Siphonoperla graeca (Aubert, 1956) stat. n. (Figs 86–90)

Chloroperla neglecta graeca Aubert, 1956 — Aubert 1956: 211 –213. (Greece, Metsovon: ♂ holotype, Ψ allotype, 4♂ paratypes)

Siphonoperla neglecta graeca (Aubert, 1956) — Ikonomov 1969: 21. (Macedonia)

Siphonoperla neglecta graeca (Aubert, 1956) — Kaċanski 1971a: 88. (Bosnia – Herzegovina)

Siphonoperla neglecta graeca (Aubert, 1956) —Sivec 1980: 12. (Bosnia – Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia)

Siphonoperla neglecta graeca (Aubert, 1956) — Ikonomov 1986: 113. (Macedonia)

Material: ALBANIA: Shkodër County, Prokletije Mountains, stream along the conjunction to Pejë Pass from the Bogë–Okol road, N 42°24.496’ E 19°45.271’, 1009 m, 30.05.2005, leg. KB, ZB, DM, DP: 1Ψ; Shkodër County, Prokletije Mountains, stream with a waterfall along the Theth–Okol road, N 42°24.137’ E 19°45.791’, 900 m, 0 3.06.2005, leg. KB, ZB, DM, DP: 2♂ 4Ψ, 1 larva, 2 exuviae (1 exuviae prepared for SEM).

This species is known from Bosnia – Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia and Greece. Albanian localities are small karst streams in the Prokletije Mountains. New for the Albanian fauna.

It was described, and hitherto regarded, as a subspecies of S. neglecta . Although the distribution of S. neglecta and S. graeca greatly overlaps (Fig 102), there are some morphological features that contradict its subspecific classification. Herein, I propose full species status. The penial armature of S. graeca shows more affinity with S. burmeisteri (Pictet) than to S. neglecta . Its medial spine–field has no strong lateral scales, its proximal part is paler and wide, and the apical part of the penis sac between the titillators is well sclerotized. S. burmeisteri has a north–central European distribution and a single Balkan record from Bulgaria (Braasch & Joost 1976). The Anatolian records (Theischinger 1976a, 1976b, Zwick 1971) surely refer to S. libanica Alouf, given the geographic affinity discussed in its original description (Alouf 1992).

The Albanian specimens slightly differ from Greek specimens and the original description on the basis of the medial spine–field of the penis being narrower and the epiproct being much wider in dorsal view (Figs 86– 88). Because larvae of Siphonoperla are extremely difficult to determine, even in final instars (Zwick 2004), I do not describe the previously unknown larva of S. graeca, only show the distinct colour pattern of the head and the pronotum, in comparison with the imago (Figs 89–90).