Epipleoneura fuscaenea Williamson, 1915

Pessacq, Pablo, 2014, Synopsis of Epipleoneura (Zygoptera, Coenagrionidae, “ Protoneuridae ”), with emphasis on its Brazilian species, Zootaxa 3872 (3), pp. 201-234 : 213-214

Epipleoneura fuscaenea Williamson, 1915

( Fig. 18 )

Epipleoneura fuscaenea Williamson 1915: 627 –629, plate 44, figs. 29–30 (new species, male description, illustration of S10 lateral and dorsal view, Type material at NMNH). Kennedy 1917: 294, plate xxiii fig. 30–31 (illustration of genital ligula in lateral and ectal view). Rácenis 1960: 25–26 (included in list of species, recorded for British Guyana). De Marmels 1985: 88–89, figs. 1–2 (new record for Venezuela, description of epiproct, illustrations of S 10 in postero-dorsal and oblique-posterior view). Garrison et al. 2010: 352–354, fig. 2342 (included in list of species, illustrations of epiproct in posterior view). Von Ellenrieder 2011: 59, 73 (record from Suriname).

Diagnosis. Epipleoneura fuscaenea is easily distinguished from other species by the presence of a dorso-ventrally flattened cercus dorsal branch with an apical hook ( Fig. 18 ) and the characteristic epiproct ( Fig. 18 b–c) with two long and narrow divergent branches, similar only to that of E. metallica , from which it differs by cercus morphology. Other species with dorso-ventrally flattened cercus dorsal branch (i.e. E. angeloi , E. solitaria De Marmels, 1989 ) lack the apical hook. The apex of segment 3 of genital ligula has two triangular lobes separated by a V cleft; the postero-lateral projection is directed posteriorly with conspicuous peduncle and the apex approximately triangular. Female unknown.

Distribution. Wismar, Guyana (type locality). Culebra, Amazonas State, Venezuela (03°33'N, 65°50'W). Brokopondo, Gansee, Suriname ( Garrison et al. 2010); Kwamalasamutu, Sipaliwini, Suriname (von Ellenrieder 2011).

Notes. During my brief visit to the MIZA collection in 2009, I examined material of E. fuscaenea in order to conduct a phylogenetic analysis; unfortunately, I did not draw the studied specimens but only did a schematic drawing of the genital ligula.

Figures

FIGURES 16 – 18. Male caudal appendages, a: lateral view; b: posterior view, c: latero-posterior view. Figures 17 and 18 modified from Garrison et al. (2010) and De Marmels (1985) respectively. CT: cercus inner-basal tooth.