Ramusella

General remarks on Ramusella View in CoL species

The nominate subgenus of Ramusella and the subgenus R. (Insculptoppia) differs from each other mainly by the morphology of the rostral setae ( Subías 1980): geniculate in R. ( Ramusella ) versus not geniculate in R. (Insculptoppia). The analysis of literature on species within these subgenera has revealed an incorrect systematic placement of some species.

According to original descriptions, supplementary descriptions and existing figures, R. baichengensis ( Zhao & Wen, 1992) , R. confusa Arillo & Subías, 1990 , R. cordobensis ( Balogh & Mahunka, 1968) , R. filamentosa ( Mahunka, 1985) , R. filigera ( Mahunka, 1985) , R. gyrata ( Mahunka & Paoletti, 1984) , R. hainardorum ( Mahunka, 1992) , R. persica Akrami, Behmanesh & Subías, 2015 , R. rybalovi Ermilov, Shtanchaeva & Subías, 2022 , and R. tasetata Subías, 1980 were considered by Subías (2022, online version 2024) within the nominate subgenus, however, their rostral setae are arch-like or nearly straight (not geniculate), therefore, all these species must be included in R. (Insculptoppia). Hugo-Coetzee (2016) described rostral setae as geniculate in R. filamentosa and R. filigera , but supplementary descriptions of these species did not include figures.

Ramusella tobiasi Hugo-Coetzee, 2016 was described by Hugo-Coetzee (2016) within the nominate subgenus, however, Subías (2022, online version 2024) included it in R. (Insculptoppia). The species has geniculate rostral setae, therefore, its initial subgeneric placement position must be maintained.