identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
C0488791BA7AAC35F5EAFEE972C308E3.text	C0488791BA7AAC35F5EAFEE972C308E3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Iscini Kluge	<div><p>Iscini, tribus novum</p><p>Type genus: Isca Gillies 1951 .</p><p>Typified name in basic format: Isca /fg (incl. Notophlebia).</p><p>Belongs to Atalophlebolinguata Kluge 2009 (or Atalophlebiinae in the narrowest sense), and has all apomorphies of this taxon (Kluge 2009, 2012). Other characters of Iscini are listed below; among them, characters (1), (2), (5), (7) and (10) are autapomorphies which are not found in other taxa and testify about holophyly of Iscini .</p><p>In larva:</p><p>(1) On maxilla apical-ventral row of pectinate setae (which is characteristic for Leptophlebiidae) is unusually short and consists of 3 setae; these setae are retained in Isca and in Notophlebia ganeshi sp.n. (Fig. 6), but are lost in Notophlebia jobi due to its modified dilatognathan mouth apparatus (Sivaramakrishnan &amp; Peters 1984: Fig. 15).</p><p>Among other Leptophlebiidae, reduction of these setae occurs only in some representatives with dilatognathan mouth apparatus: three vestigial setae are present in Dilatognathus Kluge 2012; these setae are completely lost in Hermanellognatha (Kluge 2012). In other known leptophlebiid taxa (including dilatognathan taxa Hagenulus Eaton 1882 s.str. and Ulmeritus Traver 1956 s.str.) there is a row of many well-developed pectinate setae.</p><p>(2) On larval fore tibia field of stout pointed bipectinate setae on inner side (which is characteristic for Leptophlebiidae) gradually turns to a longitudinal row of stout non-pectinate setae, located in distal part of ventral (posterior) side of tibia; most distal seta of this row is the most stout (Figs 2, 52p).</p><p>(3) In larva, patella-tibial suture (initially absent on fore legs) is lost on middle leg, being retained on hind leg only (Fig. 3); unlike larva, in subimago and imago patella-tibial suture is retained both on middle and hind legs (Figs 16–18). The same in some other taxa (e.g., Megaglena Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970).</p><p>(4) Larval claw has a row of subequal denticles and one larger distal denticle located posteriad of this row (Fig. 35). The same in some other taxa.</p><p>(5) While insertions of all tergalii retaine their position on posterior-lateral angles of abdominal terga, terga become gradually wider and sterna become gradually narrower from abdominal segment I to abdominal segment VII, so that more posterior tergalii are inserted gradually more ventrally, than more anterior ones. In Notophlebia insertions of tergalii I–VI are gradually shifted from dorsal to lateral sides of abdomen; tergalii VII are lost (Fig. 3). In Isca tergalii I are lost, and insertions of tergalii II–VII are gradually shifted from lateral to ventral sides of abdomen. Both in Notophlebia and Isca, abdomen is cylindric, with terga strongly arched and rigid. Anterior abdominal segments are somewhat shorter than posterior ones, so that tergalii insertions are somewhat brought together.</p><p>In adult:</p><p>(6) Adults are shortly-molting: both subimaginal and imaginal cuticles are developed before larval/ subimaginal molt (Fig. 20), and subimago molts to imago shortly after emergence. The same in some other mayfly taxa.</p><p>(7) Pigmented areas, which initially for Leptophlebiidae are present on cuticle of subimaginal mesonotum (Kluge 2004), are present on cuticle of imaginal mesonotum (in contrast to other Leptophlebiidae, whose cuticle of imaginal mesonotum is evenly pigmented). The pair of pigmented areas bordered by mesonotal suture are enlarged and occupy most part of medioscutum and submedioscutum, so that only three narrow colorless stripes separate them one from another and from other pigmented areas of mesonotum (Fig. 11). In Isca such pigmentation occurs both on imaginal and subimaginal cuticle. In Notophlebia ganeshi sp.n. subimaginal cuticle is entirely colorless (Fig. 12).