identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03F7FE24FFD3FFEDFF5518F7E705FA05.text	03F7FE24FFD3FFEDFF5518F7E705FA05.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lestes decipiens Kirby 1893	<div><p>3. Lestes decipiens Kirby, 1893 is bona species</p><p>In order to simplify further reading by making our taxonomic treatments uniform throughout further text, we have to start with a taxonomic revision based on literature only. Both L. praemorsus (sub. L. praemorsa) and L. decipiens were described at the species rank (Selys 1862; Kirby 1893). Their type localities were fairly distant: Manila, the Philippines for L. praemorsus and four localities on the island of Ceylon for L. decipiens .</p><p>The description of L. praemorsus was based on a single female (Selys 1862), which made its further comparison with other taxa difficult. Fraser (1933: 33) incorrectly claimed the existence of the male allotype of L. praemorsus from the current Myanmar, as follows: “The type, a female from Manila, Philippines, is now in the Selysian collection. The allotype, a male, also in the same collection, was taken at Puepoli, Burma, in June”. However, the original description of L. praemorsus (Selys 1862) claimed the male to be unknown. But the male specimen from Puepoli cannot be the allotype, since the allotype is a member of the type series by definition, and the type series contains only specimens upon which the original description was based, regardless of further literature. Hence the additional male specimen in Selys’ collection has no taxonomic value. Fraser’s statement concerning the presumed allotype was also rejected by Lieftinck (1949: 33–34), as follows: “The first reference known to me in which a ♂ of this insect is mentioned, is a note of De Selys on a single specimen from Puepoli, in Burma, of which this author writes: “Le mâle des Monts Carin pris à Puepoli par M. Fea appartient au type de l’espèce par ses appendices anals supérieurs noirs au bout et aussi à l’extrême base” ” [The male from the Carin Mountains taken at Puepoli by Mr. Fea belongs to the type of the species because of its upper anal appendages black at the tip and also at the extreme base]. (Ann. Mus. civ. Genova (2) 10, 1891, p. 495–496). This statement does not necessarily imply that the two sexes, from such remote localities, are really con-subspecific, and since no description of this ♂ was given I have not followed Fraser, who proclaimed that the Burmese ♂ is the allotype of praemorsus ”. It should be added that Lieftinck’s reasons make no sense from the formal reasons: the Puepoli specimen would not be an allotype even if it were conspecific with the holotype and its description were published after the original description. Actually, Lieftinck (1949) just challenged the opinion by the species’ author, de Selys-Longchamps (based on the coloration of the appendages of different sexes!), that the additional Myanmar male was conspecific to the holotype from the Philippines, a doubt which we fully agree (see below).</p><p>Kirby (1893: 566) abstained from providing a factual differential diagnosis of L. decipiens, providing only the following note: “Allied to L. praemorsa (Philippines) and L. quercifolia, De Selys (Menado and Sulu), but apparently distinct”.</p><p>Fraser (1933: 33) assumed L. decipiens as the junior synonym of L. praemorsus, with the following note: “Owing to the gradual development of melanosis, a large number of varying forms are found ranging from pale brown with distinct markings in the teneral condition to melanotic forms which are quite black and exhibit no markings. Kirby’s form, known as L. decipiens, is merely one such as the last, very heavily pruinosed.” This point of view was based on his above discussion and incorrect assumption of the existence of the male allotype of L. praemorsus from the current Myanmar. Note that Fraser did not consider structural characters in the above statement.</p><p>It was Lieftinck (1949) who considered and illustrated both taxa in detail, based on specimens of praemorsus s. str. from the Philippines and New Guinea and specimens of decipiens from the Kodagu District of India and Java. His detailed key and fine drawings of the appendages (Lieftinck 1949: figs 19–20), reproduced here as Fig. 1a–d, show a drastic difference in the paraprocts, which are diverging and concealed under the cerci in dorsal view in praemorsus s. str. (Fig. 1a–b) while directed caudad and well seen in dorsal view in decipiens (Fig. 1c–d). In lateral view, the paraproct of praemorsus s. str (Fig. 1a–b) has the distal part narrower than in decipiens (Fig. 1c–d). In spite of these drastic differences, Lieftinck (1949) considered the taxon decipiens as a subspecies L. praemorsus decipiens rather than a full species L. decipiens . This point of view was assumed by later authors (e.g. Hämäläinen &amp; Pinratana 1999; Orr 2005; Do &amp; Dang 2007; Roland et al. 2010; Tang et al. 2010; Kosterin 2011; 2012a,b; 2014; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2020a; Kosterin et al. 2012; Yokoi &amp; Souphanthong 2014; Kosterin &amp; Chartier 2017; Zhang 2019; Kalkman et al. 2020; Kosterin &amp; Smith 2020; Keetapithchayakul et al. 2023; Dow et al. 2024) and is the current consensus.</p><p>However, Lieftinck was far from being certain in this solution, which was just preliminary, as follows from the following citations: “This statement [by Selys, that the Puepoli male was praemorsus, see the citation above] does not necessarily imply that the two sexes, from such remote localities [the Philippines and Myanmar], are really con-subspecific” (Lieftinck 1949: 33–34). “I prefer for the present to take a very broad view and to recognize two races only; and although the present situation is not wholly satisfactory, any attempt to a further splitting up of the western subspecies decipiens has proved to be futile. On the other hand, a small number of undescribed races seem to exist in the eastern part of the Archipelago, but there is no doubt much intergradation; and a long series of topotypes of praemorsus from the Philippines is necessary to justify the separation of these subspecies.” (Lieftinck 1949: 35–36).