( Fig. 2E)
Stenus confusus J. Sahlberg, 1876: 58.
Stenus confusus – Poppius 1899: 39. — J. Sahlberg 1900: 29. — Munster 1921: 119. — L. Benick 1924: 254. — Haberman 1983: 101, 108. — Silfverberg 1988: 20. — Puthz 1998: 149. — Gollkowsky 2001: 194. — Shavrin & Puthz 2007: 118.
Stenus ( Nestus) confusus – Jakobson 1909: 481. — Poppius 1909a: 17. — Renkonen 1935: 29. — Hansen et al. 1939: 32. — Palm 1961: 90, 98. — Ryvkin 1987: 159. — Semenov 2004: 12.
Stenus (s. str. + Nestus) confusus – Puthz 1973c: 50.
<?> Stenus aemulus – Thomson 1857: 224.
Stenus ( Nestus) latipennis – Hansen et al. 1939: 32 (pars).
Stenus ( Nestus) protensicollis Krása, 1941: 166.
RUSSIA: 1 ♂, ‘ Carelia bor.[ealis] 4122 [= Stenus confusus Sahlb.] – 1.’, ‘4122. confusus Sahlb. ’ ( ZIN); 2 ♀♀, ‘Petrograd, Smolenskoye cemetery. 11.iv.1920. A.A. Stackelberg leg.’, ‘68’ <round>, ‘ confusus Sahlb. L. Benick det.’ ( ZIN); 1 ♀, ‘ Yaroslavl’. 08.vi. N. Filippov.’, ‘ Stenus confusus Sahlb. det. V. Puthz, 1976’ ( ZMMU); 3 ♂♂, 1 ♀, Kalinin [= Tver’] Area, 18 km SW of Kalinin, near Putilovo, Volga River bank, 22 Jul. 1982, I.A. Ushakov leg. ( AR); 1 ♀, ‘[ Moscow,] on snow in Petrovsko-Razoumovskiy Park, 28.x.1910, V. Boldyrev leg.’, ‘ Stenus nitens Steph. ’ ( ZIN); 1 ♀, South of Yamal Peninsula, 110th km by railway N off Obskaya station, puddle, 6 Aug. 2001, P. Petrov leg. ( AR); 1 ♀, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Achinsk, 10 Jul. 1973, V. Zolotikhin leg. ( AR); 1 ♀, ‘5 verst off Yakutsk, Sergelyakh suburban settlement. 24.viii.1926. L. Bianki’, ‘Yakutian research expedition of Acad. of Sci.’, ‘47’ <round>, ‘ confusus Sahlb. L. Benick det.’ <?> ( ZIN); 2♀♀, ‘Yakutsk. 22.vi.1925. Bianki’, ‘Yakutian research expedition of Acad. of Sci.’, ‘63’ <rectangle>, ‘ confusus Sahlb. L. Benick det.’ <?> ( ZIN).
Terra typica:Russian Karelia and Finland (‘jag har funnit den vid Vigsjön [=‘Lac.Wig’( Silfverberg,1988)] (63°50’) och Svir i Ryska Karelen, i Kihtelysvaara, Eno och Nurmis socknar i norra Karelen äfvensom vid Jyväskylä och Helsingfors’). In the original description, Sahlberg supposed that Thomson’ s (1857) record of S. aemulus Erichson, 1839 (see S. ( N.) nitens above) for Sweden should be referred to S. confusus, but this seems to be doubtful since the species description is quite adequate to S. nitens Stephens, 1833, for which aemulus is in fact a synonym. Poppius (1909a) reported the species from the middle reaches of the Lena River: ‘An der mittleren Lena an lehmigen Ufern, ein Exemplar bei Jakutsk, 1.VII!, ein anderes auf einer Insel nördlich von Önkyr-yrjä, 8.VII!.’ (the East Siberian latipennis specimens, identified by Poppius as confusus and found by Puthz (1972c) in ZMH, were collected at other localities and cannot be correlated to the material cited in Poppius 1909a). Jakobson (1909) summarised the range as follows: ‘ Sweden <the record is most likely based on Thomson’s misidentification of confusus as aemulus: see above>; Lapponia, Finland, Olonets Government’. Munster (1921) provided some distributional data for northernmost Norway: ‘Kaafjord i Alten, Sirma i Tanen samt Neiden, Langfjordbunden, Vaggatim og Graense-Jakobselv i Syd-Varanger!’; L. Benick (1924), a bit later, cited the only female from SE Siberia (‘Tschita’); Palm (1961) confirmed N Swedish records of this species (Norrbotten, Jämtland); Haberman (1983) provided three mapped localities from Estonia; a pair of specimens ( 1 ♂, 1 ♀) have been published recently from the Moscow Area ( Semenov, 2004). The terra typica of S. protensicollis Krása, 1941, which was placed in synonymy with confusus ( Puthz, 1973c, 1998): ‘Simbirsk, Rossia m.[ed]’.
The new material above confirms that S. confusus is rather widespread in the Northern Palaearctic, but the species has proved to be rare and sporadic in its distribution. It is essential that all the Siberian records known to me are represented by females only. I expect the range to have a relict pattern.