</p><p>(8) Hind wings are completely lost; larval metanotum lacks vestiges of protoptera (Fig. 3). The same in some other taxa.</p><p>(9) Subimaginal legs in some degree retain size and proportions of larval legs: subimaginal fore femur is widened proximally, and hind femur widened in middle (Figs 15–17). Fore tibia and tarsus of male subimago are as short as in larva, and tarsal segments II–IV are swollen (Fig. 15); after molt to imago, tibia and tarsus become several times longer (Fig. 13). In most other leptophlebiids changes of male fore leg at molt from subimago to imago is not so strong.</p><p>(10) On middle and hind leg, 1 st tarsal segment (initially for Ephemeroptera fused with tibia, and initially for Furcatergaliae strongly shortened) is secondarily separated from tibia and elongated (Fig. 18). On inner side of leg, apex of tibia is stretched distally and retains fusion with 1 st tarsal segment; on outer side of leg, 1 st tarsal segment is well separated from tibia and proximally has a concavity, which corresponds to condylus in tibio-tarsal articulation of the larval cuticle, under which subimaginal and imaginal leg had been developed (Fig. 20). Thus, number of distinct tarsal segments can be 5 (instead of 4 in most other Leptophlebiidae). 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd and/or 4 th tarsal segments are short and can be more or less fused one with another; sometimes some of them are fused completely. Thus, total number of distinguishable tarsal segments can be either 5 (e.g., in Notophlebia ganeshi sp.n. and Isca purpurea Gillies 1951) or diminished to 4 or 3 (e.g., in Isca serendiba Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970). In female, structure of fore tarsus (Fig. 19) is similar to that of middle and hind tarsus. About fore tarsus of male see above (8).</p><p>(11) Imaginal and subimaginal claws of all legs are ephemeropteroid. Plesiomorphy (Kluge 2004).</p><p>(12) Penis consists of a pair of L-shaped sclerotized lobes movably connected basally (Fig. 23, 26, 29). The same in some other taxa.</p><p>(13) Caudalii of subimago (which in mayflies are usually developed from proximal portions of larval caudalii) are developed from very small proximal portions of larval caudalii, so that are several times shorter than larval caudalii; caudalii of male imago have strongly elongated segments, so that are several times longer than subimaginal caudalii; caudalii of female imago in Notophlebia ganeshi sp.n. are subequal to subimaginal ones (in Isca female subimago does not molt to imago). In other leptophlebiids degeneration and growth of caudalii during metamorphosis are not so great.</p><p>Distribution and composition. Oriental Region. Includes Isca Gillies 1951 and Notophlebia Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970 .</p><p>Discussion. Peters &amp; Edmunds (1970) ascribed the character (1) to their lineage IIB5, which included Isca, Notophlebia and Nathanella . This character was formulated as "A row of thick spines absent on ventral surface of maxillae near inner anterolateral margin (Figs 193–195, 350)". Actually this row of stout pectinate spine-like setae (not spines) is not absent, but reduced to 3 setae (Fig. 6; Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970: Fig. 350) and can be overlooked (Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970: Figs 194, 195); only in Notophlebia jobi it is really absent (Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970: Fig. 193). At that time larvae of Nathanella had not been discovered, and larva of Notophlebia jobi was erroneously ascribed to Nathanella . Actually, Nathanella has this row of pectinate spine-like setae well developed (Sivaramakrishnan et al. 1996: Fig. 16). Within the line IIB5, Peters &amp; Edmunds (1970) accepted daughter line IIB5a, which united Notophlebia with Nathanella and differed from Isca only by plesiomorphy—evenly arranged cross veins. Uniting of Notophlebia with Nathanella, being based solely on symplesiomorphy, is not grounded.