</p><p>On the other hand, he wrote: “The two subspecies are easily separated by differences which may be seen from the following comparison and from the drawings” (Lieftinck 1949: 35–36). Curiously, some species assumed by him as distinct in fact exhibited much less difference. For instance, the species described by him 12 years before, Lestes praecellens, is very similar to praemorsus s. str. but not to decipiens (see below).</p><p>Thus, the preliminary solution of Lieftinck (1949) to consider the taxon decipiens as a subspecies of L. praemorsus looks strange even for his time and in view of his own earlier works. We find it not justified, while the original species status of L. decipiens fits much better the evidence presented by Lieftinck (1949) himself. Further in this paper one will see that the anal appendages of L. dorothea are again nearly identical to praemorsus s. str. but not to decipiens . In fact, that Lieftinck’s solution to consider decipiens as a subspecies of praemorsus obscured further species comparisons and resulted to a nomenclatural mess in Lestes .</p><p>Unfortunately, we have no topotypic specimens of praemorsus s. str. from Luzon, an utmost need of which was stated by Lieftinck (1949) still 76 years ago. However, based on a detailed key and illustrations by Lieftinck (1949: figs 19–20; our Fig. 1a–d) showing the profound differences in the paraprocts, we restore the species rank of L. decipiens:</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7FE24FFD3FFEDFF5518F7E705FA05	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Hopkins, Paul;Kosterin, Oleg E.;Phan, Quoc Toan;Keetapithchayakul, Tosaphol Saetung	Hopkins, Paul, Kosterin, Oleg E., Phan, Quoc Toan, Keetapithchayakul, Tosaphol Saetung (2025): Taxonomic reconsideration of Lestes dorothea Fraser, 1924, L. decipiens Kirby, 1893, bona species, L. praecellens Lieftinck, 1937 and L. praemorsus Hagen in Selys, 1862 (Odonata, Lestidae). Zootaxa 5642 (5): 451-475, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3
03F7FE24FFD2FFE8FF051FBEE45AFB30.text	03F7FE24FFD2FFE8FF051FBEE45AFB30.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lestes decipiens Kirby 1893	<div><p>Lestes decipiens Kirby, 1893, bona species</p><p>4. Cambodian findings</p><p>Of the above mentioned taxa of Lestes spp., only L. praemorsus decipiens was hitherto reported from Cambodia, for the first time by Roland et al. (2011), not identified to subspecies, later in many particular publications by the second author (further in the text OEK). Cambodia is an Indochinese country, the flora and fauna of which is still rather poorly studied as compared to the adjacent Thailand and Vietnam. However, for the second decade of XXI century, focused studies of the fauna of Odonata of Cambodia, mostly by OEK, have resulted in 204 species (three of which are still unpublished and seven not identified or described) registered in that country with the number of species expected to approach 300 (Kosterin 2024). Since about one third of Cambodian species of dragonflies and damselflies had still to be revealed, the first author (further in the text PH) undertook two expeditions to the northeastern and eastern Cambodia in 2022 (Hopkins 2024) and 2024. During the latter one, L. dorothea was found, which had not been reported for Cambodia before.</p><p>On 8 vi 2024, whilst exploring an area of the Seima Forest in Modulkiri Province, Cambodia, PH observed up to 4 males of a Lestes species (241078616 and 243313496). No collecting was made. However, preliminary identification of the photographs and video taken based on the pruinescence of the abdominal tip according to Kompier (2025) resulted in Lestes dorothea (Figs 2–3), a species not previously recorded in Cambodia. They were found in a flooded area adjacent to the N76 road, less than 10 km apart from the border with Vietnam (12.190º N, 106.996 º E). The habitat was within evergreen dipterocarp forest and shaded, although some sunshine reached the forest floor in places. There were a deep area of stagnant water with both muddy margins and rich vegetation and an area of slow flowing flood water emanating from a small stream (Fig. 4a).</p><p>This finding inspired OEK to reconsider his Cambodian specimens (12 males, 1 female) collected in preceding years and previously identified as Lestes decipiens and available for examination (seven more such specimens had been earlier donated to Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden and so could not be checked). They originated from eight localities in Koh Kong, Preah Sihanouk, Kampot, Stung Treng and Mondulkiri Provinces of Cambodia. For 10 of them that identification was confirmed but one male turned out to be in fact L. dorothea, which is superficially similar to L. decipiens but differs strongly from it by the paraprocts(Fig.5a–d; note that in this figure, the pruinescence is absent as washed off by acetone). It was collected on 27 vi 2018 in a large open swamp with thick sedge, 15 km NNE of Sen Momorom (12.550º N, 107.258º E) (Fig. 4b), designated as locality M 12 in Kosterin (2020a) and also considered in Kosterin (2018) (It should be noted that both papers (Kosterin 2018; 2020a) unfortunately provided somewhat wrong coordinates (12.5771º N, 107.2587º E) for this place, which comprise an error of 2.8 km to the north). Along with the single male specimen of L. dorothea (Fig. 5a–d), two male specimens of the true L. decipiens, were collected. So, both species co-occurred at that site. In his report of Odonata found at that swamp (Kosterin 2020a), OEK listed L. decipiens (37611012) with the abundance score of 4, which means “abundant (~20–100 [individuals])”. This report was correct, but L. dorothea was missing. This location was also visited by PH on 13 vi 2024, who did not record L. dorothea but did record L. decipiens (241479436). Rather remarkably, PH also recorded Lestes nigriceps Fraser, 1924 at this swamp, without any prior knowledge that OEK had previously visited the place and found this species at exactly the same site in June 2018 (Kosterin 2018; 2020a).</p><p>5. Morphological comparison of L. dorothea and L. decipiens</p><p>The photographs of morphological details of the holotype (Figs 6, 7a–b) and allotype (Figs 7c–d, 8) of L. dorothea, and of the lectotype (Fig. 9) and female paralectotype (incorrectly designated as “the allotype ” by Kimmins (1970)) of L. decipiens (Fig. 10), kept in the collection of Natural History Museum, London (BMNH) provided us a reference for the characters of this species.</p><p>The labels of the type specimens of L. dorothea (Figs 6b, 8b) provided more precise information of the type locality than that presented in the original description (Fraser 1924), and also included the date. The holotype label says: “S. India: / Coorg, / Mercara. / 17-iv-1923. / Maj. F.C. Fraser.” (Fig. 6b), hence Mercara is the species’ type locality, and the allotype label is as follows: “S. India: / Coorg, / Greenfields, Sidapur. / 26-iv-1923. / Maj. F.C. Fraser.” (Fig. 8b). The original identification labels “ L. praemorsa dorothea ” treats this taxon in a subspecific level, which seems to be Fraser’s initial, not published opinion.</p><p>Kirby (1893) did not indicate the holotype of L. decipiens, so Kimmins (1970) designated one of its male syntypes, that from Mahagany, 20 ix 1891, as its lectotype. At the same time he designated a female syntype from 6 th Milestone, Nilavelli Road, 9 xii 1891, as “ allotype ”. However ICZN does not offer an option of subsequent designations of allotypes after original descriptions.Hence the latter female specimen is just one of the paralectotypes. (Also an allotype does not have any taxonomical value above being one of the paratypes.)</p><p>We also analysed two males of L. dorothea from Kerala, which is another Indian state in the southern Western Ghats (Fig. 11).</p><p>Since the Cambodian specimens available to us included only one female belonging to this group, preliminarily identified as L. decipiens, we also examined the females of L. dorothea (Fig. 12 a-e) and L. decipiens (Fig. 12 f-j) from the neighbouring Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. Their identification to species was proved by their being collected while in tandems with males. In sum, morphological details were examined in the following specimens and can be commented as follows:</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7FE24FFD2FFE8FF051FBEE45AFB30	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Hopkins, Paul;Kosterin, Oleg E.;Phan, Quoc Toan;Keetapithchayakul, Tosaphol Saetung	Hopkins, Paul, Kosterin, Oleg E., Phan, Quoc Toan, Keetapithchayakul, Tosaphol Saetung (2025): Taxonomic reconsideration of Lestes dorothea Fraser, 1924, L. decipiens Kirby, 1893, bona species, L. praecellens Lieftinck, 1937 and L. praemorsus Hagen in Selys, 1862 (Odonata, Lestidae). Zootaxa 5642 (5): 451-475, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3
03F7FE24FFD7FFE6FF551EC9E4E6FF44.text	03F7FE24FFD7FFE6FF551EC9E4E6FF44.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lestes dorothea Fraser 1924	<div><p>Lestes dorothea Fraser, 1924</p><p>(Figs 1e, f; 2–3; 5a–d, 6–8, 11, 12a–e)</p><p>Specimens examined. Cambodia: 1 ♂ (Fig. 5a–d), <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=107.258&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=12.55" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 107.258/lat 12.55)">Cambodia</a>, Mondulkiri Province, 15 km NNE of Sen Momorom, a large sedgy swamp, 12.550° N, 107.258° E, 570 m a.s.l., 27 vi 2018, O. Kosterin leg. Thailand: 1 ♂, 1 ♀ (collected in tandem; Fig. 12a–e), Kanchanaburi Province, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=98.6516&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=14.9463" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 98.6516/lat 14.9463)">Kroeng Krawia</a>, 14.9463° N, 98.6516° E, 298 m a.s.l., 2 vi 2024, Q. T. Phan leg. India: 1 ♂ (Fig. 11a–c), Western Ghats, Kerala, Idukki District, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=76.9319&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.0951" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 76.9319/lat 10.0951)">Pambumkayam village</a> env., a pond, 10.0951° N, 76.9319° E, 737 m a.s.l., 4 vi 2024 ; 1 ♂ (Fig. 11d–f), Western Ghats, Kerala, Idukki District, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=76.9345&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.0965" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 76.9345/lat 10.0965)">Pambumkayam village</a> env., a pool under a rocky slope by <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=76.9345&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.0965" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 76.9345/lat 10.0965)">Mankulam Power House</a>, 10.0965° N, 76.9345° E, 760 m a.s.l., 19 vi 2024 . Vietnam: 4 ♂♂, 4 ♀♀, Kon Tum Province, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=107.727&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=14.4304" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 107.727/lat 14.4304)">Chu Mom Ray National Park</a>, 14.4304° N, 107.7270° E, 662 m a.s.l., 11 v 2023, Q. T. Phan leg. (ZCDTU).</p><p>Characters. Males from Cambodia and Thailand. The paraprocts strongly diverge from their bases (Fig. 5b) and so are not seen from above (Fig. 5a). The apex of each paraproct terminates at the base of the cercus inner tooth (Fig. 5b). The length of the paraproct inner margin (as measured from the S10 border to the tip) comprises ca 44 % of the cercus length (as measured from the S10 border to the tip along the insect body axis). In ventral view, the paraproct shape look as almost skewed triangles (Fig. 5b), but the oblique lateroventral view shows them having a broad base and a narrow S-like curved distal part tapering to a subacute apex (Fig. 5d). In lateral view, the paraproct sharply narrows from that very broad basal part to the narrow distal part (Fig. 5c).</p><p>It was important to compare our Cambodian male with the holotype of the species, as well as with two more specimens from the Western Ghats (Kerala) in our disposal.