Ephemera (Sinephemera) pictiventris McLachlan, 1894

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 : 35-40

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-053B-C130-FF11-FD48F66CFF1A
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Ephemera (Sinephemera) pictiventris McLachlan, 1894
status

Treatment

Ephemera (Sinephemera) pictiventris McLachlan, 1894 ( Figs 33–38 View FIGURE 33 View FIGURE 34 View FIGURE 35 View FIGURE 36 View FIGURE 37 View FIGURE 38 , 64 View FIGURE 64 )

Ephemera pictiventris McLachlan, 1894: 428 (female imagine, female subimagine; syntypes from Ta-chien-lu, Siao-Lou , Sichuang, China).

Ephemera pictiventris — Ulmer, 1925: 93; Ulmer, 1929: 162; Wu, 1935: 248; Ulmer, 1935–1936: 212; Hsu, 1937: 29 (male imagine, female imagine, female subimagine); Kimmins, 1960: 308 (lecotype designated); Kimmins, 1971: 319 (female imagine, lecotype depository); Gui, 1985: 95; You et Gui, 1995: 105 (male and female imagines); Zhang et al., 1995: 75; Zhou et al., 2003: 70 (first description of nymph); Hwang et al., 2008: 163 (list); Zhou, 2013: 186 (list); Zhou et al., 2015: 234 (list); Kluge, 2004: 237 (list, subgenus incertae sedis).

Description (see Hsu, 1937 and Zhou et al., 2003).

Diagnosis: Nymph: (1) area between ocelli black ( Figs 33A, C View FIGURE 33 , 34A View FIGURE 34 ). (2) Two mandibular tusks subequal in length, longer than head ( Fig. 33 View FIGURE 33 ); length of frons 2.0x width, lateral margins almost straight, anterior margin deeply forked; base of frons slightly wider than apex ( Fig. 34A View FIGURE 34 ). (3) Tergites I–II with median spines, that of tergite II larger ( Fig. 34B View FIGURE 34 ). Gills I–V at posterolateral corner, gills VI–VII at middle. (4) Stripe pattern on abdominal tergites: tergites I–X with pair of very oblique stripes fused together at midline of posterior margin; tergites VII–X with two additional pairs of indistinct stripes in middle, outer one fused with oblique one, middle one is almost straight ( Figs 33A, C View FIGURE 33 ). (5) Sternites II–IX with pair of oblique reddish to black stripes, those on sternites VII–IX slightly straighter than others ( Figs 33B, D View FIGURE 33 ).

Male: (1) Tergites and sternites of abdomen with stripes similar to that of nymph ( Figs 35A View FIGURE 35 , 36A–B View FIGURE 36 ). (2) Forewings with dots on bullae of Sc and first Rs; most crossveins of stigmatic area branched ( Figs 35 View FIGURE 35 , 37E View FIGURE 37 ); forewings and hindwings transparent ( Figs 37E–G View FIGURE 37 ), A 1 of forewing with ca. 9–10 veinlets ( Fig. 37F View FIGURE 37 ). (3) Foreleg brown, midleg with coxa brown, other parts ocher; hindleg amber ( Fig. 37C View FIGURE 37 ). (4) Tergites I–II with median spine indistinct in some individuals, that of tergite I sometimes absent ( Fig. 37D View FIGURE 37 ). (5) Forceps reddish brown to deep brown except apex; segment III about 1.5x of segment IV; both of them relatively short ( Fig. 37H View FIGURE 37 ). Two penes totally separated, slender, apices acute, lateral margins sclerotized ( Figs 37H–I View FIGURE 37 ). Penes black.

Female imagine: Tergites and sternites of abdomen have similar stripes to nymph or male imagine, but stripes usually paler, narrower and unfused, those of abdominal segments VII–IX usually indistinct or invisible ( Figs 35B View FIGURE 35 , 36C–D View FIGURE 36 ). Wings transparent, few to none branched stigmatic crossveins ( Figs 38A–B View FIGURE 38 ). Tergites I–II have median spines but in most cases they are invisible ( Fig. 38C View FIGURE 38 ).

Comparison: This species is very similar to E. obliqua sp. nov.; the separation of them is provided in remarks of the latter species (see above). The most distinct difference between those two species is the spine of tergite II, which is larger in E. obliqua sp. nov. ( Figs 25C–D View FIGURE 25 ) but smaller in this species ( Figs 37D View FIGURE 37 , 38C View FIGURE 38 ), and the penes of E. obliqua are slightly wider and stouter ( Figs 25F–G View FIGURE 25 ) than those of E. pictiventris ( Figs 37H–I View FIGURE 37 ). The tergite VI of E. obliqua usually have median stripes, and lateral margins of tergites VIII–IX have black stripes ( Fig. 24 View FIGURE 24 ).

Remarks: The two median pairs of stripes on abdominal tergites VII–IX ( Figs 33C View FIGURE 33 , 36A View FIGURE 36 ) were first demonstrated by Zhou et al. (2003) but missing in previous reports.

Material examined: China: 6 ♂ imagines, Hu– Tiao George, Lijiang municipality, Yunnan Province , leg. Chang-Fa Zhou, 1996-V-26; 4 ♂ 8 ♀ imagines 4 nymphs, An-Zi-He protection, Congzhou municipality, Sichuan province , leg. Wei Zhang, 2016- VII- 29; 1♀ imagine, same as the former, leg. Xu-Hong-Yi Zheng & Peng-Xu MU, 2021- VII-28; 15 nymphs, Jiu-Zhai-Gou scene, Sichuan province , leg. Bei-Xing Wang, Xing-Yu Ge and Yu Wang, 2019-VII- 9–14; 5 ♂ and 14 ♀, 10 nymphs, 69 m to gate of Xi-Ling snow mountain scene, Dayi county, 2021-VII-14; 1 ♂ male, Heping village, Baoxin county , 2021-VII-17; 20 ♀ imagines, 5 nymphs, Mu-Ge-Xie scene, Ganzi county , 2021-VII-24; 1 ♀ imagine, Xing-Du bridge, Ganzi county , 2021-VII-25, all leg. Xu-Hong-Yi Zheng & Peng-Xu MU in Sichuan Province .

The types of this species are in the British Museum ( Kimmins, 1971).

Distribution ( Fig. 64 View FIGURE 64 ): Western China (Yunnan, Sichuan).