Callibaetis (Callibaetis) zonalis Navás 1915

Cruz, Paulo Vilela, Salles, Frederico Falcão & Hamada, Neusa, 2017, Additions and corrections to the systematics of mayfly species assigned to the genus Callibaetis Eaton 1881 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) from South America, Zootaxa 4231 (4), pp. 500-534 : 529-532

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4231.4.2
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:99D539A1-D4BF-48C4-AEE1-0CA8F198C631
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5315602
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039E3278-FFBE-FFCC-DDDA-22760BF291C7
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Callibaetis (Callibaetis) zonalis Navás 1915
status

Treatment

Callibaetis (Callibaetis) zonalis Navás 1915 View in CoL

( Figs. 22 View FIGURE 22 A–22E)

Callibaetis zonalis Navás 1915a: 13 View in CoL ; Gillies 1990: 31; Domínguez et al. 2006: 117; Cruz et al. 2014: 63. Callibaetis vitreus Navás 1915b: 121 (syn. by Gillies 1990)

Callibaetis vitreus Navás, 1919: 81 (syn. with C. vitreus Navás 1915 by Hubbard & Edmunds 1977; note that this is a hom. syn.)

Baetis opacus Navás 1915a: 12 . (syn. by Gillies 1990)

Callibaetis sobrius Navás 1916: 61 . (syn. by Gillies 1990)

Baetis virellus Navás 1915b: 119 . (syn. by Gillies 1990)

Callibaetis apertus Navás 1917: 190 . (syn. by Gillies 1990)

Callibaetis depressus Navás 1922: 59 . (syn. by Gillies 1990)

Callibaetis amoenus Navás 1930c: 131 . (syn. by Gillies 1990)

Callibaetis fluminensis Cruz, Salles & Hamada 2009 View in CoL syn. nov.

Known stages. I ♀♂, N

Diagnosis. Male imago: 1) dorsal portion of turbinate eyes oval ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 in Cruz et al. 2009); 2) dorsal portion of turbinate eyes in lateral view with constriction; 3) dorsal portion of turbinate eyes stalk height 2.6 × height of dorsal portion; 4) turbinate portion of compound eyes (in lateral view) with anterior and posterior margins divergent; 5) forewing with brownish stigmatic area and small brownish spots along costal vein ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 in Cruz et al. 2009); 6) marginal intercalary veins paired ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 in Cruz et al. 2009); 7) hind wing hyaline ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 A in Cruz et al. 2009); 8) costal process of hind wing rounded ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 B in Cruz et al. 2009); 9) marginal intercalary veins on hind wing absent ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 B in Cruz et al. 2009); 10) abdominal terga III, V and VII laterally with inverted V mark; 11) abdominal sterna covered with spots and with pair of medioanterior and medioposterior sigilla weak pigmented; 12) forceps segment I wide at base ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 in Cruz et al. 2009); 13) forceps segment III oval ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 in Cruz et al. 2009).

Female imago: 1) forewing with C and Sc areas pigmented overlapping R1, after R2 with lighter pigmentation ( Fig. 7 View FIGURE 7 in Cruz et al. 2009); 2) marginal intercalary veins paired ( Fig. 7 View FIGURE 7 in Cruz et al. 2009); 3) hind wing with brown mark near costar process ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 A in Cruz et al. 2009); 4) costal process of hind wing rounded ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 B in Cruz et al. 2009); 5) marginal intercalary veins on hind wing absent ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 B in Cruz et al. 2009); 6) abdominal terga III, V and VII laterally with inverted V mark ( Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 in Cruz et al. 2009); 7) abdominal sterna covered by spots ( Fig. 9 View FIGURE 9 in Cruz et al. 2009); 8) abdominal terga with medial longitudinal mark ( Figs. 22 View FIGURE 22 B–22D); 9) abdominal sterna medially, on anterior margin, without one large spot.

Mature nymph: 1) maxillary palp 1.3 × the length of galea-lacinia ( Fig. 15 View FIGURE 15 in Cruz et al. 2009); 2) below maxillary palp insertion on outer margin with tuft of robust spine-like setae ( Fig. 15 View FIGURE 15 in Cruz et al. 2009); 3) paraglossa with row of spine-like setae on ventral surface ( Fig. 16 View FIGURE 16 A in Cruz et al. 2009); 4) segment III of labial apically rounded ( Fig. 16 View FIGURE 16 A in Cruz et al. 2009); 5) metanotum without spines; 6) foretarsus anterior surface without spine-like setae ( Fig. 17 View FIGURE 17 A in Cruz et al. 2009); 7) hind claw denticles smaller than foreclaw denticles ( Fig. 18 View FIGURE 18 E in Cruz et al. 2009).

Comments. After analyzing the types, it is clear that the pigmentation pattern and morphology of C. (C.) fluminensis are identical to those of C. (C.) zonalis . Both species possess forewings with C and Sc areas pigmented overlapping R1, after R2 with lighter pigmentation ( Fig. 7 View FIGURE 7 in Cruz et al. 2009); marginal intercalary veins paired ( Fig. 7 View FIGURE 7 in Cruz et al. 2009); costal processes of hind wings rounded ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 B in Cruz et al. 2009); marginal intercalary veins on hind wings absent ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 B in Cruz et al. 2009); abdominal terga III, V and VII laterally with inverted V marks ( Figs. 22 View FIGURE 22 C–22E and Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 in Cruz et al. 2009); abdominal sterna covered by spots ( Figs. 22 View FIGURE 22 C– 22E and Fig. 9 View FIGURE 9 in Cruz et al. 2009); abdominal terga with medial longitudinal marks ( Figs. 22 View FIGURE 22 B–22D); 9) abdominal sterna medially, on anterior margin, without one large spot. Thereby, C. (C.) fluminensis is considered a junior synonym of C. (C.) zonalis .

The specimen studied by Navás (1915) from La Plata, Argentina, is damaged, and we analyzed it only through photographs. Further studies are necessary to determinate if the specimen should be designated as lectotype or if a neotype should be designated.

Material examined. Callibaetis apertus , female subimago (type), ARGENTINA, Prov. Buenos Aires, 4.x.1915, C. Bruch coll., MZB ; Callibaetis vitreus , male subimago (type) ARGENTINA, La Plata , 12.iv.1915, MZB ; Callibaetis depressus , female subimago (type), ARGENTINA, Santiago del Esterno, 1920, MZB ; Callibaetis zonalis , photograph of female imago (type), ARGENTINA, La Plata , iii.1913, C. Bruch coll., MZLP ; one female imago, BRAZIL, São Paulo, i.1926, MZB ; one female imago, ARGENTINA, Buenos Aires, 6.x.1915, C. Bruch coll., MZB ; Callibaetis fluminensis , female imago (holotype), one nymph and one male imago (paratypes), BRAZIL, Rio de Janeiro state, Nova Friburgo Municipality, Lumiar, 22°23’ 27.2” S / 42° 20’ 03.6” W, 3rd order tributary of the Rio Bonito , pool, v.2008, M.R. Souza coll., INPA GoogleMaps .