</p><p>The anal appendages of the Cambodian male (Fig. 5a–c) have the same structure as the holotype (Fig. 6c–e). The only noticeable differences are as follows: (i) in ventral view, the paraprocts of the holotype look slightly Slike curved as well (Fig. 6d), and (ii) the central inner expansion of the cercus is better seen in lateral view in the Cambodian male (Fig. 4c) than in the holotype (Fig. 6e).</p><p>Our specimen from Kerala collected on 4 vi 2024 (Fig. 11a–c) had the anal appendages hardly distinguishable from those of the holotype (Fig. 6c–e). The second Keralan specimen collected on 19 vi 2024 (Fig. 11d–f) had the paraprocts with the basal part considerably narrower in lateral view. The Keralan males are larger than the Cambodian/Thai specimens: hindwing 24-25 mm, abdomen with apps 37–38 mm.</p><p>Measurements (in mm). Hindwing 23 in the Cambodian male, 24 in the Thai male, 24–25 in the Keralan males, 26 in the holotype (according to Fraser 1924) abdomen with appendages 35 in Cambodian and Thai males, 37–38 in the Keralan males, 40 in the holotype.</p><p>Females (Figs 7c–d, 8, 12a–e). The cerci in dorsal view are gradually tapering, nearly conical, black at base, lower side and at the very tip (Figs 8c–d, 12b–c). The ovipositor is noticeably concave in lateral view, blackish, with brown areas at base (Figs 8c, 12a). The genital lamina is blackish-brown (Fig. 12c). The dorsal side of S10 is pale with a blackish dorsal stripe (Figs 8d, 12b) but the latter is poorly expressed in the Thai female (Fig. 12b). The prothorax hind lobe is slanting in lateral view (Figs 7c, 10d) and looks trapezoid in dorsal view (Figs 7d, 12e).</p><p>Measurements (mm). Hindwing 24 in the Thai female, 27 in the allotype (Fraser 1924), abdomen (excluding the cerci) 33 in the Thai female, 36 in the allotype.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7FE24FFD7FFE6FF551EC9E4E6FF44	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Hopkins, Paul;Kosterin, Oleg E.;Phan, Quoc Toan;Keetapithchayakul, Tosaphol Saetung	Hopkins, Paul, Kosterin, Oleg E., Phan, Quoc Toan, Keetapithchayakul, Tosaphol Saetung (2025): Taxonomic reconsideration of Lestes dorothea Fraser, 1924, L. decipiens Kirby, 1893, bona species, L. praecellens Lieftinck, 1937 and L. praemorsus Hagen in Selys, 1862 (Odonata, Lestidae). Zootaxa 5642 (5): 451-475, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3
03F7FE24FFD9FFFFFF551CB5E458F9C0.text	03F7FE24FFD9FFFFFF551CB5E458F9C0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lestes decipiens Kirby 1893	<div><p>Lestes decipiens Kirby, 1893</p><p>(Figs 1c–d; 5e–h; 8f–j; 9–10).</p><p>Specimens examined. Cambodia: 2 ♂♂ (Fig. 5e–h), 1 ♀, Mondulkiri Province, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=107.258&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=12.55" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 107.258/lat 12.55)">15 km NNE of Sen Momorom</a>, a large sedgy swamp, 12.550° N, 107.258° E, 570 m a.s.l., 27 vi 2018, O. Kosterin leg. ; 1♂, Stung Treng Province, Thala Barivat District, 32.5 km NNW Stung Treng, 9.5 km NE <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=105.866&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=13.8" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 105.866/lat 13.8)">Sam’ang village</a>, 13.798°– 13.800° N, 105.860°– 105.866° E, 81–85 m a.s.l., a rivulet with a pond, 27 vii 2016, O. Kosterin leg. ; 1 ♂, Kampot Province, Bokor Plateau, ‘Praemorsus <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=104.0392&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.6456" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 104.0392/lat 10.6456)">Pond’</a>, 2.9 km NE Bokor Palace, 10.6456° N, 104.0392° E, 926 m a.s.l., 9 xii 2010, O. Kosterin leg. ; 1 ♂, Kampot Province, Bokor Plateau, the <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=104.0525&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.6583" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 104.0525/lat 10.6583)">Popokvil River</a> at the lower bridge, 4.9 km NE Bokor Palace, 10.6583° N, 104.0525° E, 926 m a.s.l., 18 viii 2011, O. Kosterin leg. ; 1 ♂, Preah Sihanouk Province, 11 km NE Sihanoukville, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=103.607&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.674" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 103.607/lat 10.674)">Kbal Chhay Waterfall</a> env., a pond at the main river right bank, 10.674° N, 103.607° E, 53 m a.s.l., a rivulet with a pond, 26 v 2013, O. Kosterin leg. ; 1 ♂, Koh Kong Province, Thma Bang village, ‘ <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=103.4086&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=11.6703" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 103.4086/lat 11.6703)">Triangularis</a> pond’, 11.6703° N, 103.4086° E, 371 m a.s.l., 25 viii 2011, O. Kosterin leg. ; 3 ♂♂, Koh Kong Province, 13 km ENE Koh Kong, a grassy swamp at ‘ <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=103.0956&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=11.66" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 103.0956/lat 11.66)">Aciagrion Rivulet’</a> source, 11.6600° N, 103.0956° E, 316 m a.s.l., 13 viii 2011, O. Kosterin leg. ; 1 ♂, Koh Kong Province, Koh Kong S suburbs, ‘ Calamorum ponds’ E of the road to <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=102.985&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=11.584" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 102.985/lat 11.584)">Peam Krasaop village</a>, 11.584° N, 102.985° E, 316 m a.s.l., 26 viii 2011, O. Kosterin leg. Thailand: 1 ♀, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Wang Nam Khiao, 15 iii 2015, Makbun leg. ; 1 ♂, Krabi Province, Muang, 1 viii 2018, Makbun leg. Vietnam: 2 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ (collected in tandems; Fig. 8f–j), Quảng Nam Province, Nui Thanh District, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=108.5761&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=15.3757" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 108.5761/lat 15.3757)">Tam My Tay Commune</a>, 15.3757° N, 108.5761° E, 46 m a.s.l., 16 x 2019, Q. T. Phan leg. (ZCDTU) ; 1 ♀, Lam Dong Province, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=107.7082&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=11.5288" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 107.7082/lat 11.5288)">Bao Loc</a>, 11.5288° N, 107.7082° E, 622 m a.s.l., 24 v 2023, Q. T. Phan leg. (ZCDTU) ; 4 ♂♂, Kon Tum Province, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=107.7358&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=15.2091" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 107.7358/lat 15.2091)">Dak Glei</a>, 15.2091° N, 107.7358° E, 1097 m a.s.l., 2 ix 2024, Q. T. Phan leg. (ZCDTU).