taxonID	type	description	language	source
C81587A0FFE0043459C1F872FC2AFEB3.taxon	description	(Figs 1 – 89)	en	Kluge, Nikita, Sivaruban, T., Srinivasan, Pandiarajan, Barathy, S., Isack, Rajasekaran (2024): Redescriptions of Indian species of Nigrobaetis Kazlauskas (in Novikova & Kluge) 1987 (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae). Zootaxa 5418 (5): 528-550, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5
C81587A0FFE0043459C1F872FC2AFEB3.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Baetis (Margobaetis) mundus Chang & Yang (in Kang & Chang & Yang) 1994.	en	Kluge, Nikita, Sivaruban, T., Srinivasan, Pandiarajan, Barathy, S., Isack, Rajasekaran (2024): Redescriptions of Indian species of Nigrobaetis Kazlauskas (in Novikova & Kluge) 1987 (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae). Zootaxa 5418 (5): 528-550, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5
C81587A0FFE0043459C1F872FC2AFEB3.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Egg more or less asymmetric: in typical case one side bluntly cone-like pointed, with surface mostly smooth; opposite side hemispheric or hemi-ellipsoid, with regularly arranged papillae and / or other relief (Figs 39 – 43, 86 – 89). Paraglossa narrower than in other Nigrobaetis, with apical setae arranged mostly in 2 longitudinal rows (Figs 17 – 18, 54; Müller-Liebenau 1969: Abb. 140 e; Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023: figs 4 b, 12 b, 18 b, 24 b – c, 31 b – c, 37 d). Composition. Europe: Nigrobaetis (Margobaetis) gracilis (Bogoescu & Tabacaru 1957). Jordan: probably N. (M.) vuatazi Gattolliat & Sartori in Gattolliat et al. 2012 (egg structure unknown). Arabia: N. (M.) arabiensis Gattolliat & Sartori 2008. Algeria: probably N. (M.) numidicus (Soldan & Thomas 1983) (egg structure unknown). Afrotropical Region: probably N. (M.) bethuneae Lugo-Ortiz & de Moor 2000 (egg structure unknown). In subsequent publications, some other Afrotropical species will be described. Siberia and Far East: N. (M.) bacillus (Kluge 1983). Continental China: probably N. (M.) trialbus Li et al. 2023 (egg structure unknown). Taiwan: N. (M.) tatuensis (Müller-Liebenau 1985) (= « Baetis taiwanensis »: Kang et al. 1994), N. (M.) mundus (Chang & Yang in Kang et al. 1994). Probably also N. (M.) facetus (Chang & Yang in Kang et al. 1994), N. (M.) terminus (Chang & Yang in Kang et al. 1994) (egg structure unknown). Oriental Region: N. (M.) minutus (Müller-Liebenau 1984) (= N. paramakalyani Kubendran & Balasubramanian in Kubendran et al. 2015 syn. n.; = N. sumbensis Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023 syn. n.), N. (M.) klugei Sivaruban et al. 2022. Probably also species with unknown egg structure — N. (M.) mirabilis (Müller-Liebenau 1984), N. (M.) gombaki (Müller-Liebenau 1984), N. (M.) plures Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023, N. (M.) palawus Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023, N. (M.) suma Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023, N. (M.) borneus Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023, N. (M.) kaliman Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023. Described and figured eggs of N. plures, N. suma and N. kaliman (Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023: figs 7, 27, 40) are immature, have no definite shape and have no chorion structure. In subsequent publications, some other Oriental species will be described.	en	Kluge, Nikita, Sivaruban, T., Srinivasan, Pandiarajan, Barathy, S., Isack, Rajasekaran (2024): Redescriptions of Indian species of Nigrobaetis Kazlauskas (in Novikova & Kluge) 1987 (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae). Zootaxa 5418 (5): 528-550, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5
C81587A0FFE0043759C1FE52FE65FBE7.taxon	description	(Figs 1 – 89)	en	Kluge, Nikita, Sivaruban, T., Srinivasan, Pandiarajan, Barathy, S., Isack, Rajasekaran (2024): Redescriptions of Indian species of Nigrobaetis Kazlauskas (in Novikova & Kluge) 1987 (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae). Zootaxa 5418 (5): 528-550, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5