</p><p>Here the formal tribus rank is ascribed to this taxon. However, number of generally accepted formal familygroup ranks is not enough for phylogenetic classification of Leptophlebiidae . Between the taxon Leptophlebiidae, whose family rank is generally accepted, and the tribe Iscini, there are subsequently subordinated holophyletic taxa with non-typified circumscriptional names Atalophleboadentata, Atalophlebopectinata, Atalophleboculata, Atalophlebomaxillata and Atalophlebolinguata (Kluge 2009); at the same time, the tribe Iscini includes taxa Isca and Notophlebia, whose generic ranks are generally accepted. Recently, position of Iscini within Atalophlebolinguata remains to be unclear; possibly, after its clarification more hierarchical levels will be established. At the present moment, when the taxon named here Iscini, includes only two genera — Isca and Notophlebia, the rank-based name Iscini can be used for it; if number of subsequently subordinated taxa with typified name Isca /fg will be increased, this rank-based name can become inconvenient and should be substituted by a hierarchical name.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C0488791BA7AAC35F5EAFEE972C308E3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	KLUGE, NIKITA J.	KLUGE, NIKITA J. (2014): New Oriental tribe Iscini, new non-dilatognathan species of Notophlebia Peters & Edmunds 1970 and independent origin of Dilatognathus-type mouth apparatus in Atalophlebiinae (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae). Zootaxa 3760 (4): 522-538, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3760.4.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3760.4.2
C0488791BA79AC34F5EAF8BD71120917.text	C0488791BA79AC34F5EAF8BD71120917.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Notophlebia Peters & Edmunds 1970	<div><p>Notophlebia Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970</p><p>Type species: Notophlebia hyalina Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970 .</p><p>References: Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970: larva (as " Nathanella "), imago; Sivaramakrishnan &amp; Peters 1984: larva and imago.</p><p>Besides characters of Iscini (see above), known species of Notophlebia share the following common characters:</p><p>In larva:</p><p>(1) Labrum has both transverse setal rows (characteristic for Atalophlebopectinata—see Kluge 2009) transformed to fields of irregularly arranged setae (Fig. 5; Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970: 261; Sivaramakrishnan &amp; Peters 1984: Fig. 14).</p><p>(2) Median projections of superlinguae project distad of hypopharynx (Fig. 4; Sivaramakrishnan &amp; Peters 1984: Fig. 16).</p><p>(3) Larval tibiae, besides setae present in most Leptophlebiidae (stout pointed bipectinate setae on inner side of fore tibia, stout setae on inner side of middle and hind tibiae, stout setae on outer side of hind tibia and long hairlike setae on outer side of all tibiae) bear an oblique longitudinal row of stout setae on anterior (dorsal) side. In N. ganeshi sp.n. this row is equally developed on all legs: on fore leg (Figs 2a; 14), on middle and hind legs (Fig. 3); on all three pairs of legs setae of this row are unequal, elongate, stout and blunt (as in Fig. 54a). In N. jobi row of such setae is present on middle and hind legs (Fig. 54a), but on fore leg it is substituted by a field of irregularly situated very long pointed filtering setae (Fig. 53a).</p><p>(4) Larval abdominal terga I–VI have no posterolateral projections; terga VII and VIII have short blunt projections; tergum IX has long blunt projections (Fig. 3) (plesiomorphy; unlike Isca, whose abdominal terga I– VIII have no projections, and only tergum IX has long blunt projections).</p><p>(5) Tergalii [see Iscini (5)] are modified as following. Each tergalius I–VI has each of two lamellae blunt (instead of pointed in Isca and most other Leptophlebiidae); tergalius II is a little longer than tergalius I; tergalii III–VI are gradually shorter from anterior to posterior ones, having similar width; tergalius VI is much smaller; tergalius VII is lost (Figs 31–34, 40–45). All tergalii participate in rhythmic respiratory movements, and movements of most anterior tergalii are most intensive (in contrast to Choroterpini, Indialis, Nathanella and Petersula, whose tergalii of first pair are immobile).</p><p>In adult:</p><p>(6) Fore wing of all 3 species has the same coloration: proximal half of subcostal field is darkened, while remainder membrane is lighter; cross veins in proximal part of wing are bordered by brown, while remainder cross veins are light (Fig. 1; Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970: Fig. 346; Sivaramakrishnan &amp; Peters 1984: Fig. 3). Besides this, fore wings have following characters: long and narrow, with convex proximal-anal margin (unlike Nathanella); MP without symmetric fork (unlike some species of Isca); imago has marginal setae as in subimago (unlike some species of Isca). Hind wings are lost [see Iscini (8)].</p><p>(7) Penis [deeply separated—see Iscini (12)] has following characteristics common for all 3 species: Apically each penis lobe bears a slender pointed serrate projection—either curved [in N. jobi (Sivaramakrishnan &amp; Peters 1984: Fig. 3)], or straight [in N. ganeshi sp.n. and N. hyalina (Figs 23, 24, 26–30; Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970: Fig. 349)]. Distal part of gonoduct is covered by cuticle both in imago and larva (Figs 37, 45) (the same in some other taxa).</p><p>Variable characters of Notophlebia . Mouthpart structure strongly varies among species: N. ganeshi sp.n. has non-modified mouth apparatus [except labral setae—see (1)]; Notophlebia jobi has mouth apparatus of « Dilatognathus - type », with following modifications: maxilla with a long inner-apical tusk and without apical flange, dentiseta and apical-ventral pectinate setae; maxillary palp filtering, with 1 st palpomere strenghted, 2 nd and 3 rd palpomeres elongated and 3 rd palpomere bearing long setae arranged in transverse rows; labial palp filtering, with 2 nd palpomere strongly shortened and 3 rd palpomere strongly elongated and bearing long setae arranged in transverse rows (Figs 46–51; Sivaramakrishnan &amp; Peters 1984: Fig.13–17; Kluge 2012: Table 1).</p><p>Dimensions. Fore wing length (and approximated body length) 6–8 mm.</p><p>Distribution and composition. South-western India (Western Ghats). Three species: Notophlebia hyalina Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970; N. jobi Sivaramakrishnan &amp; Peters 1984; N. ganeshi sp. n. Among them, larvae are known only for N. jobi and N. ganeshi .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C0488791BA79AC34F5EAF8BD71120917	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	KLUGE, NIKITA J.	KLUGE, NIKITA J. (2014): New Oriental tribe Iscini, new non-dilatognathan species of Notophlebia Peters & Edmunds 1970 and independent origin of Dilatognathus-type mouth apparatus in Atalophlebiinae (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae). Zootaxa 3760 (4): 522-538, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3760.4.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3760.4.2
C0488791BA78AC3CF5EAF82670A7080C.text	C0488791BA78AC3CF5EAF82670A7080C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Notophlebia ganeshi Kluge 2014	<div><p>Notophlebia ganeshi Kluge sp. n.</p><p>(Figs 1–38)</p><p>Material. Holotype: L-S-I ♂ {specimen [XV] (20)}: INDIA, state Karnataka, Shivamogga district, tributaries of rivers Agumbe-hole and Yele-hole near Agumbe, 1.II.2013, coll. N. Kluge, L. Sheyko. Paratypes: the same locality, 11.I.–1.II.2013: 2 L-S-I ♂, 2 L-S-I ♀, 54 larvae. Part of larvae were collected in river Yele-hole above Onake Abbe Falls, about 4 km WNW of Agumbe. Most part of larvae were collected in a small mountain forest stream—tributary of river Agumbe-hole between village Malandur and the road Agumbe—Sringeri, about 4 km ESE of Agumbe; there is a confluence of two streams, at which Ganesha mini temple is situated (in honor of which this species is named). Imagos were reared in cages, and larvae from these two localities have been mixed .