Baetis forcipula, Pictet, 1843

Sartori, Michel & Bauernfeind, Ernst, 2020, Mayfly types and additional material (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) examined by F. - J. Pictet and A. - E. Pictet, housed in the Museums of Natural History of Geneva and Vienna, Revue suisse de Zoologie 127 (2), pp. 315-339 : 320-321

Baetis forcipula F.-J. Pictet, 1843

Baetis forcipula F.-J. Pictet, 1843 -1845: 170.

Heptagenia forcipula . – Eaton, 1871: 152 (transfer).

Ecdyurus forcipula . – Eaton, 1888: 286 (transfer).

Ecdyonurus forcipula . – Ulmer, 1920b: 136 (transfer).

Ecdyonurus (Ecdyonurus) venosus ( Fabricius, 1775: 304) . new synonym

Accepted name: Ecdyonurus (Ecdyonurus) venosus ( Fabricius, 1775) .

Locus typicus: “… la plus grande partie de l’Allemagne, … Autriche, Bohème et de Bavière… Piémont”.

Type material: NMW; syntype, ♂ imago; Reichenau , Koll[ar] / Ecdyonurus forcipula Pict. [Ulmer’s handwriting] / Genitalia in glycerin in microvial . – NMW; syntype, ♂ imago; Reichenau , Koll[ar.] / Genitalia in glycerin in microvial, right fore leg missing . – NMW; syntype, ♂ imago; Aust[ria], Kollr . [= Kollar ] .

Remarks: F.-J. Pictet proposed the new taxon with reservations in a note (F.-J. Pictet, 1843: 169): “Il y a probablement une nouvelle espèce... Si c’est bien une espèce distincte, elle devra porter le nom de B. forcipula , nom sous lequel elle m’a été communiquée par M. Kollar”. As the description of F.-J. Pictet was expressly based on material (and/or manuscript notes) provided by Kollar from Austria, those specimens are syntypes ( International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999: article 73.2.1). While proposed only conditionally by F.-J. Pictet, the name is clearly available under article 11.5.1. Although Ulmer (1921: 241) stated “Typen dieser Art finde ich nicht” [I cannot find types of this species], he nevertheless mentioned two of the above listed syntype specimens, which he (correctly) identified as Ecdyonurus venosus . Among the specimens present in the NMW collection and placed under the species name E. forcipula , three pinned specimens were without doubt collected by Kollar and bear his handwritten label. Considering all the circumstantial evidence, these specimens must be considered as part of the type series (syntypes) although they bear no direct reference to F.-J. Pictet.

The concept of E. forcipula has been interpreted differently among taxonomists in the past (e.g., Meyer-Dür, 1874: 314; Eaton, 1887: 286; Rostock, 1888: 154; Ulmer, 1929: 32; Schönemund, 1930: 23; Kimmins, 1942a: 123; Kimmins, 1942b: 504) and redescriptions have almost certainly been based on material that belongs to several taxa. Bauernfeind (1990: 76) stated that Kollar’s specimens belong to Ecdyonurus venosus but did not propose a formal synonym. In the meantime a neotype for Ecdyonurus venosus was proposed ( Bauernfeind & Haybach, 2012) and subsequently fixed ( International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 2015) which enables us to formally place Baetis forcipula F.-J. Pictet, 1843 (currently in Ecdyonurus ) in the synonymy of Ephemera venosa Fabricius, 1775 (currently in Ecdyonurus ). The thorough description of Ecdyonurus forcipula by Thomas (1968b: 61) denotes a taxon new to science, for which the name Ecdyonurus (Ecdyonurus) alaini sp. nov. is proposed in honour of our friend Alain Thomas and his outstanding work on Ephemeroptera .