taxonID	type	description	language	source
70800F60A37D58A5B55A20F3E9996412.taxon	distribution	Distribution. China (Anhui Province); Japan (Yokkaichi city, Lake Biwa).	en	Li, Wen-Juan, Zhou, Chang-Fa (2022): A detailed comparison of two species in the genus Potamanthus Pictet, 1843 from China (Ephemeroptera, Potamanthidae). ZooKeys 1125: 193-205, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1125.89219, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1125.89219
70800F60A37D58A5B55A20F3E9996412.taxon	description	Description. see Wu (1987 b) and Bae and McCafferty (1991).	en	Li, Wen-Juan, Zhou, Chang-Fa (2022): A detailed comparison of two species in the genus Potamanthus Pictet, 1843 from China (Ephemeroptera, Potamanthidae). ZooKeys 1125: 193-205, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1125.89219, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1125.89219
70800F60A37D58A5B55A20F3E9996412.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. This species resembles Potamanthus luteus in the main characters of both the adults and the nymphs, which can be differentiated only by very fine structures (Table 1). In the nymph, the labrum of P. huoshanensis is slightly narrower than that of P. luteus (Fig. 3 A, B); the mandibular tusks are indistinctly shorter than in P. luteus, and this can be seen in nymphal dorsal views (Figs 2 A, B, E, F, 3 E-H); the maxillary palpi of both species are similar but different in their length ratio: the ratio in the former species is 1.0: 0.6: 1.0, whereas that of the latter species is 1.0: 0.7: 1.3 (Fig. 3 I-L). The two species have a very similar hypopharynx and labia (Fig. 3 C, D, M, N). Although the color pattern of examined P. huoshanensis has fainted and is pale, the leg lengths are different in the two species: ratio of forefemora: tibiae: tarsi = 1.0: 0.7: 0.6 in P. huoshanensis and 1.0: 0.8: 0.6 in P. luteus, the former having slightly shorter forelegs and tibiae (Fig. 2 I, L). But the midlegs, hindlegs and their claws are very similar (Fig. 2 D, H, J, K, M, N). Males of the two species can be easily separated: (1) the pigments of the crossveins of the forewings of P. huoshanensis are almost invisible, but they are clear on the forewings of P. luteus (Figs 4 A, C, 5 E, G); (2) the costal projection of the hindwings are slightly blunter in P. huoshanensis than in P. luteus (Fig. 5 F, H); (3) the compound eyes of P. huoshanensis are almost contiguous but they are clearly separated in P. luteus (Fig. 5 A, C); (4) both the lateral and inner extended lobes of the penis of P. huoshanensis are slightly smaller than those of P. luteus (Fig. 6 C-E, H-J); (5) the penes of P. huoshanensis are slightly shorter than those of P. luteus: the subgenital plate of P. huoshanensis almost covers the base of the penial lobes but the penes of P. luteus are longer, with the whole penes completely visible in ventral view (Fig. 6 A, B, F, G); (6) the subgenital plate of P. huoshanensis has a shallow median emargination, whereas that of P. luteus has a clear V-shaped cleft (Fig. 6 A-D, F-I); (7) the forking point of the MA in the P. huoshanensis forewings is more distal than that of P. luteus, with the ratio of MA: MA 1 = 1.0: 0.7 in the former species and 1.0: 0.9 in the latter (Fig. 5 E, G); (8) the foretibiae of P. huoshanensis are shorter than in P. luteus, with the ratio forefemora: tibiae: tarsi = 1.0: 1.3: 1.6 in P. huoshanensis and 1.0: 1.6: 1.5 in P. luteus (Fig. 4 A, C). The females of the two species can differentiated by their wing color and the shape of the hindwings, like in the males (Fig. 4 B, D). The compound eyes of female P. luteus are slightly smaller than those of P. huoshanensis (Fig. 5 B, D), but the subgenital plates are very similar (Fig. 7). Although the color of the P. huoshanensis material is not clear, the original description of Wu (1987 b) and our specimens clearly show that the males, females and nymphs of this species do not have dots on their abdominal terga. In contrast, all stages of P. luteus have a pair of dark dots on the abdominal terga (Fig. 4 C-D). In addition, P. luteus has a longitudinal median reddish band on the abdomen (Fig. 4 C-D). The differences between the two species are listed in Table 1.	en	Li, Wen-Juan, Zhou, Chang-Fa (2022): A detailed comparison of two species in the genus Potamanthus Pictet, 1843 from China (Ephemeroptera, Potamanthidae). ZooKeys 1125: 193-205, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1125.89219, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1125.89219
585EAD2273DC50FA8759BC480D1F3739.taxon	distribution	Distribution. China (Heilongjiang and Jilin Province); Palearctic and Oriental. From England east through Europe and Asia Minor, south to North Africa.	en	Li, Wen-Juan, Zhou, Chang-Fa (2022): A detailed comparison of two species in the genus Potamanthus Pictet, 1843 from China (Ephemeroptera, Potamanthidae). ZooKeys 1125: 193-205, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1125.89219, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1125.89219
585EAD2273DC50FA8759BC480D1F3739.taxon	description	Description. see Bae and McCafferty (1991) or Bauernfeind and Soldan (2012).	en	Li, Wen-Juan, Zhou, Chang-Fa (2022): A detailed comparison of two species in the genus Potamanthus Pictet, 1843 from China (Ephemeroptera, Potamanthidae). ZooKeys 1125: 193-205, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1125.89219, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1125.89219
585EAD2273DC50FA8759BC480D1F3739.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. see diagnosis of P. huoshanensis. Males of this species can be identified by the more distinct color of the wings and penial lobes (Figs 5 E-H, 6) and the foretibiae longer than the tarsi (Fig. 4 A, C). The nymphs can be distinguished by the slightly larger mandibular tusks, longer foretibiae (Figs 2 I, L, 3 E-H) and apical segment of the maxillary palpi (Fig. 3 K, L).	en	Li, Wen-Juan, Zhou, Chang-Fa (2022): A detailed comparison of two species in the genus Potamanthus Pictet, 1843 from China (Ephemeroptera, Potamanthidae). ZooKeys 1125: 193-205, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1125.89219, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1125.89219
