An annotated catalogue of the mayfly fauna of Turkey (Insecta, Ephemeroptera)

Abstract The mayfly fauna of Turkey was reviewed including all hitherto known distribution records together with references and a few new records. Additionally, comments on taxonomy, identification and nomenclature are provided. Two species are new for the Turkish fauna: Ephemera romantzovi Kluge, 1988 and Thraulus thraker Jacob, 1988. A list of taxa including their recorded distribution in Turkey (according to provinces) is provided in the annotated catalogue. The type locality is also given for each species originally described from Turkey. According to the literature and the new records, 157 mayfly taxa representing 33 genera and 14 families were described from Turkey. Among them, 24 species are considered endemic to Anatolia.


Introduction
Turkey is located among three continents geographically and covers a region also known as Asia Minor and Anatolia. Ulmer (1920) was the first author who described a new mayfly taxon from Turkey, whereas Verrier (1955) and Puthz (1972) provided the first faunistic records. Puthz (1978) already listed 17 species from Turkey but earnest faunistic research commenced with   1 , who contributed so far more than 30 papers, followed by Tanatmış (from 1995 onwards) 2 and others. A total of more than 70 scientific papers and books have been published on Ephemeroptera in Turkey until the year 2015 by Turkish and foreign researchers.
The websites www.faunaturkey.com and www.faunaturkey.org (established in 2013) aim to contribute more information on researchs about the fauna of Turkey. The data provided will be also added to the websites after publication. Our hope is to keep this list up-to-date with further additions and some corrections periodically, so we welcome information on any omissions, errors, and updates.

Material and methods
Data in this review have been based on a detailed study of literature on Ephemeroptera in Turkey as well as on hitherto unpublished material housed in the Natural History Museum, Vienna (NMW, Austria). Unpublished theses have not been considered, nor have all records above the species level. Distribution of species-group taxa in Turkey has been listed and referenced according to publication dates. National distribution records (without specific data at least on province level) have been listed under 'Turkey'. Type locality of species were only provided if the taxon had originally been based on material from Turkey. Additionally, taxa considered endemic to Turkey have been specifically mentioned under 'note'. Remarks on different taxonomic opinions and nomenclature have been added under 'Comment' whenever appropriate. Nomenclature and arrangement of families are given according to Bauernfeind and Soldán (2012).
Comment. Description and drawings do not allow identification without some doubt. A re-examination of type material (not specified) is necessary to ascertain the taxonomic status of this species.
Comment. Subspecific identity of records as Baetis lutheri (as above) is not clear.

Baetis (Baetis) macani
Comment. Taxonomy and identification of B. macani and related taxa is rather complicated (see Savolainen et al. 2007;Savolainen 2009). Baetis macani is considered to represent a tundral or boreo-tundral faunistic element distributed north of 54° northern latitude and occurrence in Turkey is rather unlikely. A re-examination of voucher material would be useful.
Comment. Larvae are very similar to B. fuscatus, not always reliably separated. Identification is comparatively easy if larvae and male imagines are associated.

Baetis (Labiobaetis) tricolor
Comment. Occurrence of potamalic B. tricolor in high mountain streams (Erzincan, Tunceli at between 1000-1500 m a.s.l.) is rather doubtful. In the larval stage, usually not separable from B. calcaratus Keffermüller, 1972. A re-examination of voucher specimens would be desirable.
Comment. Novikova (1987: 79) suggested the possible synonymy of B. bisri with B. stipposus Kluge, 1982[presently considered a junior subjective synonym of B. braaschi Zimmermann, 1980. However, Godunko et al. (2004: 165) considered B. bisri a well-characterized taxon easily separated from B. braaschi in the nymph stage by several morphological characters. No information was provided by Kazancı (2009) on characters for identification and several closely related taxa have subsequently been described from the neighbouring (adjacent) Taurus region. Occurrence of B. bisri in Turkey is not very likely and the record may in fact be based on any taxon of the subgenus Baetis (Rhodobaetis). The record from Hakkari has obviously been listed subsequently by  as B. braaschi (see below).
Comment. For diagnostic characters and their variability see Sroka et al. (2012).
Note. Endemic to Turkey.

Baetis (Rhodobaetis) pseudogemellus
Comment. Occurrence of B. pseudogemellus in Turkey is extremely unlikely (Godunko et al. 2015: 196), but several rather similar taxa of the subgenus Rhodobaetis occur in this region. A re-examination of voucher specimens from Siirt would be desirable.
Comment. Taxonomy of the Baetis rhodani species-group sensu Müller-Liebenau (1969) is rather complicated and numerous new species have been described in the more recent past. For a redescription and designation of neotype see Gattolliat and Sartori (2008).
Comment. Various earlier records as Baetis gemellus may in fact represent Baetis (Rhodobaetis) vadimi (see Comment above).
Note. Endemic to Turkey.
Comment. Occurrence of the alpine taxon E. picteti (Meyer-Dür) in Turkey is rather doubtful and most probably based on misidentification. A re-examination of material would be advisable.
Note. Endemic to Turkey. Comment. Larva not described.
Comment. For description of larva (and redescription of imaginal stages) see Belfiore et al. (2000).
Note. Endemic to Turkey. Comment. Larva not described.
Note. Endemic to Turkey. Comment. Larva not described.
Note. Endemic to Turkey Comment. Larva not described.

Electrogena quadrilineata (Landa, 1969)
Distribution in Turkey. Giresun, Rize, Trabzon (Türkmen and Kazancı 2015); listed from Turkey: eastern Black Sea Basin (Türkmen and Kazancı 2013). Comment. Electrogena quadrilineata has so far only been recorded from a few localities in Central Europe and occurrence in Turkey is rather questionable. For confusing taxa see Bauernfeind and Soldán (2012), a redescription from type material has been provided by Kłonowska-Olejnik (2004). (Braasch, 1981) Type country and locality. Turkey, Van Gölü (the type locality is located in the province of Muş) (Braasch 1981).
Comment. Taxonomy follows Kluge (1997a). Braasch (2006) proposed the new subgenus Alpiron Braasch for the European representatives of the subgenus Ironopsis Traver. Occurrence in Turkey somewhat doubtful, a re-examination of voucher specimens would be advisable.
Comment. So far considered to represent a west-central Palaearctic taxon, distribution on the Balkans and in Turkey probably questionable (Bauernfeind and Soldán 2012: 368). For taxonomic characters see Kłonowska-Olejnik and Godunko (2003).

Rhithrogena pontica Sowa, Soldán & Kazanci, 1986
Type country and locality. Turkey, stream 30 km south of Tortum (the type locality is located in the district of Tortum, the province of Erzurum) (Sowa et al. 1986).
Comment. Usually considered to represent an exclusively Oriental taxon, occurrence in Turkey is rather unlikely. Association of imaginal stages are somewhat doubtful, for a redescription of larvae see Sartori (2014). A careful re-evaluation of Turkish records based on a re-examination of voucher specimens seems necessary.
Note. Endemic to Turkey.

Habroleptoides confusa
Comment. Prior to the paper by Sartori and Jacob (1986) authors had confused Habroleptoides modesta Hagen, 1864 [endemic to Corsica and Sardinia] with central European taxa.

Habroleptoides kavron Kazancı & Türkmen, 2011
Type country and locality. Turkey The stream that is inflowing Büyük Deniz Lake (the type locality is located in the Kaçkar Mountains, Upper Kavron Highland, the province of Rize) (Kazancı and Türkmen 2011).
Note. Endemic to Turkey. Comment. Larva not described. Imagines very similar to Habroleptoides confusa Sartori and Jacob, 1986 and other related taxa, hardly separable without doubt.
Comment. Larva is similar to Habroleptoides confusa and related taxa; discriminating characters provided by Biancheri (1957) most probably insufficient for reliable separation.

Comment.
Occurrence in Turkey is rather questionable, probably based on misidentification or confused with mediterranean Habrophlebia eldae Jacob and Sartori, 1984.

Thraulus thraker
Comment. Larva is not described. Imagines are rather similar to T. bellus Eaton, but easily separable by colouration of extreme wing roots (sooty black) and egg chorionic structures (figured in Bauernfeind and Soldán 2012).
Comment. Frequently placed in subgenus Sinephemera Kluge, 2004 which is especially well characterized in male imagines (shape of titillator).
Note. Endemic to Turkey. Comment. Larva is not described.
Note. Endemic to Turkey. Comment. Placed in Serratella Edmunds, 1959 by some authors (e.g. Jacobus and McCafferty 2008) but generic concept for Serratella in discussion.

Drunella euphratica Kazanci, 1987
Type country and locality. Turkey, Yuva Köyü (Yuva Köyü is a village and is located in the district of Kemaliye, the province of Erzincan) (Kazancı 1987b).
Note. Endemic to Turkey. Comment. Placed in Quatica Jacobus and McCafferty, 2008 by some authors or in Torleya Lestage, 1917 following Kluge (2015). Concept for Quatica is still in discussion and probably polyphyletic.

Genus Caenis Stephens, 1835
Comment. Differences between larvae of P. orhanelicum and P. pennigerum are, however, rather slight, and discrimination doubtful. Manifestations of morphological characters are age-dependent (Schletterer et al. 2015). Discriminating characters for east Palaearctic taxa (larvae) have been summarized by Bojková and Soldán (2015).
Comment. Occurrence of this Oriental taxon in Turkey has most probably been based on misidentified material as already stated by .
Comment. Occurrence of this Oriental taxon in Turkey has most probably been based on misidentified material as already stated by .
Comment. Occurrence of this Nearctic taxon in Turkey has most probably been based on misidentified material as already stated by . Some taxa are known so far only from a single locality or from early records that are in need of updating and a careful re-examination based on modern taxonomic standards. Additionally, it would be advisable to revise discriminating characters for some problematic taxa. 3. Areas which have endemic species and their protection status should eventually be reconsidered due to their expected high endemism ratio.

Ephemeroptera fauna of some provinces is remarkable and comparatively well-in
We hope, however, there will be young scientists who will critically evaluate the present data, confirm or correct taxonomically doubtful records, and complete the missing parts in the taxonomic and faunistic knowledge about Ephemeroptera in Turkey.