Procladius (Holotanypus) crassinervis (Zetterstedt) sensu Pinder (1978)

Saether, Ole A., 2004, The chironomids (Diptera, Chironomidae) described by Lundström (1915) from arctic Siberia, with a redescription of Derotanypus sibiricus (Kruglova & Chernovskii), Zootaxa 595, pp. 1-35 : 26

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.157906
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6271220
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/125B084C-FFC5-FFFE-9261-233CD812F490
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Procladius (Holotanypus) crassinervis (Zetterstedt) sensu Pinder (1978)
status

Treatment

Procladius (Holotanypus) crassinervis (Zetterstedt) sensu Pinder (1978) View in CoL

Tanypus crassinervis Zetterstedt, 1838: 817 View in CoL .

Tanypus signatus Zett. sensu Lundström (1915: 24) View in CoL ,?not Zetterstedt, 1850. Material examined. RUSSIA: New Siberian Islands, “Holzgebirge”, 2 ɗ, 23 vi 1903, upper reaches of Wosnessenje River, 2 ɗ, 3–4 vii 1903, M. I. Brussnew.

The genus Procladius Skuse View in CoL is in need of revision. According to Pinder (1978), however, the present specimens cannot belong to P. signatus ( Zetterstedt, 1850) View in CoL since that species has a cluster of small teeth apically on the phallapodeme lacking in these specimens. P. crassinervis View in CoL was regarded as a synonym of P. culiciformis ( Linnaeus, 1767) View in CoL by Roback (1971: 175), whereas he regarded P. c h o re u s ( Meigen, 1804) as a separate species. According to Kobayashi (1998), however, male genital structures can vary seasonally, with the gonostylus having a longer heel in spring and fall than in summer. Kobayashi regards P. crassinervis View in CoL as a synonym of P. choreus View in CoL , but he explicitly identified P. c h o re u s after Edwards (1929), and the latter, according to Roback (1971), was a misidentification of P. culiciformis View in CoL (L.). Thus, Kobayashi's (1998) " P. choreus View in CoL " is not necessarily in any conflict with what Roback (1971) had treated under the name P. culiciformis View in CoL (L.). It is not known why Pinder (1978) did not follow Roback (1971) in the use of the name P. c u l i c i formis (L.), but comparing the two authors' keys suggests that Pinder's " P. crassinervis (Zetterstedt) View in CoL " is Roback's P. culiciformis View in CoL (L.). Apparently consistent with this, it seems possible (judging from Kobayashi's work) that in fact there is only a single species in all of this. If so, then the name P. culiciformis View in CoL (L.) would have priority.