This paper is devoted to the homogenization of a nonlinear transmission problem stated in a two‐phase domain. We consider a system of linear diffusion equations defined in a periodic domain consisting of two disjoint phases that are both connected sets separated by a thin interface. Depending on the field variables, at the interface, nonlinear conditions are imposed to describe interface reactions. In the variational setting of the problem, we prove the homogenization theorem and a bidomain averaged model. The periodic unfolding technique is used to obtain the residual error estimate with a first‐order corrector. The coupling of the species arises via nonlinear transmission conditions at the interface, which model surface reactions. Nonlinear interface reactions are relevant, for instance, in electrochemistry, see, eg, Landstorfer et alε>0. The main objective is to derive a macroscopic model for vanishing ε, where both phases are connected sets. The limit bidomain model is given via two coupled parabolic equations defined in the macroscopic domain describing the diffusion of the two species in each phase and reactions at the interface. In the case of connected‐connected domains, we exploit the existence of a continuous extension operator from the periodic domain to the whole domain following.The characteristic length scale of the periodic cell is given by the homogenization parameter A qualitative homogenization result for reaction‐diffusion systems with nonlinear transmission conditions has recently been obtained in Gahn et al.O(ε2).Within elecktrokinetic modeling  optimal for H1‐estimates up to an Lipschitz boundary, whereas in Fatima et al,ε1/4. For this task, we apply the Poincaré inequality in periodic domains Ω⊂Rd is a d‐dimensional hyperrectangle, d⩾2, ie, it isThe reference domain (D2)unit cellY=d consists of two open, connected subsets Y1 and Y2, which have Lipschitz continuous boundaries ∂Y1, ∂Y2 and are disjoint by the interface Γ=∂Y1∩∂Y2. We assume the reflection symmetry, ie,k=1,…,d, i=1,2. This assumption allows us to define periodic functions on Yi in n1 and n2 denote the unit normal vectors at the respective boundaries ∂Y1 and ∂Y2. Every normal is chosen outward from the domain, and it does not depend on scaling by ε.The (D3)ε>0, we introduce the decomposition of a point x∈Rd asxε∈Zd and the fractional part xε∈Y. According to ε an admissible parameter, if the reference domain Ω from (D1) can be partitioned periodically into the local cells as follows:For (D4)Ω1ε and Ω2ε and their interface Γε are determined vianiε at ∂Ωiε coincide with the normal vectors ni at ∂Yi for i=1,2 and do not depend on the scaling ε. The interface Γε is a Lipschitz continuous manifold.As a consequence of (D1) to (D3), the periodic components We make the following geometric assumptions.ε>0, time t∈ with the final time T>0 fixed, the space variable x∈Ω1ε‾⋃Ω2ε‾ in the two‐component domain, we consider a nonlinear transmission problem for uiε, i=1,2, such that∂t stands for the time derivative, ∇ for the spatial gradient, and “  · ′′ for the scalar product in Rd. Below, we explain in detail the terms entering the system (4). We note that |Γε|=O(1/ε); therefore, the scaling ε in (A1)Ai(y)∈L∞, i=1,2, are symmetric, uniformly bounded and elliptic: There exist 0<α⩽β such thatThe diffusivity matrices For admissible Aiε(x)=Ai{xε} according to the notation The matrices entering gi:R2↦R, i=1,2, describe interface reactions and are assumed to satisfy(G1)Kg>0 such thatthe uniform growth condition: there exists (G2)Lg⩾0 such thatui,vi∈R, i=1,2.the Lipschitz continuity: There exists In the transmission conditions uiin∈L2(Ω), i=1,2.The linear diffusion equations uiε∈Uiε, i=1,2, in the search (solution) spacevi from the test spaceH1(Ωiε)∗ in Uiε stands for the topologically dual space to H1(Ωiε), and ⟨·,·⟩Ωiε denotes the duality between them.We introduce the variational formulation of the problem (4) as follows: find 3This section provides the existence of weak solutions in the sense of variational formulation for the microscopic problem Theorem 1(Well‐posedness)(i)uiε∈Uiε to the nonlinear transmission problem ε∈ for ε0>0 sufficiently small.The unique solution (ii)uiin>0 everywhere in Ω‾, the solution uiε is positive at least locally in time, and uiε⩾0 at any time under the assumption of the positive production rate from RoubÍček(uiε)−=−min stands for the negative part of the function.Under assumptions on positivity of the initial data (i)uim0=uiin, m0∈N, i=1,2.To prove existence of the solution, we apply the Tikhonov‐Schauder fixed point theorem. We iterate m>m0, m∈N, a solution uim∈Uiε can be found, which satisfies the initial data vi∈Viε, using the notation gim−1:=gi for short. We can test vi=uim leading to2δKtr>0, the trace theorem C=Ktr4δKg2Tε|Γε|=O(1) with a constant Ktr from the trace theorem Kg from ⟨∂tuim,uim⟩=12ddt‖uim‖L2(Ωiε), using the uniform ellipticity Aiε and the estimate δ<α, applying Grönwall inequality, we obtaint∈, we