Perlodini, Klapálek, 1909
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5249.1.8 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D9234E89-0FC0-471D-B95F-C65F7EC641DB |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7688517 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/306487E3-3141-E562-DFDA-76AE31FAF940 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Perlodini |
| status |
|
Key for the males of the Perlodini View in CoL View at ENA genera
Two genera included in the PSF ( DeWalt et al. 2022) as belonging to Perlodini , not treated herein: Hedinia Navás, 1936 is known only from the female holotype, while Protarcys Klapálek, 1912 is under redescription and assessment of its affinity. Recent studies proved that Rauserodes Zwick, 1999 is a junior synonym of Perlodinella Klapálek, 1912 ( Huo et al. 2022a), and Sinoperlodes Chen, 2020 is a junior synonym of Filchneria Klapálek, 1908 ( Huo et al. 2022b).
1 Tergum X not divided into hemiterga (e.g., figs. 3A, 7A in Huo et al. 2022a)...................................... 2
- Tergum X divided into hemiterga (e.g., Fig. 7 View FIGURES 7–11 ).............................................................. 7
2 Paraproct modified into caudally directed, hook-like lobe; tergum X with lightly sclerotized medial field (figs. 132, 135 in Teslenko & Zhiltzova 2009)................................................... Diura Billberg, 1820 (Holarctic) View in CoL
- Paraproct not modified into hook-like lobe; tergum X entirely sclerotized or with lightly sclerotized field of variable extent. ................................................................................................... 3
3 Eversible epiproct present (fig. 14E in Huo et al. 2022a)......................... Perlodinella Klapálek, 1912 ( China) View in CoL
- Epiproct is lacking.................................................................................... 4
4 Eversible paraproct lobe with distinct sclerotized process (e.g., fig. 12 in Teslenko & Palatov 2020).................... 5
- Eversible paraproct lobe membranous, or only with slight sclerotization (e.g., fig. 9 in Huo et al. 2022b)................ 6
5 Paraproct with truncated knob (fig. 9 in Teslenko & Palatov 2020)............ Zhiltzovaia Özdikmen, 2008 View in CoL (Central Asia)
- Paraproct without knob (figs. 5, 8, 25 in Teslenko 2015)............................................................................................ Megaperlodes Yokoyama, Isobe & Yamamoto, 1990 View in CoL (Pacific East Palaearctic)
6 At least one of terga 8–10 with sensilla basiconica patches (figs. 3B, 9A in Huo et al. 2022b).............................................................................. Filchneria Klapálek, 1908 View in CoL (Caucasus and East Palaearctic)
- Terga lack sensilla basiconica (figs. 129B–C in Kis 1974)......................... Perlodes Banks, 1903 (Palaearctic) View in CoL
7 Furcal pit connecting anteriorly to arms of mesosternal ridge ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–6 ).......................... Habaek gen. n. ( Korea)
- Furcal pit connecting posteriorly to arms of mesosternal ridge, or the connection is obscure (figs. 36A–D in Ricker 1952).. 8
8 Epiproct tip with arrow-like apex (e.g. figs. 8.33, 8.49 in Kondratieff 2004)....................................... 9
- Epiproct tip different................................................................................. 11
9 Furcasternum with longitudinal medial ridge (fig. 36D in Ricker 1952)............ Isogenoides Klapálek, 1912 (Nearctic) View in CoL
- Furcasternum lacks medial ridge........................................................................ 10
10 Submental gill distinctive (compare Fig. 4 View FIGURES 1–6 )............................... Hydroperla Frison, 1935 View in CoL (Eastern Nearctic)
- Submental gill lacking..................................................... Dictyogenus Klapálek, 1904 (Alps) View in CoL
11 Epiproct tip modified into a long, asymmetrical curved process (figs. 55–56 in Teslenko & Zhiltzova 2009).................................. Levanidovia Teslenko & Zhiltzova, 1989 View in CoL (in: Zhiltzova & Teslenko 1989) (Pacific East Palaearctic)
- Epiproct tip symmetrical.............................................................................. 12
12 Hemitergum with swollen apex, armed with sensilla basiconica and/or dense, long setae (e.g., figs. 8.9–10 in Kondratieff 2004)............................................................................................. 13
- Hemitergum with widely rounded but not swollen apex, sensilla basiconica is usually lacking....................... 17
13 Lateral stylet of epiproct absent (e.g., figs 8.10, 8.13 in Kondratieff 2004)....................................... 14
- Lateral stylet of epiproct present (e.g., fig. 3C in Zwick 1971)................................................ 15
14 Submental gill distinctive; epiproct tip pointed (figs. 8.10, 8.13 in Kondratieff 2004).................................................................................................. Helopicus Ricker, 1952 View in CoL (Eastern Nearctic)
- Submental gill is lacking; epiproct tip swollen (figs. 1–3 in Stark et al. 1986).......................................................................... Guadalgenus Stark & González View in CoL del Tánago, 1986 (in: Stark et al. 1986) ( Iberia)
15 Epiproct tip with distinctive, hook-like apex (fig. 4 in Kondratieff et al. 2007)..................................................................................................... Chernokrilus Ricker, 1952 View in CoL (Western Nearctic)
- Epiproct tip blunt or with short, acute tip................................................................. 16
16 Hemiterga widely separated in the medial portion of the segment; epiproct tip acute (figs. 64, 67–68 in Teslenko & Zhiltzova 2009)................................................................. Isogenus Newman, 1833 (Palaearctic) View in CoL
- Hemiterga narrowly separated in the medial portion of the segment; epiproct tip blunt (figs. 3A–C in Zwick 1971)............................................................................ Besdolus Ricker, 1952 View in CoL (West Palaearctic)
17 Lateral stylet of epiproct absent (e.g., figs. 8.68, 8.72–73 in Kondratieff 2004)................................... 18
- Lateral stylet of epiproct present (e.g., figs. 8.58, 8.61 in Kondratieff 2004)...................................... 19
18 Epiproct tip narrow and erect (figs. 8.69, 8.73 in Kondratieff 2004)................ Yugus Ricker, 1952 View in CoL (Eastern Nearctic)
- Epiproct tip membranous and coiled up (fig. 17F in Inada 1996)...............unnamed genus sensu Inada (1996) ( Japan)
19 Lateral stylet of epiproct hooked at apex; epiproct tip with reddish setae (figs. 8.58, 8.61 in Kondratieff 2004).............................................................................. Malirekus Ricker, 1952 View in CoL (Eastern Nearctic)
- Lateral stylet of epiproct not hooked; epiproct tip without reddish setae......................................... 20
20 Submental gill absent; lateral stylet truncate (figs. 8.64–65 in Kondratieff 2004)............................................................................................. Oconoperla Stark & Stewart, 1982 View in CoL (Eastern Nearctic)
- Submental gill long; lateral stylet acute ……………………………………………………………..21
21 Head entirely black; epiproct tip with longitudinal dorsal sclerite strip not reaching apex (figs. 9A–B, G in Inada 1996)................................................................................. Tadamus Ricker, 1952 ( Japan) View in CoL
- Head with yellow pattern; epiproct tip with longitudinal dorsal sclerite strip reaching apex (figs. 1, 4–6 in Bottorf et al. 1989).......................................................... Susulus Bottorf, Stewart & Knight, 1989 (California) View in CoL
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.