Insecta, Ephemeroptera)

Mainzer Naturhistorisches Archiv * Beiheft 32 Catalogue of the Mayflies of Germany, Austria and Switzerland and their Synonyms (Insecta, Ephemeroptera) by Arne Haybach Naturhistorisches Museum Mainz Landessammlung für Naturkunde Rheinland-Pfalz 2008 [2010] Cover: Imago (after VAYSSIERE, 1881) and larva (after SCHOENEMUND, 1930a) of Prosopistoma pennigerum and pictogram of Germany, Austria and Switzerland author: Dr. Arne Haybach An den Mühlwegen 23 55129 Mainz E-Mail: [email protected] Authorized translation of HAYBACH, A. (2008): Katalog der aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz bekannten Eintagsfliegen und ihrer Synonyme (Insecta, Ephemeroptera).- Mainzer Naturwissenschaftliches Archiv Beiheft 32: 75 S., Mainz. Inhalt 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 3 2. Area covered..................................................................................................................... 4 3. Methods ............................................................................................................................ 5 4. Systematic List .................................................................................................................. 6 5. Nomenclature in the species groups................................................................................ 25 6. Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... 55 7. Literature......................................................................................................................... 56 8. Terms and Abbrevations.................................................................................................. 75 1. Introduction species rich genera, are the rule rather than the exception. Keeping in mind that The knowledge of the mayflies or Ephem- the species composition of Central Europe eroptera increased considerably in Central was only known at a fraction in the 18th Europe in the last 30 years. Beside a and 19th century and in addition consider- number of more or less current faunal lists ing that only a few species had been de- of all countries a number of modern keys scribed sufficiently then, it becomes clear for single countries and even for the whole that also the synonyms would not comply of Central Europe exist. However, so far a with modern taxonomic criteria. recapitulatory listing which makes at least all subjective synonyms accessible apart from the valid names and designates also relevant misinterpretations in the older literature (nomina abusa) is missing. Such a catalogue is required by mayfly specialists as well as by curators of museum collections or it may be helpful for a wide range of entomologists which, for example, in the context of the production of so-called red data lists of endangered animals need reliable assistance when interpreting older faunistic literature. Michael Rostock (1879: p 83) a famous German entomologist complained about the difficult nomenclatural conditions within the Neuroptera sensu Linnaeus to which the maylies also belong „Die Untergat- tungen und Unter-Untergattungen sind schon jetzt so zerplittert und verwirrt, … , dass sie kein Mensch mehr übersehen kann. Die Arten sind, oft der unbedeutends- ten Verschiedenheiten wegen, zu ganz unnöthigen Gattungen ja zu Familien und Ordnungen erhoben, wodurch nur die Uebersicht er- fig. 1: The teacher and significant German schwert wird und der Nachwelt die entomologist Michael Rostock (Dret- Reinigung des Augiasstalls vorbe- schen) *21.Apr.1821 – †17.Sep.1893 halten bleibt“. [The sugenera and sub-subgenera are For these reasons this catalogue should even today so fragmentated and confused be understood as a guide through the jun- … that nobody is able to have a general gle of the widespread nomenclatural litera- overview. The species, due to insignificant ture only. There is definitely no guarantee differences, are frequently upgraded to for the correctness of the nomenclatural totally unnecessary genera or even to activities of the cited authors. But in con- families or orders with the only result that trast to most other catalogues the author the overview is complicated and the purifi- makes the effort to name the authors re- cation of the Augean stables is reserved quired for all nomenclatural operations. If for posterity (authors transl.)] necessary the reader is able to verify the significance of the basical nomenclatural We can treat nomenclatural involvements article. In the case of contradictory infor- in general as kinds of formal or judicial mation adequate annotations are given. decisions. On the other side mayflies are Such species are often designated as with respect to their taxonomy also a very nomina dubia or “nomina