conclude‖∂tuim‖L2∗)2=O(1) uniformly with respect to m→∞ and ε→0, and the continuous embedding of the solution in C) holds; see Dautray and Lions.For M:Uiε↦Uiε defined when solving uiε∈Uiε, i=1,2, and a subsequence still denoted by m such that as m→∞M in the weak topology is justified using the Lipschitz continuity of the nonlinear term gi in Therefore, the mapping wiε:=ui1,ε−ui2,ε, i=1,2, of two solutions of vi=wiε:To prove uniqueness, we consider the difference Igiε is estimated due to the Lipschitz continuity wiε≡0, which proves ui1,ε≡ui2,ε.The integral (ii)uiε, we decompose the solution into the positive and the negative parts as: uiε=(uiε)+−(uiε)− and substitute it in the Equation vi=(uiε)−. The assumption of the positive production rate Aiε and the nonnegativity of the initial data lead to the estimate:(uiε)−≡0 and uiε⩾0. If uiε(0)=uiin>0 everywhere in Ω‾, then uiε(t)>0 at least for t sufficiently small, which follows by the continuity of the solution. This completes the proof.To prove the nonnegativity of  □Ωiε.We note that Theorem 4Ωiε‾ and Yi‾, i = 1,2, up to the boundaries.Following Cioranescu et al,Definition 1u(x)∈L2(Ωiε), the unfolding operator Tε:L2(Ωiε)↦L2), i=1,2, in the domain is defined byu(x)∈L2(∂Ωiε), the operator Tε:L2(∂Ωiε)↦L2), i=1,2, is performed on the boundary byφ∈L2), the averaging operator Tε−1:L2)↦L2(Ωiε), i=1,2, in the domain is defined byφ∈L2), the operator Tε−1:L2)↦L2(∂Ωiε), i=1,2, on the boundary is expressed byFor Tε−1 is used for a left inverse operator of Tε according to Lemma H1(Ωiε), the restriction of the unfolding operator Tε is well‐defined as the mapping H1(Ωiε)↦L2), and for functions in L2), the restriction of the averaging operator Tε−1 is well‐defined as L2)↦H1(⋃λ∈IεYiλ), where Yiλ is from H1(⋃λ∈IεYiλ) and H1(Ωiε) do not coincide because functions from H1(⋃λ∈IεYiλ) are discontinuous while they can have jumps across the interface Γε.Abusing the notation The operator properties are collected below in Lemma Lemma 1Tε and Tε−1)(Properties of the operators  For arbitrary x↦u(x)∈H1(Ωiε)∩L2(∂Ωiε) and ↦φ∈L2∩L2(∂Yi)), i=1,2, and the extension by zero: ū(x)=u(x) for x∈Ωiε, otherwise ū(x)=0 for x∈Ω∖Ωiε‾, the following properties hold:(i)Tε: (Tε−1Tε)u(x)=u(x);invertibility of (ii)Tε−1:(iia)(TεTε−1φ)=φ(y) for x∈Ω, if φ(y) is a constant or periodic function of the argument y∈Yi,(iib)(TεTε−1ū)=(Tε−1ū)(x)=|Yi||Y|⟨Tεu⟩Yi(x) for x∈Ω, where is the average ⟨·⟩Yi=1|Yi|∫Yi(·)dy;invertibility of (iii)Tε(F(u))=F(Tεu) for any elementary function F;composition rule: (iv)εTε(∇u)=∇y(Tεu), and ∇(Tε−1φ)(x)=Tε−1(∇φ+1ε∇yφ)(x) for x∈Yiλ and φ∈H1(Ω×Yi);chain rules: (v)integration rules:(vi)Tε:boundedness of (TεTε−1ū)=(Tε−1ū)(x) for x∈Ω and z∈Y:Tε−1ū=|Yi||Y|⟨Tεu⟩Yi as a consequence of the definition φ≡ū(x) for all φ∈L2). The proof of the other properties can be found in other studies.The property (iib) follows in a straightforward manner from the calculation of  □5In this section, we collect some auxiliary tools used later in the derivation of the residual error estimates.Lemma 2 For u(x)∈H1(Ωiε), the following Poincaré inequality holds ∈H1(Yi) in the unit cell with connected subsets Yi for i=1,2:φ∈L2). Choosing φ=Tεu givesTε⟨Tεu⟩Yi=⟨Tεu⟩Yi. For all ∈Ω×Yi, we haveεxε+εyε=xε for all y∈d. This shows, in particular, that y↦Tε⟨Tεu⟩Yi is constant for a.e. x∈Ω.We recall the Poincaré inequality for a function  □φ∈L2):Ktr>0. After the substitution of φ=Tεu for the function u(x)∈H1(Ωiε), there follows  For u(x)∈H1(Ωiε), there exists a continuous extension ũ∈H1(Ω) from the connected set Ωiε to Ω such that ũ=u in Ωiε andu=0 on ∂Ωiε∩∂Ω, then ũ∈H01(Ω) exists satisfying ∂Ω is argumented in Höpker.Indeed, the assertion holds in accordance with previous studies, □Below, we recall the auxiliary result from Fellner and KovtunenkoLemma 4Ωiε) (which have no jumps across the interface Γε), the asymptotic estimateε→0 for i=1,2.Yi byNi=(y), i=1,2, fromNki∈H#1(Yi) for i=1,2 and k=1,…,d. In (30), the notation ∂yNi(y)∈Rd×d for y∈Yi stands for the matrix of derivatives with entries (∂yNi(y))kl=∂Nki∂yl, k,l=1,…,d, and I∈Rd×d denotes the identity matrix. The system (30) admits the weak formulation: find vector‐functions Ni∈H#1(Yi)d such thatφ∈H#1(Yi). A solution of Yi.Based on the geometric assumptions (D1) to (D4), we define the space of periodic functions in the cells Ni of the cell problem Ai admit the following asymptotic representation formulated in the lemma below; see Fellner and KovtunenkoBased on the solution Lemma 5(Asymptotic formula for periodic diffusivity matrices)(i)Ni of the cell problem Ai0∈Rsymd×d given by the averagingd‐by‐d matrix:d‐by‐d matrix Bi(y) is periodic and has the following divergence form in the cell Yi:bklm(i) are skew‐symmetric:Bi is divergence‐free:⟨Bi⟩Yi=0. At the interface, the condition holds:For the solution (ii)Ni∈W∞1,(Yi)d. For varying function vi∈Viε and fixed ui0∈L2), the following integral form corresponding to the averaged equation ui1:=ui0+ε(Tε−1Ni)·∇ui0 is approximated as follows:Assume that (i)Ni of For the vector‐valued