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

Abstract

The genusCentroptellaBraasch & Soldán, 1980 is accepted here in a wide sense, i.e., includingChoprallaWaltz & McCafferty, 1987. This genus concept is similar to the concept of the genusBungonaHarker, 1957 proposed by Salles et al. (2016), but with the generic nameCentroptellainstead ofBungona. The type species ofBungona,B. narillaHarker, 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 nameB. narillaand the generic nameBungonaarenomina dubia, so the nameCentroptellais the senior name for the genus under consideration. The generic namesChoprallaandCrassolusSalles, Gattolliat & Sartori, 2016 both are junior synonyms ofCentroptella(syn. nov.). The subgeneraBungona,CentroptellaandChoprallaproposed 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.andCentroptella saxophila(Agnew, 1961)comb. nov.The two Australian species,C. fustipalpusandC. illiesi, differ from each other in the shape of tergalii; corrections to the original description ofC. fustipalpusare given based on re-examination of the holotype and paratypes; details of larval structures ofC. illiesiare figured. Corrections to the former descriptions of the South African speciesC. inzingaeandC. saxophilaare given. Examination of type material led to the discovery that the original description of the Oriental speciesCentroptella liebenauaeSoldán, Braasch & Muu, 1987 was based on two different species: the descriptions of imago and subimago belong toCentroptella longisetosaBraasch & Soldán, 1980 (the type species ofCentroptella), and the description of larva belongs to a different species, which we describe here asCentroptella ingridaesp. nov.The holotype ofC. liebenauae, a larva, should be considered lost; based on the date of collection, it belonged toC. longisetosa; a set of larval exuviae with the same collecting data as the holotype, is designated as the neotype ofC. liebenauae, and a new synonymy is established:C. longisetosa=C. liebenauaesyn. nov.The larvae originally assigned toC. liebenauaeare placed to a new speciesCentroptella ingridaesp. nov.belonging to theinzingae-ingridaespecies 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 ofC. liebenauaefrom Vietnam.Centroptella longisetosais redescribed based on the single paratype from China, the neotype and paratypes ofC. liebenauaefrom Vietnam, and additional material from India. Additional data on the holotype ofCentroptella colorataSoldán, Braasch & Muu, 1987 are given.