Rhagovelia angustipes, Uhler, 1894
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4958.1.11 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:ADD5204B-A342-4A85-8F10-778241D70E9E |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4723529 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E7216366-DF03-5A5D-FF35-BF8DFA516D1C |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Rhagovelia angustipes |
| status |
|
Key to species of the Rhagovelia angustipes View in CoL complex from Colombia
1. Monomorphic apterous; tarsal formula 2-2-2 (articulation more easily viewed on middle leg); found mainly on brackish or salt water (e.g., mangroves, estuaries).......................................................... [ salina View in CoL group] ... 2
-. Dimorphic apterous or macropterous; tarsal formula 3-3-3 (articulation more easily viewed on middle leg); found mainly on freshwater (e.g., streams, rivers)........................................... [ bisignata View in CoL and hambletoni groups] ... 7
2. Eyes covered with abundant setae........................................................................ 3
-. Eyes covered with one or two setae only.................................................................. 4
3. Body length 2.20–2.40 mm in the male and 3.30–3.50 mm in the female; posterior surface of male hind femur with a row of 3–7 spines; paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19D View FIGURE 19 , 20D View FIGURE 20 ............................ Rhagovelia plumbea Uhler, 1894 View in CoL
-. Body length ~ 1.75 mm in the male and ~ 2.90 mm in the female; posterior surface of male hind femur with a row of 6–10 spines; paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19E View FIGURE 19 , 20E View FIGURE 20 ..................... Rhagovelia tintipan Molano, Morales & Moreira, 2018 View in CoL
4. Male fore tibia straight or slightly curved ( Fig. 21B View FIGURE 21 ); male abdominal segment VIII large, longer dorsally than abdominal tergum VII ( Fig. 1B View FIGURE 1 ); paramere strongly sculptured ( Fig. 19B View FIGURE 19 ); proctiger as in Fig. 20B View FIGURE 20 ; dorsum of female abdominal terga VI–VIII (sometimes also V) shiny black centrally ( Fig. 3B View FIGURE 3 )........ Rhagovelia colombiana ( Polhemus & Manzano, 1992) View in CoL
-. Male fore tibia strongly curved ( Fig. 21A View FIGURE 21 ); male abdominal segment VIII small, approximately equal in length dorsally to abdominal terga VII ( Figs. 1A, 1C, 1D, 1E View FIGURE 1 ); paramere shape simpler ( Figs. 19A, 19C, 19D, 19E View FIGURE 19 ); at most dorsum of female abdominal terga VII–VIII shiny black or brown centrally ( Fig. 1C, 1E View FIGURE 1 , 3A, 3C, 3E View FIGURE 3 )................................ 5
5. Body length ~3.00 mm in the male and ~ 4.20 mm in the female; paramere and proctiger as in Fig. 19A View FIGURE 19 , 20A View FIGURE 20 ........................................................................ Rhagovelia arcuata ( Polhemus & Manzano, 1992) View in CoL
-. Body length 2.20–2.60 mm in the male and 3.00– 3.20 mm in the female; paramere and proctiger not as above........... 6
6. Posterior surface of male hind femur with about 6 spines beyond middle; male abdominal sterna without median carina; female abdominal laterotergites slightly elevated ( Fig. 3E View FIGURE 3 )........................... Rhagovelia rosarensis Padilla-Gil, 2010 View in CoL
-. Posterior surface of male hind femur with about 5 spines basally, followed by one long spine before middle, then about 13 smaller spines towards apex; male abdominal sterna VII–VIII with weak median carina; female abdominal laterotergites vertical or nearly so ( Fig. 3C View FIGURE 3 )................................. Rhagovelia nuqui Molano, Morales & Moreira, 2018 View in CoL
7. Hind femur without spines in both sexes ( Fig. 21D View FIGURE 21 ).......................................................... 8
-. Hind femur with spines in both sexes ( Figs. 21E, 21F View FIGURE 21 )...................................................... 10
8. Dorsum of abdominal terga V–VIII shiny black centrally; paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19V View FIGURE 19 , 20V View FIGURE 20 ................................................................................. Rhagovelia guachiconoense Padilla-Gil, 2019
-. At most dorsum of abdominal segments VII–VIII shiny black centrally; paramere and proctiger not as above............ 9
9. Antennomere II shorter than III; fore and hind coxae and trochanters dark brown to black ( Figs. 10F View FIGURE 10 , 12F View FIGURE 12 ), rarely brown to yellow; male fore tibia very thin for about 3/4 of length, then expanding to apex ( Fig. 21D View FIGURE 21 ).................................................................................................... Rhagovelia longipes Gould, 1931 View in CoL
-. Antennomere II longer than III; fore and hind coxae and trochanters yellow ( Figs. 10A View FIGURE 10 ); male fore tibia thicker and more uniform throughout length ( Fig. 10A View FIGURE 10 )....................................... Rhagovelia caunapi Padilla-Gil, 2015
10. Male metasternum and abdominal sterna II–IV strongly swollen, with brushes of long golden setae medially ( Fig. 10C View FIGURE 10 ); lateral margins of male abdominal segment VIII clearly divergent posteriorly ( Fig. 9C View FIGURE 9 ); paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19L View FIGURE 19 , 20L View FIGURE 20 . ................................................................. Rhagovelia gastrotricha Padilla-Gil, 2011 View in CoL
-. Male metasternum and abdominal sterna II–IV not strongly swollen, covered only with short setae in most species; male abdominal segment VIII subcylindrical, with lateral margins parallel or bowed, but not clearly divergent posteriorly ( Figs. 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 5F View FIGURE 5 , 9B, 9D, 9E View FIGURE 9 , 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D View FIGURE 13 , 17A, 17E View FIGURE 17 ); paramere not as above.............................. 11
11. Male hind trochanter with spines; male hind femur much thicker than middle femur, enormously incrassate in most specimens ( Fig. 21F View FIGURE 21 ); paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19I View FIGURE 19 , 20I View FIGURE 20 ........................ Rhagovelia calopa Drake & Harris, 1927 View in CoL
-. Male hind trochanter without spines; male hind femur at most slightly thicker than middle femur, never enormously incrassate ( Fig. 21E View FIGURE 21 ); paramere and proctiger not as above........................................................... 12
12. Male abdominal sternum VII anteriorly with a stout, slightly curved spine; paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19S View FIGURE 19 , 20S View FIGURE 20 .............................................................................. Rhagovelia spinosa Gould, 1931 View in CoL
-. Male abdominal sternum VII without spine; paramere and proctiger not as above................................. 13
13. Body length 2.60–2.90 in the male and 2.80–3.10 in the female............................................... 14
-. Body length 3.00– 4.20 in the male and 3.20–4.70 in the female............................................... 18
14. Male hind tibia without spines or apical spur ( Figs. 13A View FIGURE 13 , 17C View FIGURE 17 ) (apex of tibia can sometimes bear a tuft of setae, but never a spur).............................................................................................. 15
-. Male hind tibia with short spines and an apical spur ( Fig. 9E View FIGURE 9 , 13C, 13D View FIGURE 13 )........................................ 16
15. Lateral margins of male abdomen more evenly tapering to apex ( Fig. 17C View FIGURE 17 ); paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19T View FIGURE 19 , 20T View FIGURE 20 ; female hind femur thinner ( Fig. 18A View FIGURE 18 ); female abdomen elongated ( Fig. 18C View FIGURE 18 ).......... Rhagovelia tantilla Drake & Harris, 1933 View in CoL
-. Lateral margins of male abdomen more strongly bowed on segments IV–V ( Fig. 13A View FIGURE 13 ); paramere and proctiger as in Fig. 19P View FIGURE 19 , 20P View FIGURE 20 ; female hind femur thicker ( Fig. 15A View FIGURE 15 ); female abdomen short and robust ( Fig. 15A View FIGURE 15 )...... Rhagovelia molanoi sp. nov.
16. All coxae and trochanters yellowish ( Fig. 10E View FIGURE 10 , 12E View FIGURE 12 ); male abdominal sterna II–V with median comb of long golden setae ( Fig. 10E View FIGURE 10 ); male abdominal segment VIII large and robust ( Fig. 9E View FIGURE 9 ); paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19N View FIGURE 19 , 20N View FIGURE 20 ; lateral margins of female abdomen sinuous ( Fig. 11E View FIGURE 11 ); posterior margin of female abdominal tergum VIII with long setae ( Fig. 11E View FIGURE 11 )...................................................................................... Rhagovelia graziae sp. nov.
-. Middle trochanter dark brown to black; male abdominal sterna only with short setae ( Figs. 14C, 14D View FIGURE 14 ); male abdominal segment VIII small ( Figs. 13C, 13D View FIGURE 13 ); paramere and proctiger not as above; lateral margins of female abdomen more evenly tapering or bowed ( Figs. 16C, 16D View FIGURE 16 ); posterior margin of female abdominal tergum VIII without long setae ( Figs. 15C, 15D View FIGURE 15 )........ 17
17. Male hind femur with 9–11 spines; male hind tibia with 11 short spines and an apical spur; lateral margins of male abdomen more evenly tapering to apex ( Fig. 13C View FIGURE 13 ); paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19Q View FIGURE 19 , 20Q View FIGURE 20 ; female hind femur with 6–7 spines; female abdomen more elongated, with laterotergites vertical or nearly so ( Fig. 15C View FIGURE 15 )...................................................................................................... Rhagovelia rosensis Padilla-Gil, 2011 View in CoL
-. Male hind femur with 4–7 spines; male hind tibia with 2 short spines and an apical spur; lateral margins of male abdomen more strongly bowed on segments IV–V ( Fig. 13D View FIGURE 13 ); paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19R View FIGURE 19 , 20R View FIGURE 20 ; female hind femur with 4–5 spines; female abdomen more robust, with laterotergites slightly elevated ( Fig. 15D View FIGURE 15 )..... Rhagovelia santanderi Padilla-Gil, 2015
18. Body length 3.00– 3.40 in the male and 3.20–3.75 in the female............................................... 19
-. Body length 3.50–4.20 in the male and 4.00– 4.70 in the female............................................... 23
19. Male hind tibia only with an apical spur, without small spines throughout length; paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19F View FIGURE 19 , 20F View FIGURE 20 . ...................................................................... Rhagovelia angustipes Uhler, 1894 View in CoL
-. Male hind tibia with small spines throughout length and an apical spur; paramere and proctiger not as above........... 20
20. Male hind femur thicker, shorter than hind tibia (ratio ~0.90/1.00) ( Fig. 13B View FIGURE 13 ); male hind femur with 4–5 spines; only abdominal tergum VIII shiny black.................................................... Rhagovelia penta Padilla-Gil, 2015
-. Male hind femur thinner, longer than hind tibia (ratio ~1.05/1.00) ( Figs. 5B, 5D View FIGURE 5 , 17E View FIGURE 17 ); male hind femur with at least 6 spines; central shiny black areas at least on dorsum of abdominal segments VII–VIII.................................... 21
21. Male hind femur slightly surpassing apex of abdomen, with 6 spines ( Fig. 5D View FIGURE 5 ); paramere and proctiger as in Fig. 19H View FIGURE 19 , 20H View FIGURE 20 ; female hind femur with 4 spines........................................... Rhagovelia calceola Padilla-Gil, 2011 View in CoL
-. Male hind femur distinctly surpassing apex of abdomen, with at least 8 spines ( Fig. 5B View FIGURE 5 , 17E View FIGURE 17 ); paramere and proctiger not as above; female hind femur with at least 7 spines............................................................ 22
22. Middle coxa black ( Figs. 17F View FIGURE 17 , 18D View FIGURE 18 ); fore and hind trochanters black ( Figs. 17F View FIGURE 17 , 18D View FIGURE 18 ); male hind femur with at least 10 spines; paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19U View FIGURE 19 , 20U View FIGURE 20 ; female abdominal mediotergites approximately in the same horizontal plane ( Fig. 18C View FIGURE 18 ); female abdominal laterotergites horizontal or slightly elevated ( Fig. 18C View FIGURE 18 )...... Rhagovelia tenuipes Champion, 1898 View in CoL
-. All coxae yellow ( Figs. 6B View FIGURE 6 , 8B View FIGURE 8 ); fore and hind trochanters yellow ( Figs. 6B View FIGURE 6 , 8B View FIGURE 8 ); male hind femur with 8 spines; paramere not as above; female abdominal mediotergites I–III raised, IV–VI depressed, VII horizontal, tergum VIII declining posteriorly ( Fig. 7B View FIGURE 7 ); female abdominal laterotergites elevated, more strongly on last two segments ( Fig. 7B View FIGURE 7 )........................................................................................... Rhagovelia barbacoensis Padilla-Gil, 2015
23. Fore and hind trochanters yellow ( Figs. 10D View FIGURE 10 , 12D View FIGURE 12 ); middle coxa yellow ( Figs. 10D View FIGURE 10 , 12D View FIGURE 12 ); male hind femur shorter and thicker, with 6–7 spines ( Fig. 9D View FIGURE 9 ); paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19M View FIGURE 19 , 20M View FIGURE 20 . ........... Rhagovelia grandis Padilla-Gil, 2011 View in CoL
-. Fore and hind trochanters black; middle coxa black; male hind femur longer and thinner, with at least 10 spines ( Figs. 5C, 5F View FIGURE 5 , 9B View FIGURE 9 ); paramere and proctiger not as above................................................................. 24
24. Legs with abundant long black setae ( Figs. 5C View FIGURE 5 , 7C View FIGURE 7 ); paramere and proctiger as in Fig. 19G View FIGURE 19 , 20G View FIGURE 20 ; female abdominal laterotergites strongly elevated, almost touching at apex of last segment, which bears abundant brown setae posteriorly ( Fig. 7C View FIGURE 7 ).................................................................................. Rhagovelia boyacensis sp. nov.
-. Legs without abundant long black setae ( Figs. 5F View FIGURE 5 , 7F View FIGURE 7 , 9B View FIGURE 9 , 11B View FIGURE 11 ); paramere and proctiger not as above; female abdominal laterotergites not as above ( Fig. 11B View FIGURE 11 ).................................................................... 25
25. Central shiny black areas on dorsum of abdominal segments VII–VIII in the male and VI–VIII in the female; male hind femur with 14–16 spines; paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19J View FIGURE 19 , 20J View FIGURE 20 ..................... Rhagovelia cardia Padilla-Gil, 2011 View in CoL
-. Central shiny black areas on dorsum of abdominal segments V–VIII in both sexes; male hind femur with 10 spines; paramere and proctiger as in Figs. 19K View FIGURE 19 , 20K View FIGURE 20 ....................................... Rhagovelia cimarrona Padilla-Gil, 2011 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.
|
Kingdom |
|
|
Phylum |
|
|
Class |
|
|
Order |
|
|
Family |
|
|
Genus |