solution (ii)vi∈Viε and ui0∈L2) be given. To prove IAi0 in y:Let Ai0=TεAi0 holds. Then, expressing Ai0 from εTε(∇ui0)=∇y(Tεui0), and the notation of the corrector ui1:=ui0+ε(Tε−1Ni)·∇ui0, we rearrange the following terms:IAi0 is performed equivalently byIBi is written component‐wisely as follows:Bi and the fact that it is divergence‐free, the term IBi is integrated by parts as follows:∂Yi∖Γ vanishes after rewriting the integral again in macrovariables because of vi=0 on ∂Ωiε∩∂Ω and because jumps across the cell boundary of vi and ∇ui0 are zero , while Bi is periodic.For the constant matrix, the identity Yi in ⟨Bi⟩Yi=0 as follows:I1i and I2i in the macrovariable x in all local cells using the integration rules (20) and (21) and then apply to the result the Cauchy‐Schwarz inequality and the Poincaré inequality The integral over Ω×k,l,m will refer to both x as well as y coordinates. We are starting fromx∈Ωiε:λ=⌊xε⌋. First, there are some constants 0<K1⩽K2 such thatK3>0 such thatIB1 from K4>0:Below, the indices  □ε→0.With these preliminaries, in the next section, we homogenize the nonlinear transmission problem 6ui0, i=1,2, in the time‐space domain ×Ω fromAi0 are defined in ui0∈U0 in the spacev∈V0:=L2). In Ω implies the duality between H1(Ω) and its topologically dual space H1(Ω)∗.We state the averaged bidomain diffusion problem determining the functions gi. Moreover, the a priori estimate like i=1,2):Ni and of its gradient in order to prove the residual error estimate, which is a standard assumption for cell problems; see, ie, Zhikov et al.The solvability of Theorem 2 Let the cell problem Ni∈W∞1,(Yi), and the macroscopic solution be such that ui0∈L2)∩L∞), ∂t(∇ui0)∈L2)d, i=1,2. Then the solution uiε of the inhomogeneous problem ui0 of the averaged problem Ñi∈W1,∞(Y) is a periodic extension of Ni to Y, satisfy the residual error estimate:12 is determined in uiε−ui1 ×Ωiε, it follows the variational equation in two subdomains for i=1,2:We start with derivation of an asymptotic equation for the difference −ui1 see . Multiplv∈V0 and vi∈Viε. With a special choice of vi, it can be equal to v. For test functions vi=v∈V0⊂Viε, i=1,2, we subtract 0 is given by the formula k, k=1,2,3, in the right‐hand side of We choose follows:1∫0T⟨∂t(u∂tui1=∂t[ui0+ε(Tε−1Ni)·∇ui0] implying thatgiv the restriction operator from Lemma gi leads toK7=|Γ|Lg)We use the Cauchy‐Schwarz inequality and the expansion of the time‐derivative of the corrector v by piecewise constant average ⟨Tεv⟩(x):=⟨Tεv⟩Yj(x) for x∈Ωjε, j=1,2. For this task, we decompose Ii in 4 and rewrite the third term using |Γ|=∫Γdσy. Based on the boundedness gi, from the Cauchy‐Schwarz inequality, it follows the error estimateK8=εT|Γε|Ktr(1+KP)+|Γ||Y|T|Ω|KP. Here, we have used the Poincaré inequality Ji implies thatgi, using the mean inequality5 in ui1∈H1(Ω), according to Griso,5 holds:Yj and 5 is estimated byIn the following, we aim at substitution of ηΩ(x) be a smooth cutoff function with a compact support in Ω and equals one outside an ε‐neighborhood of the boundary ∂Ω such that |ηΩ|⩽1 and ε|∇ηΩ|⩽Cη. For further use, we employ the following functions wi∈V0⊂Viε expressed equivalently in two ways asũiε∈H01(Ω) is the uniform extension of uiε∈Uiε according to Lemma Let ũiε−ui1 with the help of substitution of the test function v=wi from k, k=0,1,…,5. This implies the following structure of the bounds:αk=O(1) and Uk=O(1) for k=0,1,…,5.We will derive the estimates for v=wi from M is not an error term; in contrary, it enters with the factor −δ1 the left‐hand side of the estimate The asymptotic equation 6 is estimated by integration by parts with respect to timeM(uiε−ui1) is evaluated by Young inequality with the weight δ1>0 and using the boundedness property of Ai with the upper bound β from U7=O(1), in particular, because 1−ηΩ≠0 on a O(ε)‐set using the fact that 1−ηΩ≠0 on a set of measure O(ε), thus compensating ∇ηΩ=O(ε−1) here.ErrJi(⟨Tεwi⟩) and the uniform positive definiteness Ai with the lower bound α>0, from α8:=|Γ|2∑j=121|Yj|2, andi=1,2 we rearrange the terms such thatγ:=α−4ε2KtrLg2−3βδ12, α10:=2(KtrLg2+α8), and the error Err9 impliesδ1 small enough such that γ>0. Therefore, applying Grönwall inequality leads toTherefore, using the inequality 7Compared with previous results in the literature on multiscale diffusion equations, in the paper, we derived the macroscopic bidomain model that is advantageous for numerical simulation; we first proved the homogenization result supported by residual error estimate of the asymptotic corrector due to the nonlinear transmission condition at the microscopic level, which appears to describe interface chemical reactions.Ω1ε and Ω2ε. While in the connected domain Ω1ε the uniform extension is applicable, the disconnected domain Ω2ε allows a discontinuous Poincaré estimate (see Kovtunenko and ZubkovaFor further generalization of the obtained result, we suggest to consider the case of connected‐disconnected domains This work does not have any conflicts of interest.


Zhou CC, Wang J, Bu H, Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi, 2020, 23(2): 65-76.In the version of this article initially published, error appeared on page 65. The author address should be “400037 重庆，重庆新桥医院（朱波）”. And another error appeared on page 66. The first sentence in part 1 should be “年龄标化率（age standardized rate, ASR）31.5/10万和14.6/10万”.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7049793


We prove an extremal result for long Markov chains based on the monotone path argument, generalizing an earlier work by Courtade and Jiao. Shannon’s entropy power inequality (EPI) and its variants assert the optimality of the Gaussian solution to certain extremal problems. They play important roles in characterizing the information-theoretic limits of network information theory problems that involve Gaussian sources and/or channels   2) are ewhere “≈” means that the two sides are equal up to an additive constant.Remark 2.Conjecture 1 corresponds to the special case where The rest of the paper is organized as follows. n-dimensional zero-mean Gaussian random (column) vectors with covariance matrices In this section, we consider the Gaussian version of the optimization problem in  defined Given  impliesΣ1=((1−λ)ΣZ−1)−1,Σ2= vectors with covariance matrices Let hat (cf. –11))(1).. U and V be two arbitrary random objects jointly distributed with Let ction in  does notFor ures see a:(20)U↔Xλ∈,DX=DX|Xλ,U,where , 23) is isλ∈ that, ΣZ˜≺ΣZ,DX|W,U=DXed (cf. (ΣZ˜=ΣZ−1+ we haveDY⪯D2−1+(veraging –19) tha thahλ=−μnditions:−μ(1−λ)2D−D¯1)=0,Π2′(DY−D¯ced from –16); it; ithλ=−μa 2 and (dhλdλ≤−n2erefore,min(DX,DYWe have generalized an extremal result by Courtade and Jiao. It is worth mentioning that recently Courtade  found a


On PDF page 3, paragraph 3: “Fig. S2B” should be “Fig. S1B.” On PDF page 6, Fig. 3 legend: “rnfABCDEF” should be “rnfABCDEG.” On PDF page 8, 9th line from the bottom: “RS10900” should be “RS10900”. On PDF page 13: “G.T.” should be “G.E.T.” These changes do not change the conclusions of the paper.Volume 11, no. 1, e03221-19, 2020.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-020-66688-1, published online 30 June 2020Correction to: This Article contains errors in the average and standard deviation calculations of postoperative weight patients for the effect of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass reported in Table 1.The ‘Weight (kg)’ value for ‘Postoperative’ patients ‘With cholecystectomy (n = 7),’“112.3 ± 10.89”should read:“95 ± 10.55”Additionally, the ‘Weight (kg)’ value for ‘Postoperative’ patients ‘Without cholecystectomy (n = 21),’“108.17 ± 14.50”should read:“90.7 ± 12.40”The correct Table


Halictidae, described by Ferdinand Morawitz from the collection of Aleksey Fedtschenko deposited in the Zoological Museum of the Moscow State University and in the Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg (Russia), are critically reviewed. Precise information with illustrations of types for 43 taxa is provided. Lectotypes are here designated for the following seven nominal taxa: Halictusaprilinus Morawitz, 1876, H.cingulatus Morawitz, 1876, H.laevinodis Morawitz, 1876, H.limbellus Morawitz, 1876, H.nasica Morawitz, 1876, H.rhynchites Morawitz, 1876 and H.vulgaris Morawitz, 1876.The type specimens of the family  Apidae genuinae” (1875), Morawitz treated a total of 255 species of numerous genera, of which many species were described as new. In this second part, “Andrenidae” (1876), the remaining bees were dealt with, including the species of the difficult genera Andrena, Halictus and Hylaeus, totalling 183 species  and in the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia (ZISP). To this day, these remain some of the most important manuscripts on bees of this region.More than 140 years ago (1876), the second part of Ferdinand Morawitz’s critical study on the bees collected by the Aleksey Fedtschenko 1869– species . The spe species  and the The entomological literature uses various, often obscure, terms and names for Central Asian regions and countries. The term “Turkestan” has a particularly special use in entomology, widely adopted by th and early 19th Centuries as Lesser Bukharia, as opposed to Greater Bukharia, where the Bukhara Khanate was situated. In Europe, these lands came to be referred to in the 18th and 19th Centuries as Turkestan, i.e. “the Land of Turks,” which was the original Iranian name for the territory east of Fergana and Bukhara where nomadic Turkic tribes roamed. Subsequently, when the Turkic tribes occupied the enormous territory from the Caspian Sea to Lop Nor, the name Turkestan acquired a new meaning, so broad that it was deemed necessary to distinguish such areas as Western—Bukhara, or Russian Turkestan – and Eastern or Chinese Turkestan  in Chinese sources, was referred to in the Russian and European historiography of the 18urkestan . AccordiHalictidae is represented in Nomioides Schenck, 1866, Halictus Latreille, 1804, Sphecodes Latreille, 1804 and Nomia Latreille, 1804), comprising 73 species (Nos. 327–399). Only 30 species were previously known, while the remaining 43 were newly described  , who visited ZMMU from 26.03.1975 to 01.04.1975  received a red label with the inscription “Lectotypus Halictidae described by Morawitz, only five specimens received such labels: Sphecodesnigripennis Morawitz, 1876, S.pectoralis Morawitz, 1876, S.rufithorax Morawitz, 1876, Nomiaedentata Morawitz, 1876 and N.rufescens Morawitz, 1876  and require corrections by subsequent authors  . Square brackets are used for English translations and when information is added to specimen label information  or published data . Photographs were made using a combination of a stereomicroscope Olympus SZX10 and a digital camera (Olympus OM-D and Canon EOS70D).All of the material listed below was examined for this study. In the following list, the taxa are treated in alphabetical order of the names used in the original descriptions. Each entry includes the name of the taxon in its original combination, the complete reference to the original description of the species  and a list of type specimens present in the collections of the Illustrations were obtained by montaging from an image series that covers different focal planes into a single in-focus image with the Helicon Focus 6. The final illustrations were post-processed for contrast and brightness using Adobe® Photoshop® software.Halictus and Lasioglossum follow Sphecodes follow Nomiinae follow Nomioidinae follow The classification and current species status for Halictus Latreille, 1804Genus Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae1.Morawitz, 187606D27E1F-7F9E-54A9-B19F-6B73690F7A82Halictusalbitarsis Morawitz, 1876: 217 , 246, ♀.Samarkand (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: Samarkand, Tashkent.39°39'N, 66°57'E] // Halictusalbitarsis Mor., [N]372 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // LasioglossumEvylaeusalbitarsis Mor., ♀ = lectotype, det A.W. Ebmer 1993 // Syntypus Lectotypus <red label> [ZMMU].