Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Phylogenetic analysis shows Chlorogomphidae as a monotypic family with implications for species classification.
Phylogenetic analysis of the family Chlorogomphidae was carried out using two nuclear markers, the ITS and histone H3–H4 regions, and a barcoding fragment of the mitochondrial COI gene, using sequences obtained in this study and adopted from GenBank. Their joint analysis was performed using StarBEAST software. In total, 36 (64%) of 56 species of all three genera currently recognised in this family were analysed. Our analysis showed Chlorogomphidae as a monotypic family containing the single speciose genus Chlorogomphus Selys, 1854. Chlorogomphus montanus Chao, 1999, syn. nov., is synonymised to Chlorogomphus nasutus Needham, 1930, Chlorogomphus urolobatus Chen, 1950, syn. nov., is synonymised to Chlorogomphus infuscatus Needham, 1930. The synonymy of Chlorogomphus suzukii Oguma, 1926 and Chlorogomphus tunti Needham, 1930 is confirmed. Some other potential synonyms are discussed. The phylogenetic trees reconstructed here showed that the species name C. nasutus Needham, 1930 actually refers to two (not three) different taxa. Thus, we suggest considering these two taxa as separate species, C. nasutus and C. satoi Asahina, 1995. ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:5188C826-AD51-4605-8B06-3C63DE80F1F0
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schneider et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: