Taxonomic revision of the owlfly genus Glyptobasis McLachlan, 1873 (Neuroptera: Ascalaphidae) from India and its adjacent countries Author Suryanarayanan, Thangalazhi Balakrishnan 0000-0002-0679-6914 Shadpada Entomology Research Lab, Department of Zoology, Christ College (Autonomous), Irinjalakuda, Thrissur, 680125 (affiliated with University of Calicut, Thenhipalam, Malappuram, 673635, Kerala, India) Kerala, India suryantb1995@gmail.com Author Ábrahám, Levente 0000-0002-8007-7117 Rippl-Rónai Museum H- 7400 Kaposvár, P. O. Box 70, Hungary labraham@smmi.hu Author Bijoy, Chenthamarakshan 0000-0002-5016-0454 Shadpada Entomology Research Lab, Department of Zoology, Christ College (Autonomous), Irinjalakuda, Thrissur, 680125 (affiliated with University of Calicut, Thenhipalam, Malappuram, 673635, Kerala, India) Kerala, India bijoyc@christcollegeijk.edu.in text Zootaxa 2024 2024-07-26 5486 3 388 418 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5486.3.4 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.5486.3.4 1175-5326 13210103 724B0245-ACA0-41FF-A650-FA0943835EC8 Glyptobasis McLachlan, 1873a Glyptobasis McLachlan, 1873a: 268 , van der Weele 1909a: 241 ; Navás 1912: 107 ; Kimmins 1949: 19 ; Ghosh 1988: 181 . Type species: Ascalaphus ( Ogcogaster ) dentifer Westwood, 1847: 69 ; Subsequent designation by McLachlan, 1873b: 402 . Diganosis : Glyptobasis species can be easily separated from related genera ( Acheron Lefébvre, 1842 , Protacheron van der Weele, 1909a , and Ascalohybris Sziráki, 1998 ) found in the Oriental region ( van der Weele 1909a ) based on the short acute triangular projection located in the anal area of the forewing. The cauda-ventral ectoproct process of the male Glyptobasis is shorter than that of the male Ascalohybris . The male gonocoxites 9+11 have well-developed hook-shaped processes curved inwards. Redescription. Medium-sized species (in males, body length: 25–32 mm , forewing length: 28–36 mm , hindwing length: 27–34 mm . In females, body length: 22–28 mm , forewing length: 30–41 mm ; hindwing length: 28–39 mm ). Head wider than thorax. Vertex narrow with long hairs. Frons with dense hairs. Eye large, divided by transverse furrow, lower part smaller than upper one. Antenna rarely reaches apices of forewing. Scape noticeably enlarged. Pedicel normal size. In males, proximal flagellomeres sinus-shaped or curved and with distinct lateral spines (or with short bristles). In females, antennae straight without spines. Flagellar segment 1 as long as segments 2–4 together. Notum short with sparse hairs. Both wings elongated, costal and anal margins almost parallel and strongly tapered basally. Forewing with distinct triangular projection in anal area. Wings hyaline, without brown or dark brown markings (but often with reddish-brown discolouration). Pterostigma rhomboid-shaped. Venation dense. Apex of wings rounded or slightly pointed. Apical area beyond Sc+R with three rows of cells in forewing, and with two or three rows in hindwing. Tibial spurs unequal, as long as two basal tarsal segments together on fore and middle legs. Abdomen shorter than length of wings in resting position. Male ectoproct with shorter or longer process, gonocoxites 9+11 with hook-shaped processus, curved inwards. In female, gonocoxite 7 is present. Distribution. India , Myanmar , Pakistan , Sri Lanka ( Oswald 2024 ), and a new record for the fauna of Nepal . Remarks: Glyptobasis species are morphologically very similar. For identification, the presence of several characters in combination is required. The most important morphological features are found on the head in frontal view, on the antennae of the males, on the sides of the thorax, on the legs and in the genitalia of the males. Distinguishing females is even more difficult. The differences in the wing colour patterns of the specimens cannot be used to separate the species, as they show a high degree of variation. The most reliable way to determine the species is to look at the well-differentiated male genitalia. The habitus photo is not sufficient to determine the species with certainty. The distributions of the respective species are still unclear based on known distributional data, so it is of little help for separating the species. See the key at the end of this chapter for the separation of the species.