C81587A0FFE0043759C1FE52FE65FBE7.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Ephemera nigra Linnaeus 1761.	en	Kluge, Nikita, Sivaruban, T., Srinivasan, Pandiarajan, Barathy, S., Isack, Rajasekaran (2024): Redescriptions of Indian species of Nigrobaetis Kazlauskas (in Novikova & Kluge) 1987 (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae). Zootaxa 5418 (5): 528-550, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5
C81587A0FFE0043759C1FE52FE65FBE7.taxon	discussion	Comments. The genus Nigrobaetis is divided into three subgenera, Nigrobaetis s. str. (= Diphetor Waltz & McCafferty 1987), Takobia Novikova & Kluge 1987 (= Alainites Waltz & McCafferty in Waltz, McCafferty & Thomas 1994, = Acerbaetis Kang & Yang in Kang, Chang & Yang 1994) and Margobaetis Kang & Yang in Kang, Chang & Yang 1994 (Kluge 2022). In India, the genus Nigrobaetis is represented by two species belonging to the subgenus Margobaetis.	en	Kluge, Nikita, Sivaruban, T., Srinivasan, Pandiarajan, Barathy, S., Isack, Rajasekaran (2024): Redescriptions of Indian species of Nigrobaetis Kazlauskas (in Novikova & Kluge) 1987 (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae). Zootaxa 5418 (5): 528-550, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5
C81587A0FFE7043859C1FC83FEE1FD3F.taxon	description	(Figs 1 – 43)	en	Kluge, Nikita, Sivaruban, T., Srinivasan, Pandiarajan, Barathy, S., Isack, Rajasekaran (2024): Redescriptions of Indian species of Nigrobaetis Kazlauskas (in Novikova & Kluge) 1987 (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae). Zootaxa 5418 (5): 528-550, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5
C81587A0FFE7043859C1FC83FEE1FD3F.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. INDIA: State Tamil Nadu: Tirunelveli district, Gadana river, 28. VI. 2012, coll. C. Balasubramanian, T. Kubendran & C. Selvakumar: ♂ larva (holotype), 1 ♀ larva (paratype); Madurai district, river Vaigai, 10. II. 2016, coll. N. Kluge & L. Sheyko: 1 L-S ♂ (ZIN); the same locality, 23. IV. 2022, coll. P. Srinivasan & R. Isack: 3 larvae (AMC). State Kerala, Kottayam District, Erumeli, 22. I. 2016, coll. N. Kluge & L. Sheyko: 1 L-S-I ♂, L-S ♂, 3 S-I ♂, 1 S-I ♀, 2 I ♂, 19 S ♂, 9 L (ZIN). INDONESIA, Sulawesi, Pinrang, 28 – 31. VIII. 2009, coll. N. Kluge & L. Sheyko: 1 L / S ♂, 1 L-S-I ♀, 1 L / S ♀ (ZIN). Additional description of larva. CUTICULAR COLORATION: With more or less contrasting brown and colorless or light areas (Figs 1 – 12). Pronotum and mesonotum with colorless median stripe of variable, composite shape and paired colorless blanks (Figs 6, 8, 12; Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023: fig. 15 a). Leg of each pair mostly colorless, with more or less expressed brown transverse band on femur, brown femur-tibia articulation and brown apex of tibia (Figs 2 – 4, 9 – 10; Müller-Liebenau 1984: fig. 2 i – j; Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023: fig. 19 a); sometimes nearly entirely colorless. Abdominal tergum I mostly colorless; terga II – III mostly brown, with contrasting paired and unpaired blanks; tergum IV mostly colorless, with pair of contrasting brown spots near anterior margin; terga V – VII mostly brown, with contrasting paired and unpaired blanks; terga VIII – X mostly colorless, with brown posterior margin of tergum X (Figs 5, 7, 11; Müller-Liebenau 1984: fig. 17; Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023: fig. 15 a). Caudalii mostly colorless, with brown band near middle and apically (Fig. 5; Müller-Liebenau 1984: fig. 2 m). HYPODERMAL COLORATION: Not expressed. SHAPE AND SETATION: Labrum parallel-sided in proximal half (Fig. 13; Müller-Liebenau 1984: fig. 2 a; Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023: figs 16 a – b). Other mouthparts as in photos (Figs 14 – 18; Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023: figs 16 – 18). Hind protoptera or their vestiges absent (Müller-Liebenau 1984: fig. 2 h). Each tibia with one stout, pointed seta on outer side near apex (subapical seta); middle and hind tibiae, besides subapical seta, with several (2 – 10) smaller, pointed setae forming irregular longitudinal row on outer side; outer side of fore tibia with no more than one stout seta other than subapical