</p><p>Characters. Male (Fig. 5e–h, 9). The paraprocts are set more or less parallel to each other, so well seen in dorsal view (Fig. 5e). Because of this position, the paraprocts extend well behind the level of the cercus tooth (Fig. 5f). The length of the paraproct inner margin (as measured from the S10 border to the tip) comprises ca 46 % of the cercus length (as measured from the S10 border to the tip along the insect body axis). In ventral view (Fig. 5f), their outer margins are convex and inner margins slightly concave, so that their bluntly terminated apical parts, somewhat converge to each other, as seen also in dorsal view (Fig. 5e). In the oblique lateroventral view, the paraproct distal part is much broader and less S-like curved than in L. dorothea, with broadly blunt apices (Fig. 5h). In lateral view, the paraproct looks evenly tapering and slightly curved up, without distinction into the broader basal and narrower distal part. The appendages of the holotype of L. decipiens are damaged so that the right cercus and left paraproct are missing (Fig. 9e). However, the remaining paraproct corresponds perfectly to our recent specimens of L. decipiens: it is directed behind and has the same shape, slightly curving inwards.</p><p>Measurements (mm). Hindwing 19.5–20, 20.7 in the holotype; abdomen with appendages 29–29.5, 21.2 in the holotype.</p><p>Female (Figs 10, 12f–j). The cerci in dorsal view are finger-like, narrowing only in apical part, pale entirely (Figs 10e, 12g –h). The ovipositor is but very slightly concave in lateral view (Fig. 12f); blackish, with pale areas at base (Fig. 10d, 12f, h). The genital lamina is blackish-brown at base and pale at posterior margin (Fig. 12h). The dorsal side of S10 black in the studied specimens (Fig. 12g), dark-brown in the female paralectotype (Fig. 10e). The prothorax hind lobe is almost upright, very scarcely slanting in lateral view (Fig. 12i) and looks rounded in dorsal view (Fig. 12i).</p><p>Measurements (mm). Hindwing 20–21 (mostly 20), 20.0 in the female paralectotype, abdomen with appendages 27.8 in the allotype, 26.5 and 30 mm in Vietnamese specimens, 29–30 (mostly 30) in Cambodian specimens.</p><p>The differences between males of L. dorothea and L. decipiens: confusion resolved</p><p>The initial identification of L. dorothea found at the Seima Forest on 8 vi 2024 was made on the field character of this species provided by Kompier (2024). He referred to the pruinosity of the male being restricted to S10 (as in Figs 2–3), whereas in Lestes decipiens it extends into S9 (as in Fig. 11) (Kompier 2024). Kompier also made a reference to “strikingly different” inferior appendages of the male but did not explain the difference. In essence, the paraprocts are broadly divergent and hence concealed under the cerci in the male L. dorothea (Fig. 5a–b) and set close to each other in L. decipiens (Fig. 5e–f). This feature is not readily obvious as a field character and cannot be seen in Fig. 2, although the photograph of a separate male from above (Fig. 3) shows that the paraprocts are hidden by the cerci. In L. decipiens, the paraprocts are easy to see even in the field and in general photos, e.g. Fig 13, because of their close proximity to each other (although in Fig. 13 the angle is oblique therefore only one paraproct can be seen). The difference in the paraprocts is clearly seen in the close-up photos of the Cambodian male specimens by OEK (Fig. 5).</p><p>The above consideration of the striking diagnostic difference between L. decipiens and L. dorothea in the male paraprocts lacks references since it was never reported as such in literature, although follows from it implicitly. In the original description, Fraser (1924) characterised those of L. dorothea as “very short black-tipped with whitish hairs, extending only as far as basal spine of superiors, not visible from above, widely separated” (Fraser 1924: 485). However, he did not mention them in the statement which can be considered as the differential diagnosis, which was as follows: ”Easily distinguished from elata by the shape of its dorsal thoracic bands and from praemorsa by its much larger size and by the absence of markings on sides of segments 8 and 9” (Fraser 1924: 485). (Note that in L. decipiens from Cambodia (Fig. 13) the blue lateral spots are indeed present on S8 but not on S9). The drawing of the end of abdomen of L. dorothea in dorsal view provided in the original description is adequate (Fraser 1924: Plate XXXI, fig. 8; reproduced here in Fig. 1e). The described coloration of the end of the abdomen in males of L. dorothea corresponds to the holotype, our specimens and the character pointed out by Kompier (2024): “8 to 9 entirely black save for a fine blue basal ring on 8, segment 10 pruinosed on the dorsum” (Fraser 1924: 485).