Leptocera parafinalis Papp 1973

Leptocera parafinalis Papp, 1973

(Figs. 25, 185–191, 203)

Leptocera parafinalis Papp, 1973a: 423 (holotype ♂, HNHM, not examined).— Roháček & Papp, 1983: 218 (redescription); Roháček et al., 2001: 156 (World catalog).

Leptocera finalis auctt., nec (Collin, 1956): Marshall, 1997 (in part).

Description. A detailed redescription of the species was provided by Roháček & Papp (1983). Specimens of L. parafinalis are relatively dark compared to other species of the L. fontinalis group. Outstanding paramedian acrostichals slightly to moderately enlarged, longest one ca. 0.5–0.75x as long as lower orbital bristle; prescutellar acrostichals also slightly to moderately enlarged. Mid tibia with bristle above distal dorsal longer than anteroapical bristles (rarely up to twice as long); dorsal posteroapical bristle usually shorter than ventral one (Fig. 25), which usually extends well beyond socket of ventrobasal metatarsal bristle (sometimes only reaching it).

Male terminalia (Figs. 185–188): Sternite 5 with posteromedial desclerotized area short. Anterior section of surstylus with anterior process moderately slender in lateral view, unlike other species with short bristles on lateral surface of basal half; ventral lobe triangular but fairly low and often not very pointed, with short bristles; no bristles between long, basal, posterior bristle and apex of ventral lobe. No darkened lateral ridge at apex of anterior process (ventral view). Posterior section of surstylus with few bristles on dorsal (posterior) surface and greatly unequal apical bristles. Postgonite as in Fig. 203.

Female terminalia (Figs. 189–191): Hind margin of sternite 7 straight, simple. Sternite 8 with lateral margins slightly sinuate, posterolateral lobes relatively short, broadly triangular to almost rectangular, median process wide and more or less rounded. Spermathecae pear-shaped, spicules noticeably crowded towards base; surface sculpture fairly coarse, especially towards base, somewhat bumpy; no apparent invaginations, neither apically nor basally.

Material examined. CANADA. Alberta: 1 ♂, 3 ♀♀, Hailstone Butte, 21.vii.1987, creekside mammal runs, S. A. Marshall (DEBU); 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀, Kananaskis, For. Exp. Stn. Seebe, 18.vii.1968, H.J. Teskey (CNCI). Nunavut: 1 ♂, Bathurst Inlet, Baychimo Harbour, 2.viii.1966, G.E. Shewell (CNCI); 1 ♀, Baker Lake, 20.vii.1947, T.N. Freeman (CNCI). Northwest Territories: 1 ♀, Aklavik, 16.vi.1953, C.D. Bird (4 other ♀♀ from this locality were not dissected and are either this species or L. neofinalis sp.n.) (CNCI). Yukon Territory: 1 ♂, Dempster Hwy km 141, Blackstone River, 6–11.vii.1985, Carex / Equisetum, trap, S.A. Marshall (DEBU); 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀, Erebia Creek, base camp, 67°58’N 136°29’W, 5 and 8.vii.1987, mammal runs nr. creek, S.A. Marshall (DEBU); 1 ♂, Herschel Is., 11.vii.1953, J.S. Waterhouse (CNCI); 1 ♂, 3 ♀♀, Dempster Hwy, Tombstone Mts., 3 and 4.vii.1985, flood debris nr. ice and river gravel, flood debris, S.A. Marshall (DEBU); 1 ♀, Dempster Hwy km 105, 3.vii.1985, debris by roadside pond, S.A. Marshall (DEBU); 1 ♀, Dempster Hwy km 165, Sulphur Springs, Engineer Creek, 11.vii.1987, fish gut pans, S.A. Marshall (DEBU); 1 ♀, Kluane, 21–23.vii.1985, nr. lake, mushroom trap, S.A. Marshall (DEBU); 2 ♀♀, Koidern, 18.vi.1987, S.A. Marshall (DEBU); 1 ♀, Richardson Mts., flood plain of Erebia Creek, 5.vii.1987, S.A. Marshall (DEBU). U.S.A. Alaska: 1 ♀, Atigun River or Toolik, 2–16.viii.1978, R. Thomas (DEBU); 1 ♀, Healy, 27.vi.1921, J.M. Aldrich (USNM); 3 ♀♀, Umiat, 11, 14 and 20.vi.1947, L.A. Jachowski & K.L. Knight (USNM). Colorado: 1 ♀, Mt. Evans, Doolittle Ranch, 9,800 ft, 22.vii.1961, J.G. Chillcott (CNCI).

We have also examined a series of 6 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ from Hövsgöl [= Khövsgöl or Chövsgöl] Aimag, Mongolia (ANSP), where some of Papp’s paratypes were collected.

Distribution (Map 6). Boreo-montane and arctic regions of the western Nearctic (Nunavut to Alaska, Alberta, Colorado) and Mongolia. The isolated record from Colorado (based on a single female) does not appear unlikely but should be confirmed through males. The species is probably distributed all along the Rocky Mountains. Presently, there are no records from eastern Siberia but we suspect that the species occurs there.

Discussion. The slight differences in the shape of the male surstylus (compare Fig. 185 with Fig. 19 of Roháček & Papp, 1983) represent individual variation, with some of the Nearctic specimens being virtually identical to Mongolian specimens as illustrated by Roháček & Papp (1983). However, the female illustrated by these authors differs significantly from ours (unusual shape of tergite 10 + cerci, tergite 10 without the usual pair of bristles, sternite 8 with fairly long and pointed posterolateral lobes). We suspect that the specimen in question is either misidentified or atypical (e.g., the bare tergite 10 is a common aberration in L. fontinalis group females) because the female from Mongolia dissected by us is very similar to Nearctic females as illustrated here.

Externally the species is fairly distinctive because of the enlarged bristle above the distal dorsal (in the western Nearctic shared only by L. neovomerata sp.n. In all western L. kanata sp.n. examined this bristle is short; it is rarely enlarged in eastern L. kanata sp.n. only). From L. neovomerata sp.n. the species is easily distinguished by the very different surstylus, the simple (not sharp-edged) female sternite 7 and different sternite 8. From the similar L. finalis / neofinalis sp.n. it differs by the less prominent ventral lobe of the anterior section of the surstylus and the slightly sinuate (not angulate) lateral margins of female sternite 8.