Baetis forcipula, Pictet, 1843

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 View in CoL . – Ulmer, 1920b: 136 (transfer).

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

Accepted name: Ecdyonurus ( Ecdyonurus) venosus ( Fabricius, 1775) View in CoL .

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 .