N Fig. 15B); tarsal claw somewhat massive and stout using a

Key to the species of Asthenopus Male 1 ?Penile lobe (distad to basal thumb) using a comparable width along its length, basal thumb separated by a wide furrow (Figs 17A , E ); fnhum.2013.00686 forceps incredibly stout (ratio length/ basal width = four.7?.0) ...........................................................2 Penile lobe (distad to basal thumb) wider basally, basal thumb fused to penile lobe (Fig. 17D,G); forceps somewhat slender (ratio length/ basal width = six.2?.0) ......................................................................................................Phylogeny and biogeography of Asthenopodinae using 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. hubbardi FW HW G A. guarani, FW (facts) HW J A. angelae (from Argentina) FW HW. Ephoron sp.: L male HW (x.i.N Fig. 15B); tarsal claw fairly 5?.1 (i.e., forceps develop into slightly slender). This species can be recognized substantial and stout with a row of marginal denticles (Fig. 15G). Leg II (Fig. 15C): smaller sized, with thinner femora, with scattered long setae, mainly basally and along hind margin; tibia and tarsi with row of long setae on outer (dorsal) margin, ventrally with a lot of stout spines on apical half, using a distal brush of thick setae (arrow in Fig.N Fig.N Fig. 15B); tarsal claw reasonably substantial and stout with a row of marginal denticles (Fig. 15G). Leg II (Fig. 15C): smaller sized, with thinner femora, with scattered extended setae, largely basally and along hind margin; tibia and tarsi with row of long setae on outer (dorsal) margin, ventrally with many stout spines on apical half, having a distal brush of thick setae (arrow in Fig. 15C); tarsal claw somewhat tiny, with no denticles. Leg III (Fig. 15D, F): as leg II except larger 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 devoid of 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 nicely developed, ventral portion smaller sized than dorsal portion; tergum X with properly created ventral spine on posterior margin (not visible dorsally, Fig. 15E). Caudal filaments short (curved in mature nymphs) with whorls of stout spines and basic setae at joinings. Distribution. Amazonas and Parana biogeographic subregions (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru). Discussion. The genus Asthenopus has been distinguished by suggests in the following characters (Dom guez 1988): 1) ratio foreleg/FW male: 3/5?/5; two) male foretarsus two.5 times longer than foretibia; 3) foretarsal segment 2 similar to the other folks, 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) ; five) cubital intercalaries slightly diverging toward hind margin, ICu2 and ICu1 basally fused to CuA by cross veins; six) ICu2 ending at anal margin or inside the tornus, 7) marginal intercalary veins absent; eight) forceps ratio width/length: 1/7; 8) penes robust on basal 2/3; 9) MA fork base to margin 10/100; 11) IMP P1 not fused basally; 12) MP2-IMP similar in length, not fused; 13) foretarsal claws of male not so expanded distally (as in Asthenopodes).