Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Three species within the genus Epeorus s. l. Eaton, viz., Epeorus latifolium Uéno, 1928, E. L-nigrum Matsumura, 1931, and E. uenoi (Matsumura, 1933), whose types were collected from Sapporo City, Japan, and neighboring areas, have been confused for a long time. In this study, intensive field sampling and investigation of museum specimens revealed E. latifolium and E. L-nigrum are indeed distinct species, while E. uenoi is a synonym of E. latifolium. Thus, this study partially resolves the taxonomic confusion surrounding Japanese E. latifolium-like species. However, numerous closely related species in Northeast Asia remain challenging to delineate. A critical factor in this taxonomic ambiguity is the definition of subgenus Belovius Tshernova, 1981, as the description of its type species, E. latifolium, was based on a misidentified specimen. Additionally, this study presents morphological features and DNA sequence data for three other related species from the same areas, viz., E. curvatulus Matsumura, 1931; E. aesculus Imanishi, 1934; and E. nipponicus (Uéno, 1931). The subgeneric classification of each species is evaluated following Kluge's (2004) system, with E. L-nigrum newly assigned to the subgenus Belovius and E. curvatulus to the subgenus Caucasiron Kluge, 1997.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
KAZUNORI YOSHIZAWA (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: