Preliminary key to the genera of the Oxylipeurus -complex

Characters taken primarily from Clay (1938), Clay & Meinertzhagen (1941), Carriker (1945, 1967), Emerson & Ward (1958), Kéler (1958), Elbel & Price (1970), Mey (1982, 1990, 2006, 2010), Gustafsson et al. (2020), and examinations of specimens. Additional groups deserving recognition at the genus level may exist, and many species of the complex are in need of further study and redescription. The genus Labicotes Kéler, 1939, may also belong to this complex, based on similarities in male and female terminalia, male genitalia, and temporal chaetotaxy between this genus and Chelopistes . This needs to be confirmed by additional studies of species of Labicotes, and the genus is not included here. 1. Broad-headed, with width of head similar to, or wider than, length of head (Figs 19–20); temples with elongated “horns” (Fig. 19) or with prominent lateral bulges (Fig. 20).................................... 2

– Slender-headed, with head clearly longer than wide (Fig. 5); temples generally rounded, never with prominent bulging.............................................................................................................................. 3

2. Temporal setae mts1–2 macrosetae (Fig. 20)...................................... Trichodomedea Carriker, 1946

– Temporal setae mts1–2 microsetae (Fig. 19) ................................................. Chelopistes Kéler, 1939

3. Dorsal preantennal suture present (Figs 5, 21) .................................................................................. 4

– Dorsal preantennal suture absent or if present only visible around aperture of ads and not extending medianly (Fig. 22) ........................................................................................................................... 10

4. Dorsal preantennal suture as median, elongated oval, not expanded laterally (Fig. 5); female terminalia with marginal mesosetae distributed more or less equally around distal margin (Fig. 4); eye very large and preocular nodus absent (Fig. 5) ..................................... Calidolipeurus gen. nov.

– Dorsal preantennal suture transversal, normally reaching apertures of ads (Fig. 21); female terminalia with marginal setae gathered in the same area (Fig. 23); eye not very large (Fig. 21), and preocular nodus present ..................................................................................................................................... 5

5. Clypeo-labral suture present (Fig. 24); stylus expanded distally, with small “hooks” on lateral margins (Fig. 25)........................................................................ Gallancyra Gustafsson & Zou, 2020

– Clypeo-labral suture absent (Fig. 5); stylus differing in shape, but never with lateral ‘hooks’......... 6

6. Dorsal preantennal suture with postero-lateral elongations (“epistomal suture” sensu Kéler 1958) extending towards preantennal nodi (Fig. 26); hyaline margin present (Fig. 26) ....................................................................... Splendoroffula Clay & Meinertzhagen, 1941

– Dorsal preantennal suture without such extensions (Fig. 21); hyaline margin absent (Fig. 21) ....... 7

7. Dorsal postantennal suture present (Fig. 27); male genitalia asymmetrical, with mesosome much reduced (Fig. 28)...................................................................................... Oxylipeurus Mjöberg, 1910

– Dorsal postantennal suture absent (Fig. 21); male genitalia symmetrical, with prominent mesosome (variable, but similar to Figs 8–11).................................................................................................... 8

8. Coni elongated (similar to Fig. 5); male mesosome with prominent V- or Y-shaped thickening in distal half (Fig. 29); proximal margin of mesosome with rounded lateral lobes (Fig. 29); frons convergent to median point in most species (similar to Fig. 27).............. Megalipeurus Kéler, 1958 .

– Coni short (Fig. 21); male mesosome without thickening in distal half; proximal margin variable, but never with rounded lateral lobes; frons rounded ............................................................................... 9

9. Male abdominal segments IX and IX+X with prominent postero-lateral extensions (“claspers” sensu Carriker 1945) (Fig. 30)............................................................ Eiconolipeurus Carriker, 1945

– Male abdomen without such structures .................................................... Reticulipeurus Kéler, 1958

10. Frons convergent to median point (Fig. 27) .....................................................................................11

– Frons rounded (Fig. 21) ................................................................................................................... 12

11. Male tergopleurites II–VII medianly continuous with no median indentations of anterior margin; male abdominal segments IX +X and XI fused into roughly triangular cone (Fig. 31); stylus elongated and slender, in the shape of a posterior extension of the male subgenital plate (Fig. 31); female terminalia without “claspers”, vulval margin more or less straight ............................... Afrilipeurus Mey, 2010

– Male tergopleurites II–VII either divided medianly, or with median indentation of anterior margin; male tergopleurites IX +X and XI separate, posterior margin concave (similar to Fig. 1); stylus short and blunt (Fig. 32); female terminalia with “claspers”, vulval margin deeply concave (Fig. 33) .................................................................................................... Talegallipeurus Mey, 1982

12. Male parameres strongly S-curved (Fig. 34); stylus arising centrally on abdominal segment IX +X (Fig. 35) ..................................................................................... Sinolipeurus Gustafsson et al., 2020

– Male parameres not S-curved (Fig. 36); stylus varying in shape, but always arising terminally or subterminally on subgenital plate (similar to Fig. 3)....................................................................... 13

13. Male genitalia simple, with parameres fused to basal apodeme and mesosome much reduced (Fig. 37) ...................................................................................................... Epicolinus Carriker, 1945

– Male genitalia with parameres articulating with basal apodeme, and mesosome not reduced (similar in structure but not shape to Fig. 8) ................................................................................................. 14

14. Lateral margins of postantennal head with secondary, ventral carina between antennal socket and site of mts2 or mts3 (Fig. 38); area between margin of head and secondary carina, densely reticulated, including ventral surface of eye (Fig. 38); male parameres with pst1–2 situated close together apically; male gonoporal complex does not reach distal margin of mesosome; female subgenital plate divided medianly (Fig. 39)..................................................... Valimia Gustafsson & Zou, 2020

– Lateral margins of postantennal head without secondary carina and without extensive ventral reticulation (similar to Fig. 5); male parameres with pst1–2 separated, and only pst2 apical; male gonoporal complex reached to or beyond distal margin of mesosome; female subgenital plate medianly continuous (Fig. 40)........................................ Cataphractomimus Gustafsson et al., 2020