one (Figs 19 – 22; Müller-Liebenau 1984: figs 2 i – j). Posterior margins of abdominal terga II – X with triangular denticles, shorter and blunter on anterior segments, longer and pointer on posterior segments (Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023: fig. 2 a). Posterior margins of abdominal sterna I – VI smooth; posterior margins of sterna VII – IX with sharply pointed, triangular denticles (Figs 23 – 24). Paraproct with many small denticles (Fig. 24; Müller-Liebenau 1984: fig. 2 i; Sivaruban et al. 2022: fig. 4 d; Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023: fig. 20 b). All 7 pairs of tergalii present, relatively long and narrow (Figs 5, 7, 11; Sivaruban et al. 2022: figs 4 B, E; Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023: figs 15 a, 19 d – e). In middle part of cercus, each 4 th segment with several enlarged denticles on outer side (Fig. 25); paracercus without enlarged denticles. Descriptions of winged stages Subimago. CUTICULAR COLORATION: Head colorless, antennal flagellum light brown. Pronotum colorless. Mesonotum light brownish, with brown sutures (Fig. 28). Thoracic pleura and sterna mostly colorless, with certain sclerites brown (Fig. 27). Legs colorless. Abdomen colorless, caudalii and gonostyli colorless. HYPODERMAL COLORATION: As in imago. TEXTURE: On middle and hind legs of both sexes, proximal tarsal segment (corresponding to initial 1 st + 2 nd tarsomeres) in proximal part covered with blunt microlepides, in distal part covered with pointed microlepides; other three segments entirely covered with pointed microlepides (Fig. 34). On fore leg of female, 1 st tarsomere covered with pointed microlepides; 2 nd tarsomere in proximal part covered with blunt microlepides, in distal part covered with pointed microlepides; 3 rd – 5 th tarsomeres entirely covered with pointed microlepides (similar to Fig. 34). On fore leg of male, 1 st – 4 th tarsal segments covered mostly with blunt microlepides, apically with pointed microlepides; 5 th tarsomere entirely covered with pointed microlepides (Fig. 33). Imago, male (Fig. 26). Head brown. Turbinate eyes dark reddish-brown. Thorax brown with ochre, equally dark dorsally, laterally and ventrally. Wings colorless, veins ochre-brownish, C and Sc + R proximad of costal brace brown. Pterostigma with simple, oblique crossveins. Hind wings absent. Legs of all pairs light ochre, either unicolor (Fig. 26), or with apex of femur brown (Figs 29 – 30). On middle and hind legs, tarsus with 2 apical spines, on 1 st + 2 nd and 3 rd tarsomeres. Abdominal terga and sterna I – VI colorless, translucent, with brown spots on spiracles; terga VII – X brown. Cerci ochre. Male genitalia (Figs 33 – 38): Styliger with well-outlined, brown median sclerite, to which distal end of sternostyligeral muscle is attached (Figs 35, 37). 1 st segment of gonostylus narrowing from base to apex, angulate apically-medially. 3 rd (terminal) segment of gonostylus elongate. Penial bridge with prominent, cone-like, sclerotized median projection. Gonovectes sharply bent, with narrow apices. Imago, female. All abdominal terga brown, sterna ochre with pair of brown stripes laterally (Figs 31 – 32). On fore leg, tarsus with 2 apical spines, on 2 nd and 3 rd tarsomeres. Egg (Figs 39 – 43). Asymmetric, generally irregularly-oval, with one side more or less stretched. Surface with evenly dispersed small round papillae and irregular folds. Micropile wide. Dimension. Fore wing length (and approximate body length): male 3.5 mm, female 4 mm. Distribution. Oriental Region. Described from West Malaysia (as B. minutus), from Southern India (as N. paramakalyani) and from Sumba Island in Indonesia (as N. sumbensis); reported here from Sulawesi island in Indonesia. Errors in original description of N. paramakalyani. Originally (Kubendran et al. 2015), Nigrobaetis paramakalyani was described based on 14 larvae collected in Gadana River in Southern India. Actually, these larvae represented a mixture of two different species, the second one of which was subsequently described as Nigrobaetis klugei Sivaruban et al. 2022. Holotype of N. paramakalyani is the mature male larva (Sivaruban et al. 2022: figs 4 A – E). The original description and illustrations of Nigrobaetis paramakalyani contain a mixture of characters belonging to both species. The photos of female larva (Kubendran et al. 2015: figs 22 – 23) belong to N. paramakalyani and demonstrate characteristic color pattern of thoracic and abdominal terga. In contrast to this, the drawing of paraproct which bears a few long spines (ibid., fig. 36) belongs to N. klugei, while true paraproct of N. paramakalyani has a higher number of small spines (Sivaruban et al. 2022: 189 and fig. 4 D). The original description of N. paramakalyani states that « Hind wing pads present » and contains the drawing of hind protopteron (Kubendran et al. 2015: 194 and fig. 33). However, the holotype of N. paramakalyani has no hind protoptera, and the drawing belongs to N. klugei. Synonymy of N. sumbensis. Nigrobaetis sumbensis Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023 was described based on 3 larvae from Sumba Islan in Indonesia. This species was compared with other Nigrobaetis species from Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia, but not with N. paramakalyani from India. Comparison of N. sumbensis with N. paramakalyani was impossible, because N. paramakalyani was wrongly characterized as having hind wings. Comparison of N. sumbensis with N. minutus was given in the key (Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023: 228 – 229), according to which N. sumbensis differs from N. minutus and other species by « Fore femur very slender ..., dorsally slightly concave ». Actually, the leg described and figures as « foreleg » is actually middle or hind leg, that is testified by the 4 - segmented subimaginal tarsus developing inside (Kaltenbach & Gattolliat 2023: fig. 19 a). As well in many other species, in N. minutus femur of the foreleg is thicker, with straight outer margin (Figs 2, 9), and femora of middle and hind legs are thinner, with concave outer margin (Figs 3 – 4, 10). Another characters of N. sumbensis reported in this key, is the number of denticles on claws; variability of their number has not been reported for N. minutus. The third reported character is a tuft of setae-like processes between prostheca and mola of left mandible; the same tuft is figured for N. minutus (Müller-Liebenau 1984: fig. 2). Comparison of the larval description of N. sumbensis with our material from India and Sulawesi does not reveal differences. Comparison of egg structure of specimens from India and Sulawesi confirms the wide distribution of this species.	en	Kluge, Nikita, Sivaruban, T., Srinivasan, Pandiarajan, Barathy, S., Isack, Rajasekaran (2024): Redescriptions of Indian species of Nigrobaetis Kazlauskas (in Novikova & Kluge) 1987 (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae). Zootaxa 5418 (5): 528-550, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5
C81587A0FFEF042259C1FF0AFB85F913.taxon	description	(Figs 44 – 89)	en	Kluge, Nikita, Sivaruban, T., Srinivasan, Pandiarajan, Barathy, S., Isack, Rajasekaran (2024): Redescriptions of Indian species of Nigrobaetis Kazlauskas (in Novikova & Kluge) 1987 (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae). Zootaxa 5418 (5): 528-550, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5
C81587A0FFEF042259C1FF0AFB85F913.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. INDIA: state Tamil Nadu: Rajapalayam district, Sastha falls, 9 ° 41 ′ 50 ″ N & 77 ° 40 ′ 15 ″ E; 195 m a. s. l., 24. I. 2021, coll. P. Srinivasan & R. Isack.: 13 larvae (holotype and paratypes); Theni district, Suruli Falls, 24 – 26. I. 2016, coll. L. Sheyko & N. Kluge: 10 L-S-I ♂, 9 L-S-I ♀, 1 L-S ♀, 13 larvae (ZIN); Theni district, Veerapandi river, 31. VIII. 2022, coll. P. Srinivasan & R. Isack: 1 I ♂ (AMC); Madurai district, Vaigai river, 14. XII. 2022, coll. P. Srinivasan & R. Isack: 3 L-S-I ♂ (AMC); Tirunelveli district, Courtallam, Chittar river near Peraruvi (= Main Falls), 3 – 7. II. 2013, coll. N. Kluge & L. Sheyko: L-S-I ♀, 4 larvae (ZIN); state Karnataka: border of Shivamogga and Udupi districts near Agumbe and Someswar, 11. I – 1. II. 2013, coll. N. Kluge & L. Sheyko: 3 larvae (ZIN). Additional descriptions Larva. CUTICULAR COLORATION: Pronotum