</p><p>The male paraprocts of the two species in question were also correctly described by Fraser in his famous monograph ‘Dragonflies of British India including Ceylon and Burma’ (Fraser 1933). It is important to bear in mind that Fraser considered L. decipiens as a synonym of “ L. praemorsa praemorsa ”, although in fact the insects denoted with these names are quite different (Lieftinck 1949; see the discussion below), and he had at his disposal only specimens of the taxon decipiens, from India, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. So in his citations below “ praemorsa ” should be taken as “ decipiens ”. For his “ L. praemorsa praemorsa ” (actually decipiens), Fraser wrote as follows: “Inferior appendages much shorter, apposed at base, where they are very broad and rounded, then abruptly contracted to form a short, cylindrical, ungulate process tipped with stiff whitish hairs” (Fraser 1933: 33). For L. dorothea he wrote: “Inferior much shorter, not visible from above, widely separated, thick at base, with a short ungulate process at apex tipped with whitish hairs” (Fraser 1933: 36). However, his drawings of the end of the abdomen provided for both species (Fraser 1933: figs 12–13) and reproduced here as Fig. 1f–g, showed the exactly opposite situation. The paraprocts are not seen from above in the drawing provided for “ L. praemorsa ” (that is for L. decipiens) but actually showing L. dorothea (his fig. 12; Fig. 1f here), and are set closely to each other at base in the drawing provided for L. dorothea but actually showing L. decipiens (his fig. 13, Fig. 1g here). We have to conclude that these figures were accidentally confused and swapped places.</p><p>Maybe this unfortunate circumstance was a reason why this very obvious distinguishing character concerning the paraprocts has never been explicitly mentioned in scientific literature, and was mentioned but not explained in the blog by Kompier (2024). Something was wrong with this character, so people abstained from mentioning it. It is not excluded that the same occurred with Fraser himself when he prepared his monograph, since in his key for Lestes he provided the size as the only (and not so reliable) character distinguishing the two species, the size: “Small species, with abdomen 30–32 mm and hind wing 20–21 mm ” for “ L. praemorsa ” (that is for L. decipiens) and “Larger species, with abdomen 36–39 mm, and hind wing 24–26 mm ” for L. dorothea (Fraser 1933: 30) . His textual diagnostic note for L. dorothea was as follows: “Its much larger size and the absence of markings on segments 8 and 9 in the male, and its higher postnodal index, will serve to distinguish it from L. praemorsa ” (Fraser 1933: 36) .</p><p>One can notice considering our Fig. 1e–g that the outline of the cerci of L. dorothea was shown quite differently in the original description (Fraser 1924: Plate XXXI, fig. 8) (Fig. 1e) and the monograph by Fraser (1933: fig. 12) (Fig. 1f). The latter (Fig. 1f) showed them as relatively much longer, with the basal tooth well apart from the S10 margin. Discrepancies of different structural drawings by Fraser (1924) between each other and the reality has already been reported, including those of Lestes (Kosterin 2019; 2020b). As seen from our Fig. 6c, showing the holotype of L. dorothea, and Fig. 5a, showing the Cambodian male, the drawing in the monograph (Fig. 1f) is closer to reality, except for the curvature of the distal part of the cerci, which in our insect (Fig. 5a) is as strong as in Fraser’s original description (Fig. 1e).</p><p>With respect to Fraser’s descriptions of the paraprocts, the following note is relevant: strictly saying, they are not shorter in L. dorothea than in L. decipiens . As can be inferred from their ventral views in Fig. 5b, f, the length of their inner margin (from the S10 border to tip) comprises ca 44 and 46% of the length of cerci (as measured from the S10 border to tip along the insect body axis). The actual difference is in their direction: they are more or less parallel to each other in ventral view (Fig. 5b) and directed mostly caudad in lateral and oblique views (Fig. 5c, d) in L. decipiens, while strongly divergent in ventral view (Fig. 5f) and more slanting up in lateral and oblique views (Fig. 5g, h) in L. dorothea . Because of this direction, they just reach the cercal tooth in L. dorothea (Fig. 5b) but strongly protrude behind them in L. decipiens (Fig. 5f). In ventral view, it may be noticed that the margins of the paraproct distal parts are nearly straight in L. dorothea (Fig. 5b), while in L. decipiens their inner margins are convex and the outer margin concave (Fig. 5f). However, these curvatures are seen in both species in the oblique lateroventral view (Fig. 5d, h). So, the question arises, if the difference between the two species in the paraprocts, so drastic in the dorsal view (Fig. 5a, e), could this be a matter of position/rotation rather than shape. However, the latter is not the case, since in L. decipiens the paraproct distal part is also much more thick, robust and blunt, and the distinction between the basal and distal part much less sharp (Fig. 5e–h) than in L. dorothea (Fig. 5a–d), so it cannot be rotated to occupy the position like in L. dorothea .</p><p>It can also be added that in his monograph, Fraser repeated the statement “segments 9 and 10 entirely black, the latter pruinosed white on dorsum” for L. dorothea but did not mention the pruinescence of the end of the abdomen in L. decipiens, thus missing the second valuable distinguishing character.</p><p>One can notice that the Indian specimens of L. dorothea are larger than the Thai/Indochinese specimens (the length of the abdomen with appendages respectively being 37–40 vs 35 mm).</p><p>The peculiar pattern of dark spots on the synthorax dorsum does not differ in L. decipiens and L. dorothea, that also follows implicitly from Fraser (1933).</p><p>Yokoi &amp; Souphanthong (2014: fig. 5) provided a drawing (reproduced here as Fig. 1h) of the anal appendages in dorsal view of a male from Laos, Champasak Province, Bolaven Plateau, Paksong, 1310 m a.s.l., 23 viii 2005, of an unidentified Lestes sp.1, with no paraprocts seen. Most probably this was in fact L. dorothea, occurring in all neighbouring countries, which can hence be considered to be reported for Laos as well.