Nengjiang river, Qiqihaer city, Helongjiang province , leg. Ming- Zang Li, 2019- VII- 15 ; 1 nymph, Yan-Jiang town , Jia-Mu-Si city, Hei-Long-Jiang province, 2024- VII- 19 , Leg. De-Wen Gong and Xu-Hong-Yi Zheng .

The types of this species were originally in Dr. Hsu’s collection and lost in the World War II ( Zhou et al., 2015). Here a male imagine from the same province is designated as its neotype.

Distribution ( Fig. 64 View FIGURE 64 ): China (Jiangxi, Anhui, Hunan, Helongjiang); Russia.