and mesonotum mostly brown, with variable paired blanks (Figs 48, 50, 52). Leg of each pair mostly colorless, with more or less expressed brown transverse band on femur and brown femur-tibia articulation (Figs 45 – 46); sometimes femur mostly brown, with two colorless blanks (Figs 58 – 60; Sivaruban et al. 2022: figs 3 A – E). Abdominal terga II – III, V – VII and X mostly brown, sometimes with lighter submedian sigilla; terga I, IV and VIII – IX more or less lighter (Figs 47, 49, 51; Sivaruban et al. 2022: figs 1 A – B, 3 H). Caudalii proximally brown, distally colorless (Figs 49, 51). HYPODERMAL COLORATION: Not expressed. SHAPE AND SETATION: Labrum semicircular (Fig. 53; Sivaruban et al. 2022: fig. 2 A). Other mouthparts as in drawings and photos (Fig. 54; Sivaruban et al. 2022: figs 2 B – G). Hind protoptera present (Fig. 46; Sivaruban et al. 2022: fig. 3 H). Each tibia with one stout, parallel-sided, blunt seta on outer side near apex (subapical seta); middle and hind tibiae, besides subapical seta, with several (2 – 10) setae of same kind forming longitudinal row on outer side (Figs 56 – 57); outer side of fore tibia with no more than one stout seta other than subapical one (Fig. 55). Posterior margins of abdominal terga I – X or II – X with triangular denticles, shorter and blunter on anterior segments, longer and more pointed on posterior segments (Sivaruban et al. 2022: fig. 3 G). Posterior margins of all abdominal sterna smooth, without denticles (Figs 61, 62). Paraproct with few especially long and pointed denticles (Figs 61 – 63; Sivaruban et al. 2022: fig. 3 K). All 7 pairs of tergalii present; tergalii of 1 st pair much smaller than others, twice shorter than tergalii of next pair (Figs 64 – 68). Cercus with several prominent, pointed denticles on outer (lateral) side of each 4 th segment; paracercus with 2 such denticles on dorsal side of each 4 th segment, sometimes with one such denticle on segment between them (Figs 69 – 71). Subimago. CUTICULAR COLORATION: Head colorless, antennae light brown. Pronotum light brown. Mesonotum light brown, with darker sutures (Fig. 73). Thoracic pleura and sterna mostly ochre, with certain sclerites brown (Fig. 72). Legs mostly colorless, with brown marking proximad of patella-tibial suture (Fig. 81) or its place (on fore leg of male). Abdomen light brownish. Caudalii colorless. HYPODERMAL COLORATION: As in imago. TEXTURE: On all legs of both sexes, last tarsal segment covered with pointed microlepides; other tarsomeres covered mostly with blunt microlepides, with few pointed microlepides on distal margin (Kluge 2022). Imago, male (Fig. 74). Head ochre-brownish. Turbinate eyes dark reddish-brown. Thorax ochre-brownish, equally colored dorsally, laterally and ventrally. Wings colorless, veins ochre-brownish, C and Sc + R proximad of costal brace darker. Pterostigma with simple, oblique crossveins. Hind wing with costal projection and two veins, second vein asymmetrically forked (Fig. 75). Legs of all pairs uniformly light ochre. On middle and hind legs, tarsus with 2 apical spines, on 1 st + 2 nd and 3 rd tarsomeres. Abdominal terga and sterna I – VI colorless, translucent, with brown spots on spiracles; terga VII – X ochre-brownish. Cerci ochre. Male genitalia (Figs 82 – 85): Styliger without median sclerite (in contrast to N. minutus). 1 st segment of gonostylus narrowing from base to apex, angulate apically-medially. 3 rd (terminal) segment of gonostylus elongate. Penial bridge non-sclerotized medially. Gonovectes with apices greatly thicken and darkened, so that well visible through styliger even in living specimens and specimens in alcohol (Fig. 80). Imago, female (Figs 78 – 79). All abdominal terga ochre-brownish, sterna ochre with pair of brownish stripes laterally. Hind wing narrower than in male (Figs 76 – 77). On fore leg, tarsus with 2 apical spines, on 2 nd and 3 rd tarsomeres. Egg (Figs 86 – 89). Asymmetric: one side bluntly cone-like pointed, opposite side evenly convex, hemi-ellipsoid. Convex surface evenly and regularly covered with relief consisting of round papillae surrounded by concentric folds. Conic surface partly with less expressed papillae, partly smooth. Micropyle wide, located on any part of egg. Dimension. Fore wing length (and approximate body length): male 3.5 mm, female 4 mm.	en	Kluge, Nikita, Sivaruban, T., Srinivasan, Pandiarajan, Barathy, S., Isack, Rajasekaran (2024): Redescriptions of Indian species of Nigrobaetis Kazlauskas (in Novikova & Kluge) 1987 (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae). Zootaxa 5418 (5): 528-550, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5