</p><p>Larva. CUTICULAR COLORATION: Ocher-brownish, without contrasting markings; head, labrum, lateral parts of mandibles, pronotum, mesonotum, thoracic pleurites and abdominal terga darker; thoracic and abdominal sterna lighter. Legs ocher-brownish; fore femur with diffusive, large, roundish lighter blank in proximal half; middle and hind femora with diffusive, longitudinal, arched blank parallel to outer margin.</p><p>HYPODERMAL COLORATION: Pronotum and mesonotum at most ocher, with lateral margins darker brownish. Femora either entirely ocher, or with darker brown macula at apex. Abdomen ocher. Both lamellae of each tergalius dark gray.</p><p>SHAPE AND SETATION: Labrum (Fig. 5) as wide as clypeus, widest in proximal half; fore margin convex; median incision small, with smooth shelf instead of denticles (unlike N. jobi, whose median incision and shelf are lost); distal transverse setal row dense and irregular, its setal bases are situated close one to another and form a stripe 5–6 setal bases width; instead of proximal transverse setal row, a wide field of irregularly situated setae [see Notophlebia (1)]. Mandibles (Fig. 10) with outer margin moderately convex, with a few setae not forming arched field (unlike N. jobi). Hypopharynx and superlinguae not widened (unlike N. jobi), inner lobes of superlinguae projected distad of hypopharynx (Fig. 4) [see Notophlebia (2)]. Maxilla (Fig. 7) without tusk, with well-developed apical flange (see Kluge 2012: Fig. 3), dentiseta and subapical row of pectinate setae (unlike N. jobi); number of subapical pectinate setae reduced to 3, with marginal one smaller than two others (Fig. 6) [see Iscini (1)]. 2 nd segment of maxillary palp with one long straight pointed stout seta near apex on ventro-lateral side, and with one placoid sensilla mediad of this seta. 3 rd (apical) segment of maxillary palp with numerous, moderately long, slender setae, situated densely and irregularly; their bases occupy apical 2/3 of ventral side (Fig. 7) and apical 1/3 of dorsal side of the 3 rd segment (in contrast to N. jobi, they do not form regular rows); inner margin with longitudinal row of 3–6 shorter spine-like setae. Labium (Fig. 8) with glossae small and not projected dorsad or ventrad of paraglossae; paraglossae moderately widened, roundish (unlike greatly widened in N. jobi). Labial palp non-specialized; 2 nd segment not shortened; 3 rd segment less than twice longer than 2 nd segment; filtering setae on dorsal side of 3 rd segment moderately long and directed apically-inward (Fig. 9) (unlike very long and directed apically-outward in N. jobi); besides these setae, 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd segments bear a longitudinal row of sparse setae on outer margins.</p><p>Thorax (Fig. 36) much narrower than in N. jobi; fore protoptera brought together, in intact position their tornoapical margins contiguous up to tips. Hind legs much larger than fore and middle legs; fore and hind femora much thicker than middle femur (Fig. 3). Femora wide, narrowed toward apex; fore femur wide, widest in middle part (Fig. 14); middle femur less wide, widest in distal half; hind femur wide, widest near middle—in younger larva proximad of middle (Fig. 3), in mature larva distad of middle. All femora with irregularly arranged stout long blunt setae mainly on outer and dorsal sides, and with long slender hair-like setae on outer side (not shown on Figs 3 and 14). Patella-tibial suture absent on fore and middle legs, present on hind leg (Fig. 3) [see Iscini (3)]. Anterior (dorsal) side of fore, middle and hind tibia with a longitudinal row of stout elongate blunt setae (Fig. 2a; 14) [see Notophlebia (3)]; fore tibia with dense pointed bipectinate stout setae on inner side and very stout setae in distal part of posterior (ventral) side (Fig. 2p) [see Iscini (2)]; middle tibia with spine-like setae on inner side; hind tibia with spine-like setae on inner side and stout elongate blunt setae on outer side (Fig. 3); middle and hind tibiae with numerous long slender hair-like setae on outer side (as in Fig. 54), fore tibia with a few such setae (not shown in Fig. 3). Tarsus of each leg with row of spine-like setae on inner side (Fig. 20). Claw with 2–4 denticles on proximal portion, 5–8 denticles in anterior row and 1 larger denticle apically-posteriorly (Fig. 35).