identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
70800F60A37D58A5B55A20F3E9996412.text	70800F60A37D58A5B55A20F3E9996412.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Potamanthus huoshanensis Wu 1987	<div><p>Potamanthus huoshanensis Wu, 1987</p><p>Potamanthus (Patamanthus) huoshanensis Wu, 1987b: 421. figs 1-5. Types: nymph, male and female, from Anhui, China.</p><p>Potamanthus (Patamanthus) huoshanensis: Bae and McCafferty 1991: 49. figs 15, 95, 113, 126, 139 (nymph, male and female); Ishiwata 2001: 58; Zhou 2013: 202; Zhou et al. 2015: 252.</p><p>Potamanthus huoshanensis: Wu et al. 1991: 111. fig. 2 (egg); You and Gui 1995: 116. fig. 123 (male and female).</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>China (Anhui Province); Japan (Yokkaichi city, Lake Biwa).</p><p>Description.</p><p>see Wu (1987b) and Bae and McCafferty (1991).</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>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. 3A, B); the mandibular tusks are indistinctly shorter than in  P. luteus, and this can be seen in nymphal dorsal views (Figs 2A, B, E, F, 3E-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. 3I-L). The two species have a very similar hypopharynx and labia (Fig. 3C, 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. 2I, L). But the midlegs, hindlegs and their claws are very similar (Fig. 2D, H, J, K, M, N).</p><p>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 4A, C, 5E, G); (2) the costal projection of the hindwings are slightly blunter in  P. huoshanensis than in  P. luteus (Fig. 5F, H); (3) the compound eyes of  P. huoshanensis are almost contiguous but they are clearly separated in  P. luteus (Fig. 5A, C); (4) both the lateral and inner extended lobes of the penis of  P. huoshanensis are slightly smaller than those of  P. luteus (Fig. 6C-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. 6A, 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. 6A-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: MA1 = 1.0: 0.7 in the former species and 1.0: 0.9 in the latter (Fig. 5E, 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. 4A, C).</p><p>The females of the two species can differentiated by their wing color and the shape of the hindwings, like in the males (Fig. 4B, D). The compound eyes of female  P. luteus are slightly smaller than those of  P. huoshanensis (Fig. 5B, D), but the subgenital plates are very similar (Fig. 7).</p><p>Although the color of the  P. huoshanensis material is not clear, the original description of Wu (1987b) 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. 4C-D). In addition,  P. luteus has a longitudinal median reddish band on the abdomen (Fig. 4C-D).</p><p>The differences between the two species are listed in Table 1.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/70800F60A37D58A5B55A20F3E9996412	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Li, Wen-Juan;Zhou, Chang-Fa	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.text	585EAD2273DC50FA8759BC480D1F3739.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Potamanthus luteus (Linnaeus 1767)	<div><p>Potamanthus luteus (Linnaeus, 1767)</p><p>Ephemera luteus Linnaeus, 1767: 906. Type: England.</p><p>Ephemera reticulata Fourcroy, 1785: 351. Synonymized by Eaton (1871: 76).</p><p>Baetis mellea Curtis, 1834: 121. Types: subimago. Synonymized by Eaton (1871: 76).</p><p>Baetis marginalis Burmeister, 1839: 801. Types: male and female. Synonymized by Eaton (1871: 76).</p><p>Ephemera flavicans Rambur, 1842: 296. Types: male and female, from Paris, France. Synonymized by Eaton (1871: 76).</p><p>Ephemera chlorotica Rambur, 1842: 296. Types: male and female subimagoes, from Paris, France. Synonymized by Walker (1853: 539).</p><p>Potamanthus luteus (Linnaeus): Pictet 1843: 205; Eaton 1884: 79.</p><p>Potamanthus ferreri Pictet, 1843: 203. Types: male, from Italy. Synonymized by Bae and McCafferty (1991: 51).</p><p>Eucharidis reaumurii Joly &amp; Joly, 1876: 314. Types: nymph. Synonymized by Eaton (1884: 79).</p><p>Potamanthus na Imanishi, 1940: 180, fig. 2 (nymph). Synonymized by Bae and McCafferty (1991: 54).</p><p>Potamanthus naa Imanishi, 1940: 181 (nymph). Synonymized by Bae and McCafferty (1991: 54).</p><p>Potamanthus luteus: Wu 1987a: 336 (female, first record from China); You and Gui 1995: 115, fig. 122 (male); Bauernfeind and  Soldán 2012: 634 (adult, nymph, egg).</p><p>Potamanthus (Patamanthus) luteus oriens: Bae and McCafferty 1991: 54, fig. 4, 125 (subspecies established); Bae 1997: 408; Zhou 2013: 202; Zhou et al. 2015: 252.</p><p>Potamanthus luteus oriens: Quan et al. 2002: 257.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>China (Heilongjiang and Jilin Province); Palearctic and Oriental. From England east through Europe and Asia Minor, south to North Africa.</p><p>Description.</p><p>see Bae and McCafferty (1991) or Bauernfeind and  Soldán (2012).</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>see diagnosis of  P. huoshanensis . Males of this species can be identified by the more distinct color of the wings and penial lobes (Figs 5E-H, 6) and the foretibiae longer than the tarsi (Fig. 4A, C). The nymphs can be distinguished by the slightly larger mandibular tusks, longer foretibiae (Figs 2I, L, 3E-H) and apical segment of the maxillary palpi (Fig. 3K, L).</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Bae and McCafferty (1991) mentioned that the nymphs of the subspecies  Potamanthus luteus oriens have very pointed anterolateral projections of the pronotal and vestigial spine-row on the forefemora. In our material, the former character is distinct, and the transverse spine-row was not recognizable, which is consistent with the description of European  P. luteus provided by Bauernfeind and  Soldán (2012). However, we do not know whether this variation is just at the population level or representative of different subspecies or geographical populations, because we have no material from abroad for comparison.</p><p>In the present comparison and photos, we can see clearly that  P. huoshanensis and  P. luteus oriens are extremely similar in both nymphal and imaginal structures. The differences between them are very slight. Therefore, it is not surprising that Bae and McCafferty (1991) recognized Japanese materials of  P. huoshanensis as  P. luteus oriens, which was later corrected by Ishiwata (2001).</p><p>The distribution of  P. luteus is wide, from Africa to Japan. In contrast,  P. huoshanensis was reported from three allopatric sites in Japan and China. Biogeographic and genetic studies at the population level are required for these species.</p><p>At the generic level, the definitions of the genera  Potamanthus and  Potamanthodes were updated by Li and Zhou (2022) and confirmed by the characters presented in this study.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/585EAD2273DC50FA8759BC480D1F3739	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Li, Wen-Juan;Zhou, Chang-Fa	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
