Canoptila

Robertson, Desiree R. & Holzenthal, Ralph W., 2006, The Neotropical caddisfly genus Canoptila (Trichoptera: Glossosomatidae), Zootaxa 1272, pp. 45-59 : 47

Position of Canoptila within the subfamily Protoptilinae

Canoptila Mosely , is a member of the saddle­, or tortoise­case making caddisfly family Glossosomatidae . Mosely (1939) first described the genus in Hydroptilidae , but later transferred it to what he referred to as the “ Protoptila group” in Glossomatinae, which at that time was a subfamily within Rhyacophilidae ( Mosely 1954) . The “ Protoptila group” also included Antoptila Mosely 1939 (junior synonym of Itauara Müller 1888 ), Mexitrichia Mosely 1937 , Mortoniella Ulmer 1906 , and Protoptila Banks 1904 . In 1956, Ross elevated these allied genera to subfamily status, the Protoptilinae , within Glossosomatidae . There are now 18 recognized protoptiline genera.

Several workers have discussed some possible relationships among protoptiline genera ( Angrisano 1993; Flint 1964; Ross 1956; Schmid 1990; Morse & Yang 1993; Robertson & Holzenthal 2005, among others), but a phylogeny has yet to be published. However, a few general observations can be made about the possible affinities of Canoptila to other protoptiline genera.

Canoptila shares some derived characters with several other Protoptilinae genera. In the forewing ( Fig. 2 A), Canoptila has lost apical forks IV and V and the A 3 vein, and Cu 1 and Cu 2 have fused above the wing margin forming a continuous vein. This condition is also present in Itauara , Campsiophora Flint 1964 , Cubanoptila Sykora 1973 (in Botosaneanu & Sykora 1973), and Mastigoptila Flint 1967 . In the hind wing ( Fig. 2 B), Canoptila shares the loss of forks I, III, IV, and V, and the loss of A 2 with the genera Scotiotrichia Mosely 1934 , Protoptila , and some species of Mexitrichia . On the mesothorax of Canoptila ( Fig. 1 B), arising from beneath the tegula, are paired telescopic glandular projections, that appear to be eversible. Culoptila Mosely 1954 has similar structures, although much larger and “concertina­shaped,” indicating another possible relationship with Canoptila , but it is unclear if these are indeed homologous structures. Further examination is needed to determine if any other protoptilines possess these novel tegular structures. These characters suggest that Canoptila is perhaps most closely related to the more derived protoptiline genera. A modern phylogenetic analysis of all protoptiline genera will better help our understanding of these relationships.

There are 3 possible synapomorphies supporting the monophyly of Canoptila . Firstly, is the presence of long spine­like posterolateral processes on tergum X. Secondly, is the highly membranous digitate parameres on the endotheca. Primitively, parameres are more elongate and rodlike ( Schmid 1989); the condition observed in Canoptila , highly membranous digitate parameres with the sclerotized apices, appears to be derived. Finally, the unique combination of both forewing and hind wing venational characters, as discussed above, is a possible synapomorphy of the genus.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Canoptila bifida Mosely (UMSP 000210904). Adult: A. dorsal view of head; B. dorsal view of mesothorax.

FIGURE 2. Canoptila bifida Mosely—holotype (UMSP 000107591). Wings: A. forewing; B. hind wing.