</p><p>Abdomen has characteristic form [see Iscini (5)], lacks posterolateral projections on terga I– VI, have short blunt projections on terga VII and VIII and long blunt projections on tergum IX [see Notophlebia (4)] (Fig. 3). Posterior margins of abdominal terga with a regular row of pointed denticles alternated with setae (Fig. 38); denticles become longer from tergum I to tergum IX. Posterior margins of abdominal sterna without denticles. All tergalii I– VI bilamellate, with both lamellae blunt; tergalius I a little shorter than tergalius II; tergalii from II to V gradually shorter; tergalius VI much smaller [see Notophlebia (5)] (Figs 31–34); all tergalii narrower than in N. jobi . Protopenis of mature male larva much shorter than subimaginal penis, with gonopore located dorsally and lined with cuticle (Fig. 37); before molt to subimago, most part of subimaginal penis projects proximad of cuticular larval protopenis. Female larva with small shallow incision on posterior margin of sternum IX (Fig. 21). Cerci longer than body, paracercus 1.5 times longer than cerci.</p><p>Subimago. CUTICULAR COLORATION: Cuticle nearly entirely colorless, thoracic sutures and legs partly diffusively washed with light brownish. Mesonotum without pigmented areas present in most Leptophlebiidae; lateral portion of mesonotal suture does not serve as boundary of pigmented area, but has a form of longitudinal suture running between medioparapsidal and lateroparapsidal sutures (Fig. 12).</p><p>SHAPE AND TEXTURE: Fore femur widened proximally, middle and hind femora narrower (Figs 15–17). On fore leg of male tibia and tarsus as short as on other legs, tarsus with swollen 1 st –4 th segments (Fig. 15). Tarsi of all legs of male and female covered with microtrichiae, like other parts of legs and body. Caudalii 5–6 times shorter than body, cerci shorter than paracercus.</p><p>Imago, male. Head ocher with brown. Upper eyes not elevated, brownish-orange. Thorax with light brown and ocher maculation; mesonotum with brown pigmented areas and ocher stripes between them [see Iscini (7)] (Fig. 11). On fore wing (Fig. 1) proximal part of subcostal field and partly proximal part of costal fields brown, remainder membrane colorless; longitudinal veins ocher; cross veins in anterior-proximal part of wing bordered with brown, in posterior and distal parts of wing colorless. Oblique cross veins of pterostigma either simple, or branched, or incomplete; either bordered by brown, or colorless, or invisible. Fore leg: femur brown with ocher; tibia white with brownish line on inner side, 2.5 times longer than femur; tarsus white, nearly 2 times longer than femur (Fig. 13). Middle and hind legs: femur white with brown apex; tibia white with brown base; tarsus white (Fig. 18). Middle and hind legs with patella-tibial suture well-developed; tarsus secondarily 5-segmented [see Iscini (10)] (Fig. 20). Abdominal terga I–VII white, with blackish dots on lateral tracheal trunks; pale gray median maculae can be present on terga III–VII or on most posterior of them. Terga VIII–X dark brown with anterior margin light. Sterna I–VIII white. Sternum IX brown, with darker posterior-lateral areas and light posterior-median area (Figs 23, 26, 29). Styliger brown, gonostyli white with brown bases. Penial arms dark brown, external penis lobes ocher. Styliger short. Each penis lobe with straight pointed serrate apical projection [see Notophlebia (7)]; laterad of it, penis lobe forms convexity; mediad of it, penis lobe has a small sharp incision; gonopore locates on dorsal side of penis lobe, just dorsad of the serrate apical projection and the incision (Figs 32, 24, 26–29). Caudalii white, without markings; cerci less than ½ of body length.