Hydropsyche dolosa Banks 1939

Hydropsyche dolosa Banks 1939, NEW RECORD for India (Figs 1–6) Hydropsyche dolosa Banks 1939, 85: 489; synonym of Hydropsyche formosana Banks 1934 (Mey 1999); male redescribed as distinct species (Malicky & Chantaramongkol 2000); belonging to the Hydropsyche formosana Species Group (Oláh & Johanson 2008); larva described (Prommi 2016). Material examined. India: Assam, Baksa, Manas National Park, 26°39’35.61” N, 91° 0’9.21” E, 176 m, 17.x.2022, 1 male, Pandher, (HARC, ZSI Solan); Assam, Baksa, Manas National Park, 26°39’35.59” N, 91° 0’8.11” E, 176 m, 16.x.2022, 1 male, Pandher, (HARC, ZSI Solan). Redescription. Overall color in alcohol pale yellow, maxillary and labial palps pale. Head light yellow, antennae and legs pale yellow. Body covered with scattered light golden pubescence. Wings pale whitish, membranes light brown, with pale maculation and reticulate pattern. Length from tip of head to apices of folded forewings about 9.00 mm (n=2). Length of each forewing 7.00 mm. Length of each hind wing 5.75 mm. Male genitalia (Figs 1–6). In lateral view (Fig. 4) abdominal segment IX longitudinally short; convex anterolaterally; posterolateral margin with prominent, rounded, setose apical lobe, its setal fringe nearly continuous with that on posterolateral slope of median keel; depression visible between segments IX and X. In dorsal view (Fig. 1), segment IX rounded apically, setose medial keel projecting posterad. Body of tergum X very broad, quadrangular in dorsal and lateral and views (Figs 1, 4), with elevated setose projection basally; apicoventral setose lobes long, sigmoid, slender, directed dorsolaterad and posterad in lateral view (Fig. 4), in dorsal view (Fig. 1) curved caudomesad near 1/3 distance from base, each lobe slightly pointed apically, with wide interlobular gap between them; pair of round apicodorsal lobes basomesally between apicoventral setose lobes. Inferior appendages each long; basal segment slender, sinuous, slightly dilated beyond base in lateral view (Fig. 4), in ventral view (Fig. 2) curved slightly mesad; apical segment broad basally, tapering toward apex, hooked dorsomesad in ventral and lateral views (Figs 2, 4). Phallic apparatus complex, broad basally in lateral view (Fig. 3); endotheca slender, with pair of long, basally broad and apically divergent subapical spines directed anterolaterad in ventral and dorsal views (Figs 5, 6); one preapical spine and small apical spine directed dorsad in lateral view (Fig. 3). Distribution. India (Assam), China, Vietnam, and Thailand. Remarks. Mey (1999) considered H. dolosa to be a synonym of H. formosana after examining one of type specimen of H. dolosa but Malicky and Chantaramongkol (2000) did not agree and considered them to be two different species with very small differences in their male genitalia (c.f. Malicky & Chantaramongkol 2000, 822p). However, there are clear differences in segment IX (which Malicky & Chantaramongkol 2000 didn’t mention) on which the apical keel is relatively broad in lateral view (making sternum IX wide) in H. dolosa but the apical keel is relatively narrow in lateral view in H. formosana. Tergum X has apicoventral setose lobes (distal fingers) relatively short in H. dolosa and bent mesad near the base in dorsal view, but they are longer and lyre-shaped in H. formosana (bent in a semicircular manner at base then directed caudad in dorsal view). In addition, the apicodorsal lobe (dorsal ridge) of segment X is uniform and present at the base of the apicoventral setose lobes in H. formosana either with a relatively straight caudal edge or slightly indented in the middle, but in H. dolosa the apicodorsal lobe is bifid and represented as two separate cusps. Malicky (2013) said, “ Hydropsyche formosana Ulmer 1913 und H. dolosa Banks 1939: Obwohl Mey (1999) diese beiden für synonym hält, haben wir (M&C 2000) Zweifel daran geäussert. Die Frage bleibt für weitere Untersuchungen offen.” [Hydropsyche formosana Ulmer 1913 and H. dolosa Banks 1939: Although Mey (1999) considered these two to be synonymous, we (Malicky & Chantaramongkol 2000) have expressed doubts about this. The question remains open for further investigation.] Recently, Malicky (correspondence 3 January 2025) suggested that our species also could be Hydropsyche fryeri Ulmer 1915 and said, “I think that only DNA comparisons of specimens from the original localities can definitely answer the question.” We agree that DNA is needed to help clarify the situation.