</p><p>The differences in females of L. dorothea and L. decipiens</p><p>Fraser (1933) did not include female characters in his keys and did not indicate diagnostic ones in his descriptions. Our comparison of the proved females of L. dorothea from Thailand with those of L. decipiens from Vietnam (Fig. 12) and with the photos of the allotype of L. dorothea (Figs 7c–d, 8) and a female paralectotype (incorrectly designated as the “ allotype ” by Kimmins (1970)) of L. decipiens (Fig. 10d–e) revealed the following structural character: the cerci are gradually tapering, almost conical in dorsal view in L. dorothea (Figs 8d, 12b) but are finger like, narrowing only in apical part in L. decipiens (Figs 10g, 10d). The ovipositor lower margin is more noticeably concave in L. dorothea (Figs 8c, 12a) than in L. decipiens (Figs 10d, 12c). The structural difference was also observed in the hind lobe of the prothorax, which is almost upright in L. decipiens (Figs 7e, 12i) but more slanting in L. dorothea (Fig. 12d), but this character is rather quantitative. The females compared differ in many minor details of their pale maculation which may or may not be species characters, but the S10 dorsum is generally pale in L. dorothea (Figs 8a, c–d, 12a–b) and dark in L. decipiens (Fig. 12f–g); the cerci have black bases, lower sides and tips in L. dorothea (Fig. 12b–c) and entirely pale in L. decipiens (Fig. 12g –h).</p><p>The differences in the coloration of female S10 and cerci were mentioned in descriptions by Fraser (1933), as follows: for L. dorothea: “segment 10 entirely blue save for the mid-dorsal carina, which is finely black. Anal appendages small, conical, pointed, black” (Fraser 1933: 36); for L. decipiens: “borders and apical ends of segment s 9 and 10 narrowly blue. Anal appendages creamy white, shortly conical, pointed” (Fraser 1933: 33). The difference between the shape of the cerci was not mentioned while the difference in their colour was described as more drastic: black in L. dorothea (in fact not fully black) and pale in L. decipiens .</p><p>Assuming that the S10 ground colour not mentioned by Fraser for L. decipiens was black, we see the same drastic difference in the S10 coloration of females: dorsally mostly pale in L. dorothea and mostly black in L. decipiens . This character is well seen on photos and our analysis of those of both taxa uploaded to iNaturalist (2024) confirmed its validity. So, we may recommend the S10 colour as a good field character for females of these taxa.</p><p>Based on the above considered characters, we doubtlessly identified our female specimen collected without a male in Cambodia as L. decipiens .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7FE24FFD9FFFFFF551CB5E458F9C0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Hopkins, Paul;Kosterin, Oleg E.;Phan, Quoc Toan;Keetapithchayakul, Tosaphol Saetung	Hopkins, Paul, Kosterin, Oleg E., Phan, Quoc Toan, Keetapithchayakul, Tosaphol Saetung (2025): Taxonomic reconsideration of Lestes dorothea Fraser, 1924, L. decipiens Kirby, 1893, bona species, L. praecellens Lieftinck, 1937 and L. praemorsus Hagen in Selys, 1862 (Odonata, Lestidae). Zootaxa 5642 (5): 451-475, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3
03F7FE24FFC0FFFCFF551CCAE68AFE0C.text	03F7FE24FFC0FFFCFF551CCAE68AFE0C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lestes spp.	<div><p>It is unfortunate that the above discussed circumstances happened to be revealed after publication of the amendments to Fraser’s key of the males of Indian Lestes spp. by Kosterin (2019). Taken into account the above, couplet 10 of the revised Indian key is to be further updated as follows:</p><p>10. Males: paraprocts set close to each other and well seen from above; white pruinescence at the end of abdomen is present on S9–10. Females: cerci finger-like in dorsal view, narrowing apically; S10 mostly black. Smaller species, with hind-wing 20–21 mm and male abdomen 29–32 mm ................................................................... L. decipiens .</p><p>Males: paraprocts broadly diverging from bases and so not seen from above; white pruinescence at the end of abdomen confined to S10. Females: cerci conical in dorsal view, evenly tapering; S10 mostly pale. Larger species, hind-wing 23–32 mm and male abdomen 35–41 mm ......................................................................... L. dorothea .</p><p>In this version, the minimum length values were changed, as compared to Fraser (1933) and Kosterin (2019), in accordance to the specimens examined as follows: for L. dorothea: hindwing length from 24 to 23 mm, male abdomen length (without appendages) from 36 to 35 mm; and for L. decipiens: male abdomen length from 30 to 29 mm.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7FE24FFC0FFFCFF551CCAE68AFE0C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Hopkins, Paul;Kosterin, Oleg E.;Phan, Quoc Toan;Keetapithchayakul, Tosaphol Saetung	Hopkins, Paul, Kosterin, Oleg E., Phan, Quoc Toan, Keetapithchayakul, Tosaphol Saetung (2025): Taxonomic reconsideration of Lestes dorothea Fraser, 1924, L. decipiens Kirby, 1893, bona species, L. praecellens Lieftinck, 1937 and L. praemorsus Hagen in Selys, 1862 (Odonata, Lestidae). Zootaxa 5642 (5): 451-475, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3
03F7FE24FFC3FFFBFF551BCFE4D7FDAC.text	03F7FE24FFC3FFFBFF551BCFE4D7FDAC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lestes praemorsus (Selys 1862)	<div><p>6. Lestes dorothea versus Lestes praemorsus</p><p>According to van Tol (1992), M.A. Lieftinck never mentioned L. dorothea in his publications. At the same time from the textual annotations and very detailed drawings in Lieftinck (1949) one can see that the anal appendages of L. praemorsus (his figs 19–20, reproduced here as Fig. 1a–b) are very similar to L. dorothea (Fig. 5a, c), while substantially differ from L. decipens (Lieftinck 1949: figs 18–19, reproduced here as Fig. 1c–d; see also Fig. 5e–g). Both L. praemorsus and L. dorothea have the paraprocts the same diverging and concealed under the cerci in dorsal view. In lateral view, the paraproct of L. praemorsus (Fig. 1a–b) also has the distal part as in L. dorothea (Fig. 5c), that is narrower than in L. decipiens (Fig. 1c–d), although in Lieftinck’s figures of the latter (Fig. 1c–d) is not as broad as in the Cambodian specimen (Fig. 5g). Even the lateral view of the cerci is very similar in L. praemorsus (Fig. 1a–b) and L. dorothea (Fig. 5c), with the inner expansion well seen, while it is scarcely seen in L. decipiens (Figs 1c–d, 5g).