Taxonomic controversies in the Hydropsychidae

  • Ruth M. Badcock
Conference paper


The controversy featuring Hydropsyche instabilis (CURT.) and H. siltalai DÖHL. is outlined. The lectotype of H. instabilis, a female in the CURTIS Collection, has been re-examined and is considered to be distinct from H. siltalai. The male imago depicted by McLACHLAN as H. instabilis has been found in the British Museum (Natural History). Contrary to the view of DÖHLER, based on McLACHLAN’s drawing and subsequently accepted in the literature, this specimen is considered to be conspecific with MOSELY’s instabilis i.e. with H. siltalai and not with the female lectotype of H. instabilis. However the lectotype in the CURTIS collection has priority for the name H. instabilis.

SVENSSON & TJEDER’s claim that the designation by BOTOSANEANU & MARINKOVIC-GOSPODNETIĆ of a lectotype of H. siltalai DÖHL in the CURTIS Collection is invalid is upheld, but it is not agreed that their Swedish H. siltalai is conspecific with the female lectotype of H. instabilis or that TOBIAS had mixed the sexes of the two species. H. instabilis and H. siltalai should stand as discrete species. If the suggestion meets with approval, it is proposed to designate as lectotype of H. siltalai DÖHLER a male imago in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) from which it is thought that KIMMINS’ drawings for MOSELY’s (1939) description were made.


Anterior Margin British Museum Ventral Lobe Dorsal Lobe British Species 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BADCOCK, R.M. 1955. Widespread distribution in Britain of our allegedly rare caddis, Hydropsyche fulvipes (CURTIS) (Trich., Hydropsychidae ), Ent. mon. Mag. 91: 30–31.Google Scholar
  2. BOTOSANEANU, L. & MARINKOVIC-GOSPODNETIC, M. 1966. Contribution à la connaissance des Hydropsyche du groupe fulvipes-instabilis. Etude des genitalia males. Annls Limnol. 2: 503–525.Google Scholar
  3. CURTIS, J. 1834. Descriptions of some hitherto nondescript British species of May-flies of Anglers, Phil. Mag. 4: 212–218.Google Scholar
  4. CURTIS, J. 1835. British Entomology.Google Scholar
  5. DOHLER, W. 1963. Liste der deutschen Trichoptera, NachBl. bayer Ent. 12: 17–22.Google Scholar
  6. HILDREW, A.G. & MORGAN, J.C. 1974. The taxonomy of the British Hydropsychidae ( Trichoptera ), J. Ent. (B) 43: 217–229.Google Scholar
  7. KIMMINS, D.E. 1957. Notes on some British species of the genus Hydropsyche, Entomologist’s Gaz. 8: 199–210.Google Scholar
  8. McLACHLAN, R. 1874–1880. A monographic revision and synopsiss of the Trichoptera of the European fauna. (Reprint) Hampton: Classey.Google Scholar
  9. MARTYNOV, A.V. 1934. Trichoptera Annulipalpia, Leningrad.Google Scholar
  10. MOSELY, M.E. 1939. The British Caddis Flies (Trichoptera); a collector’s handbook. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. NEBOISS, A. 1963. The Trichoptera types of the species described by J.CURTIS, Beitr. Ent. 13: 582–635.Google Scholar
  12. PICTET, F.J. 1834. Recherches pour servir à l’histoire et à l’anatomie des Phryganides. Geneva.Google Scholar
  13. SEDLAK, E. 1971. Bestimmungstabelle der Larven der haufigen Tschechoslowakischen Arten der Gattung Hydropsyche Pictet ( Trichoptera ), Acta ent. bohemoslov. 68: 185–187.Google Scholar
  14. SVENSSON, B.W. & TJEDER, B. 1975. Taxonomic Notes on Some European Trichoptera, Ent. scand. 6: 67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. TOBIAS, W. 1972. Zur Kenntnis europaischer Hydropsychidae (Insecta: Trichoptera) I, II. Seckenberg. biol. 53: 59–89, 245–268.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruth M. Badcock

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations