---

1) In Matile 1986 work about Keroplatus
http://www.online...arctic.pdf

K. reaumurii reaumurii:
fusion radiomédiane 1.7-2.7 fois plus lonque que le pétiole de la fourchue
(rm fusion longer than M stem)
In this picture rm/Mstem =1.6
(in other male genitalia checked reaumurii: 1.85, 1.41, 2.17, 1.36, .... so IS ALWAYS > 1)

K. testaceus
fusion radiomédiane un peu plus courte que le pétiole de la fourchue
(rm fusion shorter or equal than M stem)
In this picture rate rm/Mstem =0.4

Image from K. testaceus from Jostein Kjaerandsen at
http://sciaroidea...s-Wing.jpg

---

2) In Matile 1986 work about Keroplatus

Ratio Protarse I/Tibia I: about 1.5 à le néotype K. reaumurii reaumurii
Ratio Protarse I/Tibia I: about 1.65 à le lectotype K. testaceus

Keroplatus reumurii reaumurii (own specimen)
Protarse I/Tibia I=1.65 (=68/40 under binocular)
(other genitalia checked male reaumurii: 1.43, 1.50, 1.76)

Keroplatus testaceus: (image: http://sciaroidea...s-Mph.jpg)
Protarse I/Tibia I=1.62 (143/88 measured on monitor screen with a ruler)

This criteria don't seems to work:@

---

3) In Zaitzev 1991 (http://www.online...usUSSR.pdf)

Keroplatus reaumurii:
Middle ventral outgrowth of gonocoxites with rounded top

Keroplatus testaceus:
Middle ventral outgrowth of gonocoxites narrowly triangular


NOTE: The figures of Matile 1986 are dorsal and not ventral.

Here is the complete key if somebody wants to translate it better:

Таблица для определения видов
рода Кегортшв Возс фауны СССР

Ротовые щупнки очень маленькие. округлые или слегка вытя-
нутые. Крылья с двумя отчетливыми темными пятнами ‚ _
. . . . . . . . . . . . Кмгриюёдезвозс
Ротовые щупики крупные, удлиненные. Крылья, как правищ
с размытыми пятнами в виде мазков. Если пятна на крыльях
более или менее отчетливые, то их больше двух.

Темные пятна на крыльях под С. На и вдоль Сщ отчетливые
(рис. 1, 5) . . . . . К. 10Ьа1из зр, п_
Темные пятна на крыльях размытые.

Срединный вентральный вырост гонококситов самца отсутст.
вует. Г оиококситы с глубокой узкой выемкой с вентральной
стороны (рис. 1, 4). Гоностнли широко округлые (рис. 1, 2), _
. . . . . . . . . . . . К.Ы/огтЕ3О1‹а‹1а
Срединный вентральный вырост гонококситов хорошо выражен,
Срединный вентральный вырост гонококситов с закругленной
вершиной (рис. 2. 4). Гоностиль — рис. 2, 5. . . . . ‚
. . . . . . . . . . . К. геаитигйг Оигоиг
Срединный вентральный вырост гонококситов с заостренной,
выемчатой или срезанной вершиной (рис. 1, 1; 2, 1; З, 1).
Срединный вентральный вырост гонококситов с треугольной
выемкой на вершине (рис. 3, 1). К. гииепзёз эр. п.
Срединный вентральный вырост гонококситов без треугольной
выемки на вершине.

Срединный вентральный вырост гонококситов с заостренной
вершиной.

Срединный вентральный вырост гонококситов широкотреуголь-
ный (рис. 1. 1). Гоиостиль -— рис. 1, 3. К. йдзраг ОиГоиг
рединный вентральный вырост гонококситов узкотреугольный
'( рис. 2. 6‘). Церки самки — рис. З, 2. К. гевгасеиз ВаПтап
Срединный вентральный вырост туповершииный (рис. 2, 1). Го-
ностиль — рис. 2, 2. . . . К. пгрропдсиз Окааа

Here is 2 own male K. reaumurii genitalia (dorsal) and a drawing from Zaitzev 1991

---

And here a picture of pwalter of K. testaceus https://diptera.i...to_id=4410 and the drawings of Matile 1986 and Zaitzev 1991

---

4) Matile 1986 and Zaitzev 1969 drew a gonostylus in K. reaumurii with a slender dorsally pointing projection that is not so obvious in Matile & B-B drawing of K. testaceus gonostylus

---

5) From Séguy 1940 (http://faunedefra...ceres.pdf)
The colour of the abdomen:
Tergites bordés de brun ou avec des bandes transverses noirâtres: reaumurii
Abdomen unicolore ou avec des taches latérales brunes [peu] marquées à la base de chaque tergite: testaceus

Drawing of male K. reaumurii abdomen from Séguy:
Compare it with:
Keroplatus testaceus: (image: http://sciaroidea...us-Mph.jpg)])

---

I hope this can be helpful.. Please if there is something wrong, write here; any data to increase or decrease the power of the "key" will be wellcommed.

---

Dear Rafael, you are doing a great work here! My specimen of https://diptera.i...d_id=75412 seems to be K. reaumurii indeed.

Some remarks:

1. The link in #1 does not work. It looks like this: "http://(http//www.online-keys.net/sciaroidea/add01/Matile_1969_Keroplatus_Cerotelion_n_sp.pdf)" - the brackets must not be included, and there is one "http//" too much. This one should be OK: http://www.online...n_n_sp.pdf
However, in this paper I cannot find the key you cited...

2. #3: You've been trying so hard to type the Russian key by Zaitzev - the link to it would have been sufficient (less typos ;)). In Zaitzev's key the names of the taxa were written in Latin letters, but you did not switch between Latin and Cyrillic script, so the names are not readable.
Кегортшв Возс = Keroplatus Bosc
Кмгриюёдезвозс = K. tipuloides Bosc
К. 10Ьа1из зр, п_ = K. lobatus spec. nov.
К.Ы/огтЕ3О1‹а‹1а = K. biformis Okada
К. геаитигйг Оигоиг = K. reaumurii Dufour
К. гииепзёз эр. п. = K. tuvensis spec. nov.
К. йдзраг ОиГоиг = K. dispar Dufour
К. гевгасеиз ВаПтап = K. testaceus Dalman
К. пгрропдсиз Окааа = K. nipponicus Okada

I would like to repeat my hint from https://diptera.i...d_id=75454 here, that Kjærandsen et al. (2007) regard K. tuvensis and K. dispar as conspecific with K. testaceus and thus junior synonyms, as the differences in genital morphology are within the limits of variation in K. testaceus - see p. 20 of http://www.online...Sweden.pdf.

The difference in shape of the middle ventral outgrowth of the gonocoxites between K. reaumurii (rounded top) and K. testaceus (narrow triangular) is quite clear. Why would you call the latter "with concave sides"? And, as pointed out above, there seems to be much variability in K. testaceus...

If wing venation and abdomen colour were reliable characters, we would have one less problem.

Thanks again for the compilation of characters! I will save that immediately.

Best wishes, Sundew

---

Dear collegue "Sundew", thanks you very much for your answer and correcting the links and the cyrillic/latin words.

In the work of Matile & B-B is not a key but the authors looked at the "types" and they wrote they find those differences, and, because of that it would seem that they are more or less constant.... but not.... so they gave that clue only after looking a few specimens?? Is something strange I don't know... They also write at the end you have to look at genitalia.

In my opinion there is one small error in that work: the genitalia is draw dorsally and not ventrally

The feature/characteristic rate of legs has a large amount of variation, but the wingveins rate could work better (if you look at the rate as over/below 1), but I have just checked one testaceus picture.

And yes, I sent an image of the pdf key to an ocr online converter and ticked the russian language for all the text...

Do you think that the characteristic of the gonostylus shape is correct? because somewhere you wrote about the ventral appendix of the gonocoxite and that projection is pointing dorsally...

This is what I meant with triangular with concave sides:
https://www.dropb...E.png?dl=0

So thany you very much for your comments, all the best,
Rafael

---

Meanwhile I found out that you did not cite from a paper of "Matile & B-B 1969" (http://www.online...n_n_sp.pdf). The linked paper deals with discrimination between the genera Keroplatus and Cerotelion, especially the larvae. The right paper where the quotes and drawings come from is this: http://www.online...arctic.pdf. It is a paper from 1986 by L. Matile alone.

I am no Keroplatidae expert and as a photographer do not deal with preparation of genitalia. My knowledge comes from the literature and Diptera.info :D (And I know Russian ;))

I understand from Kjærandsen et al. (2007) that all the shapes of the middle ventral outgrowths depicted in Zaitzev (for K. testaceus, K. tuvensis and K. dispar) can in fact be found in K. testaceus samples together with a forth form. So K. testaceus alone can have outgrowths that are
- narrow triangular
- broad triangular
- narrow and bicuspidate (with triangular cleft at tip)
- broad and short bicuspidate.
Given this variability, I would not especially look for "concave sides" - I know what you mean, but I think all these descriptions concern only the upper part of the outgrowth, and Zaitzev's drawings do not show much concavity there...

That is all I can contribute to our discussion - not much, I am afraid. Perhaps you could ask the authors of this paper https://www.resea...and_Serbia about their opinion; Jukka Salmela did the morphological examinations and is also a Diptera.info member (though rarely seen here). Perhaps you should write him an e-mail.

Regards, Sundew

---

You are right, too many things in my head when I did this post:S

And also there is variation in the middle outgrowths of testaceus...

As I don't 'have testaceus in my region I will not do anything at the moment, but may be you and they are right and testaceus-tuvensis-dispar is the same species.

And if you want to improve my english version of the russian key, is here:
https://www.dropb....docx?dl=0

(as you have read english is not my mother language)

Rafael

---

Ok, I send you an e-mail with the translated key.

---

@ Sundew, I have corrected the original message taking out those lapsus mistakes, just to clean the info for other users

And I didn't receive the translated key.

---

Dear Rafael, on 15 December I sent you the key to your email address that is given in your member profile. If this address does not work, send me your current one. Mine is in my member profile.

---

Yes, I received! Thanks