</p><p>Imago, female. Thorax as in male; mesonotum with the same brown pigmented areas separated by ocher stripes (as in Fig. 11). Wings as in male. Fore femur widened proximally, middle and hind femora narrower (as in subimago). Fore femur light brownish, with darker brown maculae near base and at apex (Fig. 19). Middle and hind femora with larger longitudinal brown maculae. Tibiae of all legs with light inner side and brown outer side (Fig. 19). Tarsi of all legs brownish. Abdominal terga I–X uniformly brown; sides lighter, with blackish dots on lateral tracheae. Abdominal sterna I–VIII lighter brownish, sternum IX brown. Posterior margin of sternum IX with small shallow incision (Fig. 22).</p><p>Egg (extracted from mature female larva). Oval, 0.13 mm length; surface with irregular rugosity.</p><p>Molts and transformations. Molt from subimago to imago occurs in both sexes (unlike Isca, whose female subimago does not molt). All 5 individuals reared in cages (3 males and 2 females) molted from larva to subimago late at night (later than other mayflies, which do it at beginning of darkness) and molted from subimago to imago at the same night (earlier than most other mayflies in the same conditions), so that in morning I found only larval and subimaginal exuviae and dead imagos; female imagos had no eggs. I was unable to see subimagos alive and don't know duration of subimaginal stage, but can state that it is much shorter than in most mayflies. Unlike shed subimaginal skin of other mayflies (whose cuticle of wings is crumpled and can't be spread), on shed subimaginal skin of Notophlebia ganeshi cuticle of each wing has a form of soft sack and can be easily spread. Subimaginal legs retain size and proportions of larval legs, and male fore legs undergo great changes in course of molt from subimago to imago: tarsus of subimaginal fore leg has peculiar swollen shape (Fig. 15); after molt to imago, tibia and tarsus become several times longer (Fig. 13) [see Iscini (9)]. Subimaginal caudalii are 3–4 times shorter than larval caudalii; when larva molts to subimago, each subimaginal caudalius develops from proximal 1/7–1/5 of larval caudalius, while in most part of larval caudalius tissues degenerate; when subimago molts to imago, caudalius elongates 2–3 times thanks to its crumpling condition under subimaginal cuticle [see Iscini (13)].</p><p>Dimensions. Fore wing length (and approximated body length) 6–7 mm.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C0488791BA78AC3CF5EAF82670A7080C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	KLUGE, NIKITA J.	KLUGE, NIKITA J. (2014): New Oriental tribe Iscini, new non-dilatognathan species of Notophlebia Peters & Edmunds 1970 and independent origin of Dilatognathus-type mouth apparatus in Atalophlebiinae (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae). Zootaxa 3760 (4): 522-538, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3760.4.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3760.4.2
C0488791BA70AC39F5EAF9DA717D0D94.text	C0488791BA70AC39F5EAF9DA717D0D94.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Notophlebia jobi Sivaramakrishnan & Peters 1984	<div><p>Notophlebia jobi Sivaramakrishnan &amp; Peters 1984</p><p>(Figs 39–54)</p><p>= Nathanella indica: Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970 (non Demoulin 1955)</p><p>= Notophlebia sp. n.: Sivaramakrishnan &amp; Job 1981</p><p>Material. INDIA, state Karnataka: Udupi district, river Seethanadhi-hole near Seethanadhi, 30.I.2013, N. Kluge, L. Sheyko: 3 larvae ; boundary of Shimoga and Uttara Kanada districts, river Sirawati near Mavigundi, Jogg Falls, 4.XII. 2008. coll. M. Chertoprud: 4 larvae .