♀, designated by Halictusalbitarsis Mor., F. Morawitz det. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] [ZMMU]; 1 ♀, <golden circle>, 11.[III.1871] // Ташкентъ [Tashkent] // albitarsis Mor., Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 3 ♀, 11.[III.1871] // Ташкентъ [Tashkent] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] //Halictusalbitarsis Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, 11.[III.1871] // Ташкентъ [Tashkent] // Paralectotypus Halictusalbitarsis Mor., design. Warncke, [19]82 <identical red label on each paralectotype specimens, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZISP].(12 ♀). 6 ♀, 11.[III.1871], 24., 25.[V.1871] // Ташкентъ [Tashkent] // [N]372; 1 ♀, 23.[III.1871] // Ташкентъ [Tashkent] // [N]372 // Lasioglossum (Sphecodogastra) leucopymatum , replacement name for Halictusalbitarsis Morawitz, 1876 .The secondary designation of the lectotype by Description of male. Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae2.Morawitz, 18763DD5E1FF-FF28-5BBA-885B-0EDB0E436896Halictusannulipes Morawitz, 1876: 217 (key), 221, ♀.Karatyube Mt., 15 km S Samarkand (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: Samarkand, Karatyube Mt. (= 15 km S Samarkand).39°30'N, 66°52'E] // Halictusannulipes Mor., [N]332 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // F. Morawitz det. 18.7.5. // Lectotypus Halictusannulipes Mor. 1876, design. Warncke, 1982 <red label, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZMMU].designated by H.annulipes F. Morawitz det. 1875 [ZMMU]; 1 ♀, 20[.V.1869] // Зеравшан.[ская] дол.[ина] [Zeravshan River valley] // annulipes Mor. Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus Halictusannulipes Mor., 1876, design. Warncke, 1982 <identical red label on each paralectotype specimen, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZISP].(2 ♀). 1 ♀, 17. [V.1869] // Самаркандъ  // [N]332 // Lasioglossum  annulipes .Halictusmetopias Vachal , Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae3.Morawitz, 1876B05FBBBF-88E9-58A6-9110-D1C63147BFBBHalictusaprilinus Morawitz, 1876: 216 (key), 228, ♀.Kattakurgan (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: Katty-Kurgan.39°53'N, 66°15'E] // ♀ // H.aprilinus n. sp., ♀, F. Morawitz det., typus [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictusaprilinus Mor., design. Astafurova et Proshchalykin, 2020 <red label> [ZMMU].♀, <golden circle>, 28. [IV.1869] .3 ♀, 28. [IV.1869] // Каттыкурганъ [Kattakurgan] // [N]343 // Paralectotypus Lasioglossum (Sphecodogastra) aprilinum .Halictusinexspectatus  .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae4.Morawitz, 18767D96A7D5-B70D-5CC6-824D-E5ADF1DA2B43Halictusatomarius Morawitz, 1876: 218 (key), 254, ♀.Tashkent (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: Tashkent.41°18'N, 69°16'E] // Halictusatomarius Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] / / Syntypus <red label> // LasioglossumEvylaeusatomarium (Mor.), ♀, Lectotypus, det. A.W. ZISP].♀, designated by Halictusatomarius Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] [ZISP].1 ♀, 8.[VIII.1870] // Ташкентъ [Tashkent] // Lasioglossum (Evylaeuss.l.)politumatomarium  , 226, ♂.Osh (Kyrgyzstan).Uzbekistan: Samarkand, Dzhyuzak [=Jizzakh], Sokh; Kyrgyzstan: Osh.40°32'N, 72°47'E] // Halictuscariniventris Mor., [N]341 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictuscariniventris Mor., design. Blüthgen <red label, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZMMU].♂, designated by Halictuscariniventris, design. Blüthgen <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZMMU].(4 ♂). 2 ♂, 4., 7.[VII.1869] // Самарканд [Samarkand] // [N]341; 2 ♂, 18., 22.[VII.1870] // Джюзакъ [Dzhyuzak] // [N]341 // Paralectotypus Halictus  pollinosacariniventris Morawitz, 1876 , Russia , Turkey, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, Mongolia, North China .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae6.Morawitz, 1876ED601DFE-909A-5859-AE9F-EB0E15954C64Halictuscingulatus Morawitz, 1876: 218 (key), 245, ♀.Samarkand (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: Samarkand, Dzham [near Samarkand], Aksay [near Samarkand].39°39'N, 66°57'E] // Halictuscingulatus Mor., [N]371 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictuscingulatus Mor., design. Astafurova et Proshchalykin, 2020 <red label> [ZMMU].♀, 18.[III.1869] // Самаркандъ ; 1 ♀, the same labels, but 21.[V.1869] [ZMMU]; 1 ♀, <golden circle> // 18.[V.1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // cingulatus Mor. Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, 18.[III.1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, 20.[III.1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Halictuscingulatus Mor., ♀, CoType, F. Morawitz det. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, 27.[III.1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, 16.[III.1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Halictuscingulatus Mor., ♀, F. Morawitz det. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, 30.[III.1869] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина]  // Halictuscingulatus Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 2 ♀, 12.[III.1869] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина]  // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus Halictuscingulatus Mor., design. Astafurova et Proshchalykin, 2020 <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen> [ZISP].(22 ♀). 11 ♀, 27., 28. [II. 1869], 18., 21. [V. 1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // [N]371; 1 ♀, 12.[V.1969] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина]  // [N]370; 1 ♀, 16.[V.1969] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина]  // [N]370 , Dzham Gorge, Urgut; Tajikistan: Iori.39°30'N, 67°52'E] // croceipes Mor. Typ [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // croceipes Mor. Blüthgen det. 1935 // Lectotype <red label> // Lasioglossum (Evylaeus) croceipes (Mor.), ♀, Lectotypus, det. A.W. ZMMU].♀, designated by croceipes Mor., [N]338 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // croceipes Mor. Blüthgen det. 1935; 3 ♀, 8.[VIII.1871] // Така [Taka] // [N]338; 1 ♀, 13.[V.1869] // Джамское ущ. [Dzham Gorge] // [N]338 [ZMMU]; 1 ♀, 1.[VI.1869] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина]  // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // croceipes Mor., Blüthgen det. 1935 // Paralectotypus Halictuscroceipes Mor., design. ZISP].(6 ♀). 1 ♀, 20.[V.1869] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина]  // Lasioglossum  croceipes .ZMMU from the Zeravshan River valley, neither with Warncke’s lectotype label.The lectotype designation by Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, Kazakhstan .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae8.Morawitz, 1876D1065512-A6E2-5834-99CF-F239AE07EA09Halictusdesertorum Morawitz, 1876: 217 (key), 228, ♀.Kattakurgan (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: Katty-Kurgan.39°53'N, 66°15'E] // Halictusdesertorum Mor., [N]344 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictusdesertorum Mor., design. Warncke <red label, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZMMU].♀, designated by Halictus  desertorum Morawitz, 1876.Description of male. Turkey, southern Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae9.Morawitz, 187623A7E390-6AFD-58F8-8C57-54164BF4725BHalictusdeterminatus Morawitz, 1876: 217 (key), 233, ♀.30 km SSE Samarkand, Sangu-dzhuman Pass (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: “On the road to Sangy-Dzhuman [pass] and the Kulbasy Mountain”.39°27'N, 67°14'E] // Halictusdeterminatus Mor., [N]351 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus H.determinatus Mor., ♀, design. Pesenko [1]981 <red label> [ZMMU].♀, designated by ZMMU]; 2 ♀, Сангы-Джуманъ [Sangu-Dzhuman] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // determinatus F. Mor., ♀ [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus H.determinatus Mor., ♀, design. Pesenko [1]981 <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen, labelled by Yu. Pesenko> [ZISP].(6 ♀). 3 ♀, the same label as in the lectotype; 1 ♀, 25.[V.1869] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина] [Zeravshan River valley] // [N]351 .39°24'N, 67°01'E] // Halictusequestris Mor., [N]366 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictusequestris Mor., design. Warncke [19]82 <red label> [ZMMU].♀, designated by Lasioglossum (Lasioglossum) equestre .Halictusferghanicus , 243, ♂.Shakhimardan (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: near Shakhimardan.39°58'N, 71°47'E] // Halictusferghanicus Mor., [N]367 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictusferghanicus Mor., ♂, design. Warncke [19]82 <red label, labelled by Yu. Pesenko > [ZMMU].♂, designated by ferghanicus Mor., Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♂, 2.[VII.1871] // Шагимарданъ [Shagimardan] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Halictusferghanicus M. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lasioglossumequestre Mor., Pesenko det., 1985 // Paralectotypus, Halictusferghanicus Mor., design. Warncke, [19]82 <identical red labels on each paralecotype specimen, labelled by Yu. Pesenko> [ZISP].(2 ♂). 1 ♂, <golden circle> // 2.[VII.1871] // Шагимарданъ [Shagimardan] // Lasioglossum (Lasioglossum) equestre  , 230, ♂.30 km SE Kozhatogai, Turkistan Province (Kazakhstan).Uzbekistan: steppe between Tashkent and Syrdarya River.41°47'N, 68°23'E] // Halictusfucosus Mor., [N]345 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Halictussenilis Evers. v. fucosus Mor., ♂, P. Blüthgen det. // Holotypus <red label> [ZMMU].♂, 18.[V.1871] // Степь м.[ежду] С.[ыр] д.[арьей] и Т.[ашкентом] 361 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Holotypus <red label> [ZMMU].♂, 26.[VI.1871] // Чибурганъ  // 25.[V.1869] // funerarius Mor. Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus H.funerarius Mor., ♀, design. Pesenko [1]981 <red label> // Zoological Institute St. Petersburg INS_HYM_0000159 [ZISP].♀, designated by H.funerarius Mor. design. Pesenko [1]981 <red labels> .(8 ♀). 8 ♀, the same label as in lectotype // Paralectotypus Halictus  funerarius Morawitz, 1876.A rare montane Central Asian species: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Western Kyrgyzstan, Iran, north-eastern Afghanistan and north-western China .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae15.Morawitz, 1876871A8FE5-8CA9-5E23-9138-F676B77806EFHalictusfuscicollis Morawitz, 1876: 217 (key), 229, ♀.50 km NW Chardara, Kyzylkum Desert .Kazakhstan: “Kyzyl-Kum Steppe, near Baybek”.41°44'N, 67°54'E] // Halictusfuscicollis Mor., [N]345 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // HalictusVestitohalictusfuscicollis Mor., ♀, Lectotypus, design. A.W. Ebmer 1994 // Lectotypus Halictusfuscicollis Mor., design. Warncke <red label, labelled by Yu. Pesenko> [ZMMU].♀, designated by fuscicollis Mor. Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus <red label>, labelled by Yu. Astafurova [ZISP].1 ♀, <golden circle> Kisilkum [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Halictus  fuscicollis Morawitz, 1876.Halictusflavocallosus  .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae16.Morawitz, 1876F8F496CE-73D6-5D1A-897C-ADA4523E76EFHalictushyalinipennis Morawitz, 1876: 218 , 220 , 253–254, ♀, ♂.Tashkent (Uzbekistan).Kazakhstan: Chardara, steppe between Tashkent and Syr-Darya; Uzbekistan: Dzhamsk Gorge, Dzhizmansk Gorge, Ulus, Dzham, Urgut, Keles, Samarkand, Soch, Shakhimardan, Uch-Kurgan; Kyrgyzstan: Alay, Osh, Gulsha, Taka.41°18'N 69°16'E] // hyalinipennis F. Mor., ♀ [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictushyalinipennis Morawitz, 1876, ♀, design. Astafurova & Proshchalykin 2018 <red label> [ZISP].♀, designated by ZISP]; 1 ♂, Ошъ [Osh] // 1.[VIII.1871]; 1 ♂, Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // 4.[VII.1869] // [N]384; 3 ♂, Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // 7.[VII.1869]; 2 ♀, Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // 3., 21.[III.1869]; 16 ♀, Ташкентъ [Tashkent] // 26., 27.[III.1871], 21., 23.[V.1871] and 1.,3.,5.,10.[VI.1871]; 1 ♀, Чардара [Chardara] // 27.[IV.1871]; 1 ♀, Учь-Курганъ [Uch-Kurgan] // 15.[VII.1871]; 2 ♂, Шагимарданъ [Shagimardan] // 2.[VII.1871] 5 ♀, Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина] [Zeravshan River valley], 3., 11., 18., 23.[III.1871] // Paralectotypus Halictushyalinipennis Morawitz, 1876, design. Astafurova & Proshchalykin 2018 <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen> [ZMMU].. 