Bioacoustics of Eurhadina

Remarks. Ribaut (1936 ) treated Eurhadina as a junior synonym of Eupteryx Curtis, 1831 , but later, Young (1952 ) and Dlabola (1958 ) independently reinstated its generic status. Young (1952 ) grouped Eurhadina together with Eupterella DeLong & Ruppel, 1950 , Eupteroidea Young, 1952 , and Eupteryx Curtis, 1831 in the Eupteryx complex of the tribe Typhlocybini , united by the common character of three subapical cross-veins in the hindwing (Fig. 1 E ). Subsequently, Dworakowska (1969 ) also placed Asymmetropteryx Dlabola, 1958 and Wagneripteryx Dlabola, 1958 in the Eupteryx complex and also reviewed the taxonomic history of Eurhadina , provided a detailed discussion on its generic diagnostic characters, included Singhardina as its subgenus, and presented a key to the two included subgenera and their species. Here we show a previously undescribed feature in the side of male pygofer; that is, the ventral margin adjacent to the valve is deeply incurved (Fig. 1 G ) and connected to the valve by membrane. Lastly, Yang and Li (1991 ) described a third subgenus, E. ( Zhihadina ), based on a single new species, E. ( Z. ) sinica from China . However, the description is based on two different species, one based on the external figures belonging to Eurhadina ( Typhlocybini ) and the other, based on the male genitalia figures, belonging to Arboridia ( Arborifera ) Sohi & Sandhu, 1971 ( Erythroneurini ), and the diagnosis of this subgenus reiterates this situation in the following way: “ Externally very similar to the subgenus Eurhadina , but male genitalia distinctly different ” ( Yang and Li 1991 : 28, translated from Chinese). To rectify this situation, one option would be to synonymise E. ( Z. ) sinica with another species, thereby making the species invalid. However, the most similar species based on colour marking in the same publication, E. ( S. ) centralis Yang & Li, 1991 , and which was also collected on the same date and in the same place as E. ( Z. ) sinica , lacks the forewing petiolate third apical cell present in the latter. Another species in the same publication, with the same data, E. ( S. ) flavostriata Yang & Li, 1991 but incorrectly referred to as E. ( S. ) flavivittiata Yang & Li, 1991 in the figure legend, has different colour marking. Synonymising E. ( Z. ) sinica with another species, based on the original male genitalia figures, is also not possible. The shape of its aedeagus comes close to A. ( A. ) sohii Dworakowska, 1980 , A. ( A. ) vinealis (Ahmed, 1970) , and A. ( A. ) viniferata Sohi & Sandhu, 1971 , but there are some differences (Yuehua Song pers. comm.). The type specimens of all species described by Yang and Li (1991 ), including E. ( Z. ) sinica , were stated to have been deposited in the China Agricultural University, but efforts to find them there were unsuccessful. Based on the above information, it is probably best to consider both the subgenus and species E. ( Z. ) sinica as nomen dubia , that is, of uncertain identity, and incertae sedis of uncertain placement. We provide here a key to the two recognized subgenera, revised diagnoses, a revised key to the Chinese E. ( Eurhadina ), and an appendix with a checklist of Chinese Eurhadina . Key to the subgenera of Eurhadina 1 Upper part of face swollen in lateral view (Fig. 1 B ); forewing with third apical cell with a basal stem (petiolate) (Fig. 1 D ); side of male pygofer not posteriorly sclerotized (Fig. 1 G ); subgenital plate club-like, with a subapical process (Fig. 1 I ) E. ( Eurhadina ) Haupt, 1929 – Upper part of face flattened in lateral view (Fig. 3 B ); forewing with third apical cell with or without a basal stem; side of male pygofer posteriorly sclerotized (Fig. 3 H ); subgenital plate strongly distally tapered to slightly swollen apex, with the latter bearing small, spine-like setae, without a subapical process (Fig. 3 I ) E. ( Singhardina ) Mahmood, 1967