Nomenclatural changes in Centroptella Braasch & Soldán, 1980 (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae).

Abstract

The genus Centroptella Braasch & Soldán, 1980 is accepted here in a wide sense, i.e., including Chopralla Waltz & McCafferty, 1987. This genus concept is similar to the concept of the genus Bungona Harker, 1957 proposed by Salles et al. (2016), but with the generic name Centroptella instead of Bungona. The type species of Bungona, B. narilla Harker, 1957, has an unknown systematic position; the neotype designation proposed by Suter and Pearson (2001) is invalid, being inconsistent with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; the species name B. narilla and the generic name Bungona are nomina dubia, so the name Centroptella is the senior name for the genus under consideration. The generic names Chopralla and Crassolus Salles, Gattolliat & Sartori, 2016 both are junior synonyms of Centroptella (syn. nov.). The subgenera Bungona, Centroptella and Chopralla proposed by Salles et al. (2016) are unnatural. The following new combinations are proposed: Centroptella bintang (Marle, Salles & Gattolliat, 2016) comb. nov., Centroptella bifida (Shi & Tong, 2019) comb. nov., Centroptella fusina (Tong & Dudgeon, 2003) comb. nov., Centroptella fustipalpus (Lugo-Ortiz & McCafferty, 1998) comb. nov., Centroptella illiesi (Lugo-Ortiz & McCafferty, 1998) comb. nov., Centroptella inzingae (Crass, 1947) comb. nov., Centroptella papilionodes (Marle, Salles & Gattolliat, 2016) comb. nov., Centroptella pontica (Sroka, Godunko & Gattolliat, in Sroka et al. 2019) comb. nov., Centroptella ovata (Shi & Tong, 2019) comb. nov., Centroptella quadrata (Shi & Tong, 2019) comb. nov. and Centroptella saxophila (Agnew, 1961) comb. nov. The two Australian species, C. fustipalpus and C. illiesi, differ from each other in the shape of tergalii; corrections to the original description of C. fustipalpus are given based on re-examination of the holotype and paratypes; details of larval structures of C. illiesi are figured. Corrections to the former descriptions of the South African species C. inzingae and C. saxophila are given. Examination of type material led to the discovery that the original description of the Oriental species Centroptella liebenauae Soldán, Braasch & Muu, 1987 was based on two different species: the descriptions of imago and subimago belong to Centroptella longisetosa Braasch & Soldán, 1980 (the type species of Centroptella), and the description of larva belongs to a different species, which we describe here as Centroptella ingridaesp. nov. The holotype of C. liebenauae, a larva, should be considered lost; based on the date of collection, it belonged to C. longisetosa; a set of larval exuviae with the same collecting data as the holotype, is designated as the neotype of C. liebenauae, and a new synonymy is established: C. longisetosa = C. liebenauaesyn. nov. The larvae originally assigned to C. liebenauae are placed to a new species Centroptella ingridaesp. nov. belonging to the inzingae-ingridae species group; all stages of development of this species are described based on male and female imagines reared from larvae in Thailand and on the misidentified paratypes of C. liebenauae from Vietnam. Centroptella longisetosa is redescribed based on the single paratype from China, the neotype and paratypes of C. liebenauae from Vietnam, and additional material from India. Additional data on the holotype of Centroptella colorata Soldán, Braasch & Muu, 1987 are given.