N Fig. 15B); tarsal claw comparatively big and stout using a

The proposal of fnins.2013.00251 Dom guez (1988) and Hubbard Dom guez (1988) concerning the intermediacy of ..............................32 Thecal edge angle 60?0? H:GCD = 0.7?.1; deep water (786?010 m) .... ....................................................................................... T. stabile (Fig. Priasthenopus gilliesi with respect to Asthenopus curtus and Asthenopodes picteti is in concordance with our benefits. 15C): smaller, with thinner femora, with scattered extended setae, mostly basally and along hind margin; tibia and tarsi with row of long setae on outer (dorsal) margin, ventrally with lots of stout spines on apical half, with a distal brush of thick setae (arrow in Fig. 15C); tarsal claw fairly compact, without the need of denticles. Leg III (Fig. 15D, F): as leg II except bigger and with anterior margin of femur densely covered with thick setae, and posterior margin roundly expanded at apex bearing a group of stout acute spines (Fig. 15F); tibia without having distal brush. Coxae I and II directed ventrally, coxae III directed laterally. Abdomen. Gill I lowered in size, double, both portions subequal in length and width. Gills II II effectively created, ventral portion smaller sized than dorsal portion; tergum X with properly created ventral spine on posterior margin (not visible dorsally, Fig. 15E). Caudal filaments quick (curved in mature nymphs) with whorls of stout spines and easy setae at joinings. Distribution. Amazonas and Parana biogeographic subregions (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru). Discussion. The genus Asthenopus has been distinguished by suggests of your following characters (Dom guez 1988): 1) ratio foreleg/FW male: 3/5?/5; two) male foretarsus 2.5 occasions longer than foretibia; three) foretarsal segment 2 equivalent towards the other individuals, and 2/3 the length of tibia); four) ratio length of Rs stem/fork to margin 1/4 (or fork Rs at 2/10 from base to margin) ; 5) cubital intercalaries slightly diverging toward hind margin, ICu2 and ICu1 basally fused to CuA by cross veins; 6) ICu2 ending at anal margin or within the tornus, 7) marginal intercalary veins absent; eight) forceps ratio width/length: 1/7; eight) penes robust on basal 2/3; 9) MA fork base to margin 10/100; 11) IMP P1 not fused basally; 12) MP2-IMP related in length, not fused; 13) foretarsal claws of male not so expanded distally (as in Asthenopodes). Our phylogenetic analyses only recovered some of these character states as synapomorphies of this genus (see diagnosis and Appendix two). The proposal of fnins.2013.00251 Dom guez (1988) and Hubbard Dom guez (1988) concerning the intermediacy of Priasthenopus gilliesi with respect to Asthenopus curtus and Asthenopodes picteti is in concordance with our outcomes. Priasthenopus gilliesi resulted sister for the Povilla-Asthenopus clade, presenting some plesiomorphic character states shared with Asthenopodes. Crucial towards the species of Asthenopus Male 1 ?Penile lobe (distad to basal thumb) with a similar width along its length, basal thumb separated by a wide furrow (Figs 17A , E ); fnhum.2013.00686 forceps extremely stout (ratio length/ basal width = 4.7?.0) ...........................................................2 Penile lobe (distad to basal thumb) wider basally, basal thumb fused to penile lobe (Fig. 17D,G); forceps relatively slender (ratio length/ basal width = six.2?.0) ......................................................................................................Phylogeny and biogeography of Asthenopodinae having a revision of Asthenopus...Figure 16. Asthenopus fore (FW) and hind wings (HW) of male imago. A A. curtus FW HW C A. magnus FW HW E A.