</p><p>Discussion. Larva is adequately described by Sivaramakrishnan &amp; Peters (1984). The following characters can be added. Mouth apparatus of « Dilatognathus - type », with highly modified labrum, mandibles, hypopharynx, maxillae and labium (Kluge 2012). Apex of maxilla lacks apical flange, dentiseta and subapical row of pectinate setae [which are present in most other Atalophlebomaxillata (Kluge 2012)]; instead of them, medio-apical angle of maxilla is produced to a long sclerotized apical tusk (Sivaramakrishnan &amp; Peters 1984: Fig. 15). Maxillary palp specialized as filtering, with 1 st segment shortened and thickened, with strengthened muscles—both flexor and extensor of 2 nd segment; 2 nd segment with a compact group of 4–6 long arched pointed stout seta near apex on lateral side (Figs 46, 47; Sivaramakrishnan &amp; Peters 1984: Fig. 15) (instead of one straight seta in N. ganeshi sp.n. — Fig. 7); 3 rd segment with only one kind of setae—very long stout pointed setae directed apically and forming nearly regular rows (Figs 46–49). Labial palp has lost setae on 1 st and 2 nd segments and bears long pointed setae on 3 rd segment. Outer side of 3 rd segment with very long setae, which in proximal part of the segment form regular transverse rows; dorsal side also with long setae; between long setae of outer side and long setae of dorsal side, smaller setae are situated (Figs 50, 51). Thorax wide; fore protoptera brought together (Fig. 44). Fore tibia, beside dense pointed bipectinate stout setae on inner side and non-pectinate very stout setae on ventral (posterior) side [see Iscini (2)] (Fig. 52p) bears numerous very long slender pointed setae on dorsal (anterior) side (Fig. 53a); unlike N. ganeshi sp.n., dorsal side has no longitudinal row of stout elongate blunt setae [see Notophlebia (3)]. Dorsal (anterior) side of middle and hind tibia with a longitudinal row of stout elongate blunt setae (Fig. 54a) (as in N. ganeshi sp.n.). Claw with 2–4 denticles on proximal portion, 8 denticles in anterior row and 1 larger denticle apically-posteriorly. Posterior margins of abdominal terga with a regular row of pointed denticles alternated with enlarged setae (Fig. 39); denticles become longer from tergum I to tergum IX, on posterior segments much larger than in N. ganeshi sp.n. Posterior margins of abdominal sterna without denticles. Tergalii with proximal-anal convexity, which is poorly expressed on tergalius I, gradually larger from tergalius I to tergalius VI and wellexpressed on small tergalius VI (Figs 40–43). Male larval protopenes long, with gonopore on dorsal side and with gonoduct lined by cuticle (Fig. 45).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C0488791BA70AC39F5EAF9DA717D0D94	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	KLUGE, NIKITA J.	KLUGE, NIKITA J. (2014): New Oriental tribe Iscini, new non-dilatognathan species of Notophlebia Peters & Edmunds 1970 and independent origin of Dilatognathus-type mouth apparatus in Atalophlebiinae (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae). Zootaxa 3760 (4): 522-538, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3760.4.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3760.4.2
C0488791BA75AC39F5EAFBA076430A89.text	C0488791BA75AC39F5EAFBA076430A89.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Notophlebia hyalina Peters & Edmunds 1970	<div><p>Notophlebia hyalina Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970</p><p>The type species of Notophlebia, N. hyalina, is known as a single male imago collected by F. Schmid 2.I. 1962 in "Madras State, Kunjankhuzi, 120 m " (Peters &amp; Edmunds 1970). It is unknown, if its larva has the « Dilatognathus - type » of mouth apparatus (as in N. jobi), or non-dilatognathan mouth apparatus (as in N. ganeshi sp.n.).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C0488791BA75AC39F5EAFBA076430A89	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	KLUGE, NIKITA J.	KLUGE, NIKITA J. (2014): New Oriental tribe Iscini, new non-dilatognathan species of Notophlebia Peters & Edmunds 1970 and independent origin of Dilatognathus-type mouth apparatus in Atalophlebiinae (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae). Zootaxa 3760 (4): 522-538, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3760.4.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3760.4.2