</p><p>These facts suggest that it is L. dorothea rather than L. decipiens which would more naturally be considered as a subspecies or synonym of L. praemorsus . It is difficult to evaluate the difference between L. praemorsus (Fig. 1a–b) and L. dorothea (Fig. 5a, c), if any, without specimens of the former in our disposal. L. praemorsus was described by a female specimen (Selys 1862), but it would be more informative to compare males. So, topotypic male specimens of L. praemorsus from Manila should be compared with the holotype and other specimens of L. dorothea . This is to be a matter of further study. For the time being we prefer to retain L. dorothea in the species rank.</p><p>In the current sense, L. dorothea co-occurs with L. decipiens in the vast area from the Western Ghats of India to Indochina, without ‘transitory’ specimens known. As being nearly identical in the general appearance, except for the end of abdomen in both sexes, they obviously are closely related to each other. Nevertheless, their broad cooccurrence suggests that they are full species reproductively isolated from each other, and the strong difference in their male paraprocts may contribute to this isolation.</p><p>7. The problem of Lestes praecellens</p><p>Another potential junior synonym of L. praemorsus s. str. and/or L. dorothea (depending on the resolution of their taxonomic relationships, see above) is Lestes praecellens, described from south and south-west Java (Lieftinck 1937) and also known from Sumatra (Dow et al. 2024). The photographs of the holotype, male, and allotype, female, of this species are shown in Figs 14–15 and very well correspond to the precise drawings by Lieftinck (1937). In the original description this species was compared only to specimens of “ L. praemorsa ” from Malay Archipelago, which actually were L. decipiens . Lieftinck (1937) indicated three diagnostic differences of L. praecellens from L. decipiens in the sense of this paper: (i) absence of black spots on the metopleurae (metepimeron and metepisternum) and lower surface of synthorax (Lieftinck 1937: fig. 2, reproduced here as Fig. 1i; Fig. 14a–b); (ii) the black dorsal stripe on S2–S7 not constricted before the posterior widening (Fig. 14a–b), and (iii) paraprocts “divaricate, abruptly turning into narrow, finger-shaped processes not visible in dorsal view” (Lieftinck 1937: 63, fig. 3, reproduced here as Fig. 1j; Fig 15b–c). It is clear that the character (iii) is the same as in L. dorothea and L. praemorsus . The allotype of L. dorothea exhibits the character (i) of L. praecellens as having no black spots on the metapleurae (Fig. 7c). Perhaps the same is the holotype, although the metepisternum is somewhat obscured by pruinescence (Fig. 7a). But all our specimens of L. dorothea, including the two males from Kerala, the Western Ghats, have two roundish black spots at the lower margin of the metepimeron (e.g. Fig. 2) and some black underside the thorax. As to the character (ii), the dorsal black stripe on S2–7 is somewhat constricted in the Cambodian and Thai males of L. dorothea but almost not constricted, as in L. praecellens, in the two specimens from Kerala. Perhaps the characters (i) and (ii) are not so reliable, at least in L. dorothea .</p><p>The allotype of L. praecellens (Figs 14a, 15d–e) does not show noticeable differences from females of L. dorothea (Figs 8, 12a–e), both sharing the pruinosity of the end of abdomen confined to S10, gradually tapering cerci with black tips and a concave ovipositor lower margin.</p><p>A sound difference between L. praecellens and L. dorothea is seen in the paraproct shape in lateral view, which in L. praecellens has a narrow base gradually tapering to the distal part (Lieftinck 1937: fig. 3; reproduced here in Fig. 1j; Fig. 15b), but a thick base abruptly narrowing to the distal part in L. dorothea (Figs 5c, 6e, 11c). This character was not discussed by Lieftinck (1937). Strikingly, one of two our male specimens from Kerala, Western Ghats–that from Mankulam Power Station, of 19 vi 2024, has the paraprocts (Fig. 11f) with a much narrower base exactly as in L. praecellens (Fig. 1i)! This fact can be interpreted in two ways:</p><p>1. A more likely option is that the thickness of the paraproct shape base has a great intra-species variability. This matter is to be further investigated. Since the only currently recognisable difference between L. praecellens and L. dorothea is confined to this character only, its intra-species variability would mean that L. praecellens is a junior subjective synonym of L. dorothea, and maybe also to L. praemorsus (see above). It should be added that in his later work, Lieftinck (1949) depicted the male anal appendages of L. praemorsus and mentioned L. praecellens in another context but, unfortunately, did not compare them, in spite of the striking structural similarity.</p><p>2. A less likely option is that L. praecellens is a species different from L. dorothea and differing from it in much narrower male paraprocts. It this case its range extends from Java to the Indian Peninsula, where it does not exhibit the character (i) and co-occurs with L. dorothea .</p><p>Hence, the actual status of L. dorothea is a matter of future research which should involve numerous specimens originating from India to Indonesia.</p><p>Two more species have been described by M.A. Lieftinck as related to L. praemorsus: Lestes pertinax Lieftinck, 1932 from New Guinea (Lieftinck 1932), also known from Malay Peninsula (Orr 2005; Dow et al. 2024) and L. praevius Lieftinck, 1940 from Borneo and Enggano (Lieftinck 1940). Fortunately, both they well differ from all above discussed taxa in having the cerci evenly curved and the paraprocts simply conical, as in L. decipiens, but divaricate, as in L. dorothea (Lieftinck 1940) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7FE24FFC3FFFBFF551BCFE4D7FDAC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Hopkins, Paul;Kosterin, Oleg E.;Phan, Quoc Toan;Keetapithchayakul, Tosaphol Saetung	Hopkins, Paul, Kosterin, Oleg E., Phan, Quoc Toan, Keetapithchayakul, Tosaphol Saetung (2025): Taxonomic reconsideration of Lestes dorothea Fraser, 1924, L. decipiens Kirby, 1893, bona species, L. praecellens Lieftinck, 1937 and L. praemorsus Hagen in Selys, 1862 (Odonata, Lestidae). Zootaxa 5642 (5): 451-475, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5642.5.3