C81587A0FFEF042259C1FF0AFB85F913.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Oriental Region (known from India, Thailand and Java). Comparison with N. gracilis. The species currently known as Nigrobaetis (Margobaetis) gracilis, was originally described by Bogoescu & Tabacaru (1957) based on larvae from Romania as « Baetis sp. nympha gracilis ». Sowa (1962) described imagines and larvae of B. gracilis from Poland, based on 2 male imaginal specimens (which he wrongly called « syntypy ») and 3 larval specimens. Müller-Liebenau (1969) redescribed male imago and larva of B. gracilis based on imagines collected by Sowa in Poland and larvae collected by Tabacaru in Romania. Nigrobaetis (Margobaetis) gracilis is closely related to N. (M.) klugei. Denticles on its larval cerci and paracercus have not been described. To reveal their features, we examined a last-instar male larva with label « Ukraine, Vyshkiv: Tysa (Visk: Tisza), 29.06.2004, Tibor Kovács »; it was kindly sent by T. Kovács and currently is deposited in ZIN. This larva differs from N. (M.) klugei by smaller lateral denticles on cerci and by absence of two long denticles on dorsal side of each 4 th segment of paracercus. Egg surface N. gracilis is covered by wide protuberances separated by narrow rings of threads (Kopelke & Müller-Liebenau 1981: Abb. 20), in contrast to eggs of N. kluge, which bear small papillae surrounded by wide fields of fused threads (Figs 86 – 89). Comparison with N. tatuensis. The species currently known as Nigrobaetis (Margobaetis) tatuensis, was originally described based on two larvae from Taiwan as Baetis tatuensis Müller-Liebenau 1985. However, figures in the original description were mismatched, so that the drawings of larval parts belonging to B. tatuensis were indicated as belonging to Baetis taiwanensis Müller-Liebenau 1985 (which is described in the same paper), and the drawings of larval parts belonging to B. taiwanensis were indicated as belonging to B. tatuensis. The photos of abdominal terga belonging to B. taiwanensis and B. tatuensis (Müller-Liebenau 1985: figs 14 – 15) are arranged in such a way that it is unclear which legend belongs to which figure. Because of this, Kang, Chang & Yang (1994) redescribed larva of B. taiwanensis under the wrong name « Baetis (Tatubaetis) tatuensis » and designated it as the type species of the subgenus Tatubaetis Kang, Chang & Yang 1994; they redescribed B. tatuensis under the wrong name « Baetis (Margobaetis) taiwanensis » and wrongly placed it in the newly established subgenus Margobaetis Kang, Chang & Yang 1994. This confusion was revealed by Fujitani, Hirowatari, Kobajashi & Tanida (2004). Nigrobaetis (Margobaetis) tatuensis is closely related to N. (M.) gracilis and N. (M.) klugei. Denticles on its larval cerci and paracercus have not been described neither by Müller-Liebenau (1985), nor by Kang et al. 1994. To reveal their features, we examined a mature male larva ready to molt to subimago with the label « Taiwan, Shanherchiaur, Linkuei, Kooshiung Hsien, 27. VII. 1993, S. C. Kang »; it was used by Kang et al. 1994 for their description of « Baetis (Margobaetis) taiwanensis » and currently is deposited in ZIN. It differs from N. (M.) klugei by smaller lateral denticles on cerci and by absence of two long denticles on dorsal side of each 4 th segment of paracercus. Difference between N. (M.) tatuensis and N. (M.) gracilis is not revealed yet.	en	Kluge, Nikita, Sivaruban, T., Srinivasan, Pandiarajan, Barathy, S., Isack, Rajasekaran (2024): Redescriptions of Indian species of Nigrobaetis Kazlauskas (in Novikova & Kluge) 1987 (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae). Zootaxa 5418 (5): 528-550, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5418.5.5
