Rhyacophila fasciata Hagen
Creators: name: Valladolid, María
name: Arauzo, Mercedes
name: Chertoprud, Mikhail V.
name: Chvojka, Pavel
name: Czachorowski, Stanisław
name: Dorda, Beatriz A.
name: Hinić, Jelena
name: Ibrahimi, Halil
name: Karaouzas, Ioannis
name: Krpač, Vladimir
name: Kučinić, Mladen
name: Lodovici, Omar
name: Salokannel, Juha
name: Stamenković, Valentina Slavevska
name: Stojanović, Katarina
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2021
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Trichoptera
Rhyacophilidae
Rhyacophila
Rhyacophila fasciata

description: Rhyacophila fasciata Hagen
Rhyacophila fasciata Hagen, 1859: 153.
Lectotype: 1 male. Entomology 11067, Entomology Collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University.
Type locality: Elberfeld (Germany).
Other information: (in label) 57; E.-illegible; Hagen; 107; ML; type 11067; (vial); Lectotype Rhyacophila fasciata Hagen. (MCZBase, 2020). (Figs 2a, 2b, 30a, 30b)
Ross (1952) included the species in his publication about the lectotypes of Hagen in the collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Description. This species has been described by several authors over many years. The first publication where this species is cited is that of Hagen (1859), where he provided a very short description: “A. Lower appendages undivided at the top.
1. The tongue-like extention of the last abdominal segment with an enlarged end.
5. R. fasciata Hag. The app. are very similar to the previous species (R. ferruginea Scop.), but the size of the animal is much more significant, and the upper wings have three dark cross bands. A single male from Elberfeld” (Fig 30a).”
McLachlan (1868) described it as follows: “ R. fasciata Hagen, may be distinguished almost with certainty by the dark fasciae on the anterior wings. The form of the dorsal lobe is very distinct from the preceding (R. paupera), being broad and rounded, and nearly concealing the app. sup. The second joint of the app. inf. is obliquely truncate (Pl.XIV. fig. 16). I have three ♂ from Carinthia from Zeller.”
In 1879, McLachan described R. fasciata and R. septentrionis. In the description of R. fasciata he included the original specimen from Elberfeld, his specimens from Carinthia, saying that they should be referred to septentrionis, and 7 ♂ and 1 ♀ from the Pyrenees (France), writing “it may be that these should form a distinct species”. These specimens from the Pyrenees were described in 1916 by Navás as Rhyacophila sociata (Valladolid et al. 2018). On the other hand, in the description of R. septentrionis McLachlan included his specimens from Scotland, as well as others from different countries of North and Central Europe. Based on results of our studies of morphology and genetics, we can say that most of the specimens cited belong to R. fasciata, keeping only those from Scotland as R. septentrionis.
Klapálek (1893) described the larva and the pupa of R. septentrionis in Bohem, but the area matches with those of R. fasciata, so it should be this species. The same situation pertains to Silfvenius (1905), who described larvae and pupae from South Finland as R. septentrionis that should be R. fasciata.
Ulmer (1909), based on previous authors, described the imagos and larvae of R. fasciata and R. septentrionis, first one from Elberfeld and the second one from different places in Germany. We consider that these specimens all belong to R. fasciata.
There are more recent authors that have described R. fasciata and R. septentrionis specimens: Nielsen (1942) as R. septentrionis from Denmark; Nóvak (1963) as R. fasciata from Czechoslovakia; Hickin (1954) and Mackereth (1954) as R. septentrionis from United Kingdom; Fotius-Jaboulet (1964) as R. septentrionis from France; Lepneva (1964) as R. septentrionis from northwest, west and southwest Russia; Eidel (1974) as R. fasciata from Austria; Buholzer (1978) as R. fasciata from Switzerland; Sedlak (1985) as R. fasciata from Central Europe; Pitsch (1993) as R. fasciata from Central Europe. Of all these descriptions, only those from the United Kingdom could belong to R. septentrionis; the rest, from continental Europe, should be R. fasciata or some related species.
Finally, Malicky & Sipahiler (1993) illustrated the differences among male specimens of R. fasciata from Europe, Turkey, and Lebanon that they considered as subspecies of the R. fasciata Group. Some of them have been promoted to species (R. denticulata McLachlan 1879, by Valladolid et al. 2018; R. kykladica Malicky & Sipahiler 1993, by Valladolid et al. 2019), one species has been resurrected (R. sociata Navás 1916, previously a synonym of R. denticulata, by Valladolid et al. 2018), and others could be considered also valid species (Valladolid, unpublished data).
description: Published as part of Valladolid, María, Arauzo, Mercedes, Chertoprud, Mikhail V., Chvojka, Pavel, Czachorowski, Stanisław, Dorda, Beatriz A., Hinić, Jelena, Ibrahimi, Halil, Karaouzas, Ioannis, Krpač, Vladimir, Kučinić, Mladen, Lodovici, Omar, Salokannel, Juha, Stamenković, Valentina Slavevska & Stojanović, Katarina, 2021, The Rhyacophila fasciata Group in Europe: Rhyacophila fasciata Hagen 1859 and formerly synonymized species (Trichoptera: Rhyacophilidae), with new description of Rhyacophila fasciata and Rhyacophila septentrionis McLachlan 1865 (stat. prom.)., pp. 1-57 in Zootaxa 4975 (1) on pages 14-15, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4975.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4804044