inquirenda” re- sophisticated insect order and even today spectively. misidentifications, especially within the 3 fig. 2: Limnofaunistic regions after ILLIES (1978): LF 1: Iberian Peninsula, LF 2: The Pyrenees, LF 3: Italy, LF 4: Alps, LF 5: Dinaric Western Balkan, LF 6: Hellenic Western Balkan, LF 7: Eastern Balkan, LF 8: Western Mountains, LF 9: Central Mountain, LF 10: The Carpathians, LF 11: Hungarian Plains, LF 12: Pontic Province, LF 13: Western Lowlands, LF 14: Central Lowlands, LF 15: Baltic Province, LF 16: Eastern Lowlands, LF 17: Ireland, LF 18: England, LF 19: Is- land, LF 20: Boreal Highlands, LF 21: Tundra, LF 22: Northern Sweden, LF 23: Taiga, LF 24 The Caukasus, LF 25 Caspian Plains. For these reasons it must be clear that for of the species is mainly founded on the all users that at least older faunistic re- summarizing work of BAUERNFEIND (1994, cords should be interpreted with extreme 1995) for Austria, SARTORI & LANDOLT care. If such records are the only sources (1999) for Switzerland and HAYBACH & for the occurrence of a distinct species in a MALZACHER (2003) for Germany. Moreover larger area and are therefore relevant for several updating articles which are quoted threat analysis the corresponding collec- at the corresponding species texts are tions, as far as they exist must be re- considered. In this context I’m very grate- viewed. ful to all colleagues who made their arti- Otherwise it is sometimes only possible to cles available for me. determine particular species in monotypic families or genera after figures in the basic To assure the account of this catalogue in literature. the German-speaking region at least for some years without essential supplements 2. Area covered we extend the area of incorporated spe- The catalogue is in the tradition of “Ver- cies to Central-Europe in a wide sense. zeichniss der Neuropteren Deutsch- It covers here Great Britain, the northern lands, Österreichs und der Schweiz“ European plains, the central and western of ROSTOCK (1881), whereas in this work mountains and the Alps. only the mayflies are treated. The variety 4 3. Methods Besides some of own its nomenclatural work in a marginal extent this catalogue is mainly the result of extensive bibliographic studies. For instance, all descriptions of central European species since the 10th edition of the Sytema Naturae of Linnaeus (1758) are sighted and cited if possible in their original form. In the few cases where this was impossible for me in spite of effort over many yeasr this is marked with a prefixed (*) in the reference list. An indispensable starting point of the bibliographic work was the monograph of mayflies of the world by Eaton (1871). This famous author indexed all mayflies orbis ter- rarum published up to this time as well as their corresponding literature. Moreover, in many cases he revised the collections of the older authors. Additionally the nomenclatural catalogues of EATON (1883-88), JACOB (1972), HUBBARD (1990), KLUGE (2004), as well as many other smaller works with revisions or nomenclatural notes were considered. The work of BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN (in fig. 3: The 10th edition of Systema Naturae prep.): „Ephemeroptera of Europe“ with of Carolus LINNAEUS (1758), starting extensive synonymies and nomenclature point for the binominal nomenclature in was able to be studied in a small part in a zoology. draft stage. A desirable adoption of the nomenclature in both works was unfortunately not possible On the other side the species of the east- for reasons of time. ern European plains or Fennoscandia are only incorporated if they are at least pene- This catalogue should not be misunder- trating one of the above mentioned re- stood as a reference for the German- gions. speaking region or as a nomenclatural revi- sion. The systematic concept of the lists is Species, so far not recorded from Ger- only mirroring my best subjective under- many, Austria or Switzerland will be standing and will, as everything in natural marked with a prefixed (*) in chapter 4. sciences, alter with new knowledge. They are only included if recorded from a In general we could use any formal valid neighbouring region of the Limnofauna name for each Taxon, with a good reason Europaea (Lf) after ILLIES (1978, cf. fig. 2) even their subjective synonyms. and if its occurrence in the named area The use of genera or subgenera for higher cannot excluded with safety. taxa is moreover always also merely an In these cases, as a rule only the nearest expression of personal systematic under- neighbouring region is mentioned. standing and is in general only reflecting the intention of the author to handle cer- tain genera in a close or on a wide sense. 5 4.

Load more