4.4 Article

Caddisflies (Trichoptera) checklist and a new species of Helicopsyche von Siebold, 1856, from the Brejo de Altitude de Triunfo, a relict rainforest within the Caatinga domain, Northeast Brazil

期刊

ZOOKEYS
卷 -, 期 1111, 页码 215-244

出版社

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1111.77541

关键词

Aquatic insects; distribution; Helicopsyche (Feropsyche); larvae; semaphoronts; snail-case caddisfly; taxonomy

类别

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia (FAPESB) [317/2018]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Supe-rior (CAPES) [001, CAPES-88882.453922/2019-01]
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  4. Programa de Apoio a Pos-Graduacao (PROAP-CAPES)
  5. CAPES [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted an entomological survey in the Brejos de Altitude in Northeast Brazil, resulting in the discovery of new caddisfly species and the provision of a key for the identification of Brazilian Helicopsyche (Feropsyche) Johanson, 1998 species.
Brejos de Altitude are evergreen seasonal forests, associated with plateau regions in the middle of the Caatinga domain in Northeast Brazil, which possibly acted as biological corridors between the Atlantic Forest and the Amazon rainforest during the Pleistocene. The first entomological survey in the highest point in the state of Pernambuco, Brazil, the Brejo de Altitude de Triunfo, was implemented and resulted in a checklist of caddisflies with six families, nine genera, and eleven species, including a new species. Helicopsyche ralphi sp. nov. is described and illustrated, based on all semaphoronts. A key to Brazilian Helicopsyche (Feropsyche) Johanson, 1998 species is also provided. In addition to the caddisfly survey in the Brejos de Altitude, the results include new records for the state, region, and also for the country. Thus, this study updates the number of species in the Brazilian Northeast region and Pernambuco state to 169 species and 43 species, respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据