1 ♀, Шагимарданъ [Shagimardan] // 3.[VII.1871] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz]; 1 ♂, Така [Taka] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, 1 ♂, Сохъ [Sokh] // 29. [29.VI.1871] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz]; 1 ♂, Уч-Курганъ [Uch- Kurgan] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz]; 2 ♀, Ташкентъ [Tashkent] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz]  // 25.[III.1869] // laevinodis Mor., Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotype Halictuslaevinodis, design. Astafurova et Proshchalykin, 2020 <red label> [ZISP].♀, <golden circle> // Сангы Джуманъ ; 1 ♀ 25.[III.1869] // Сангы Джуманъ [Sangy Dzhuman] // [N]375 // Paralectotype Halictuslaevinodis, design. Astafurova et Proshchalykin, 2020 <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen> [ZMMU].(2 ♀). 1 ♀, 25.[III.1869] // Сангы Джуманъ [Sangy Dzhuman] // Lasioglossum  laevinode .ZMMU.Description of male. Blüthgen, 1934b: 154, Fig. Kazahkstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrghyzstan, Afghanistan .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae18.Morawitz, 18760CB23044-6369-5D2D-A43E-C7004EE64026Halictuslimbellus Morawitz, 1876: 218 (key), 249, ♀.Samarkand (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: Samarkand; Tajikistan: Peti.39°39'N, 66°57'E] // Halictuslimbellus Mor., [N]377 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictuslimbellus Mor., Astafurova et Proshchalykin, 2020 <red label> [ZMMU].♀, 5.[IV.1869] // Самаркандъ ; 1 ♀, <golden circle> // 5.[IV.1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // Halictuslimbellus F. Mor., Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // limbellus Mor., Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus Halictuslimbellus Mor., Astafurova et Proshchalykin, 2020 <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen> [ZISP].(3 ♀). 1 ♀, 5.[IV.1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // [N]377 // Typus <red label>  // Halictuslongirostris Mor., [N]356 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictuslongirostris Mor., design. Warncke [19]82 <red label, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZMMU].♂, designated by ZMMU]; 1 ♀, 2.[VII.1871] // Шагимарданъ [Shagimardan] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Halictuslongirostris Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus Halictuslongirostris Mor., design. Warncke < identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZISP].(2 ♀). 1 ♀, 25.[V.1869] // Сангы Джуманъ [Sangy Dzhuman] // [N]356; 1 ♀, 12.[VII.1870] // Фанъ [Fan] // [N]356 .Kekh .39°57'N, 71°07'E] // Halictusmaculipes Mor., [N]373 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictusmaculipes Mor., design. Warncke <red label, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZMMU].♀ designated by Lasioglossum  maculipes .Male unknown.Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Afghanistan .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae21.Morawitz, 187613F40084-10DA-56C1-A4F2-92B7254C56F6Halictusmelanarius Morawitz, 1876: 241, ♂.Shakhimardan (Uzbekistan).Near Shakhimardan.39°58'N, 71°47'E] // Halictusmelanarius Mor., [N]364 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lasioglossumfallax (Mor.) syn: melanarium (Mor.) det. A.W. Ebmer 1979 // Holotypus <red label> [ZMMU].♂, 9.[VII.1871] // Шагимарданъ , Sangy-Dzhuman; Tajikistan: Pyandzhikent.39°20'N, 67°19'E] // 25.[V.1869] // minor Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus H.minor Mor., design. Pesenko, [1]981, ♀ <red label> // Zoological Institute St. Petersburg INS_HYM_0000164 [ZISP].♀, designated by minor Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Syn.: jarkandensis Strand, ♀ // Paralectotypus H.minor Mor., design. Pesenko, [1]981, ♀ <red label >[ZISP]; 1 ♀, 25.[V.1869] // Сангы Джуманъ [Sangy Dzhuman] // Halictusminor Mor., [N]352 [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, 24.[V.1869] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина]  // [N]352 // Paralectotypus H.minor Mor., design. Pesenko, [1]981, ♀ <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen> [ZMMU].(3 ♀). 1 ♀, Сангы Джуманъ [Sangy Dzhuman] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Halictus  minor Morawitz, 1876.Description of male. Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Central Asia, Altai, Pakistan, north-western and northern China, northern India , b.Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae23.Morawitz, 18762CE15736-D68B-502E-9EAE-6318C69E3B1FHalictusmodernus Morawitz, 1876: 217 (key), 235, ♀.Samarkand (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: near Samarkand.39°39'N, 66°57'E] // Halictusmodernus Mor., [N]354 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Holotypus <red label> [ZMMU].♀, 5.[VII.1870] // Самаркандъ  near draw-well Chakany; Uzbekistan: steppe between Katty-Kurgan and Ulus, Samarkand, Murzarabat, Chinaz, Sokh.39°39'N, 66°57'E] // Halictusnasica Mor., [N]346 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictusnasica Mor., design. Astafurova et Proshchalykin, 2020 <red label> [ZMMU].♀, 9.[VI.1869] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина] ; 1 ♀, 28.[IV.1871] // Кизилъкумъ [Kizilkum] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Halictusnasica Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, <golden circle> // 9.[VI.1869] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина]  // nasica Mor. Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 3 ♂, 28.[VI.1871] // Сохъ [Sokh] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz]; 1 ♂, 9.[VI.1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus Halictusnasica Mor., design. Astafurova et Proshchalykin, 2020 <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen> [ZISP].. 14 ♀, the same label as in the lectotype; 11 ♀, 2 ♂, 9., 13.[VI.1869], 4., 7.[VII.1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // [N]346; 12 ♂, 24.[VII.1870], 29.[VIII.1870] // Мурзарабадъ [Murzarabad] // [N]346; 1 ♀, 9 ♂, 28.[IV.1871] // Кизилъкумъ [Kizilkum] //[N]346; 17 ♂, 25.[VII.1870] // Чиназъ [Chinaz] // [N]346  // Halictusnigrilabris Mor., [N]378 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictusnigrilabris Mor. design. Warncke [1]982 <red label, labelled by Yu. Pesenko> [ZMMU].♂, designated by Halictusnigrilabris F. Morawitz [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus Halictusnigrilabris Mor., design. Warncke [1]982 <red label, labelled by Yu. Pesenko> // Zoological Institute St. Petersburg, INS_HYM 0000076 [ZISP].1 ♂, Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина] [Zeravshan River valley] // Lasioglossum (Lasioglossum) nigrilabre .Halictussubprasinus .Tajikistan: Iori George, Iskander River; Uzbek enclave in Kyrgyzstan: Karakazuk; Kyrgyzstan: Alay.39°60'N, 71°50'E] // Halictusnigripes Mor., [N]380 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // nigripes Mor., ♂, lecto-holotype, Blüthgen det. 1933 // Lectotypus Halictusnigripes Mor., design. Blüthgen [19]34 <red label> labelled by Yu. Astafurova [ZMMU].♂, designated by nigripes Mor. ♂, Lecto-Paratype, Blüthgen det., 1933 [ZMMU]; 1 ♂, <golden circle> // 23.[VII.1871] // Алай [Alay] // nigripes Mor. Typ., [N]380 [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♂, 22.[VII.1871] // Алай [Alay] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Halictusnigripes Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus Halictusnigripes Mor., design. Blüthgen <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZISP].(3 ♂). 1 ♂, 23.[VII.1871] // Алай [Alay] // [N]380 // Lasioglossum  melanopus , replacement name for Halictusnigripes Morawitz, 1876 .Halictuspseudonigripes Blüthgen, 1934.The specimens from Iskander and Iori George in the Morawitz type series are the holotype and paratypes of Halictusattritus  .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae27.Morawitz, 1876EBA6D4CC-95C9-543D-957F-98FFF03A1131Halictusobscuratus Morawitz, 1876: 218 (key), 245, ♀.Sangy-dzhuman Pass, 30 km SSE Samarkand [Uzbekistan].Uzbekistan: Samarkand, Aksay; Tajikistan: Iori Gorge, Varzaminor [=Ayni], Sangy-Dzhuman Pass.39°20'N, 67°19'E] // Halictusobscuratus Mor., [N]370 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictusobscuratus Mor., design. Warncke [19]82 <red label, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZMMU].♀, designated by obscuratus [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, [7.VI.1870] // Варзаминоръ [Varzaminor] // [N]370; 1 ♀, 16.[V.1869] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина]  // N[370]; 1 ♀, 2.[VI.1869] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина]  // N[370]; [ZMMU]; 1 ♀, <golden circle> // 25.[V.1869] // Сангы Джуманъ [Sangy Dzhuman] // obscuratus Mor., Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, Сангы Джуманъ [Sangy Dzhuman] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // obscuratus Mor.[handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина] [Zeravshan River valley] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Halictusobscuratus F. Morawitz, ♀ [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus Halictusobscuratus Mor., design. Warncke <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZISP].(7 ♀). 1 ♀, 3.[IV.1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // [N]370; 1 ♀, 27.[II.1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // [N]370 // Lasioglossum (Sphecodogastra) obscuratumssp.obscuratum .Description of male. Europe (except North), Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Russia (North Caucasus), Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, Kazakhstan .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae28.Morawitz, 1876F01DBEB8-81F4-50B8-A2AE-D44EEF813413Halictuspalustris Morawitz, 1876: 217 (key), 234, ♀.Iskanderkul Lake (Tajikistan).Tajikistan: “near Iskander-Kul Lake”.39°04'N, 68°22'E] // Halictuspalustris Mor., [N]353 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictuspalustris Mor., ♀, design. Warncke [1]982 <red label>, labelled by Yu. Pesenko [ZMMU].♀, designated by palustris Mor., Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus H.palustris Mor., ♀, design. Pesenko [1]981 <red label> [ZISP].1 ♀, <golden circle> // 15.[VI.1870] // Искандеръ [Iskander] // Halictus  palustris Morawitz, 1876.Description of male. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, China (Xinjiang) .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae29.Morawitz, 1876303C41DE-B945-5FF1-877F-EFB22CE12547Halictuspectoralis Morawitz, 1876: 218 (key), 251, ♀.Gulcha (Kyrgyzstan).Kyrgyzstan: Gulsha [Gulcha].40°19'N, 73°26'E] // Halictuspectoralis Mor., [N]381 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Holotype H.pectoralis Mor., 1876 <red label, labelled by Yu. Pesenko> [ZMMU].♀, 10.[VIII.1871] // Гульша 369 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotype Halictuspicipes Mor., ♀, design. Pesenko [1]985 <red label> [ZMMU].♀, designated by ZMMU]; 1 ♀, <golden circle>, the same label as in the lectotype; 1 ♀, Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина] [Zeravshan River valley] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Halictuspicipes Mor., ♀ [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus Hal.picipes Mor., design. Pesenko [1]985 <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen> [ZISP].(3 ♀). 1 ♀, the same label as in the lectotype ; Kyrgyzstan: Alay, Kichi-alay.39°58'N, 71°47'E] // [N]334 // Lectotypus Halictusrhynchites Mor., design. Astafurova et Proshchalykin, 2020 <red label> [ZMMU].♂, 7.[VII.1871] // Шагимарданъ 334 [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, 2 ♂, 26.[VI.1871] // Чибурганъ [Chiburgan] // [N]334; 1 ♀, 21.[VI.1871] // Чибурганъ [Chiburgan] // [N]334; 2 ♀, 28.[VII.1871] // Кичи-Алай [Kichi-Alay] // [N]334 [ZMMU]; 2 ♀, 1 ♂, Чибурганъ [Chiburgan] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // rhynchites F. Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♂, Кчи-Алай [Kchi-Alay] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // rhynchites F. Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, < golden circle> // 22.[VII.1871] // Алай [Alay] //rhynchites Mor., Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, 22.[VII.1871] // Алай [Alay] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Halictusrhynchites Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus Halictusrhynchites Mor., design. Astafurova et Proshchalykin, 2020 <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen> [ZISP].. 1 ♂, the same label as in a lectotype // Lasioglossum (Sphecodogastra) rhynchites .ZMMU.The lectotype designation by Turkey, Afghanistan, southern Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae32.Morawitz, 18765F934AAA-0C72-5C79-B6AC-56423DAD631BHalictusscutellaris Morawitz, 1876: 218 (key), 238, ♀.Bairkum .Kazakhstan: Bayrakum [= Bairkum]; Tajikistan: Pendzhikent, Iori.42°05'N, 68°10'E] // Halictusscutellaris Mor., [N]359 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictusscutellaris Mor., ♀, design. Pesenko [1]985 <red label> [ZMMU].♀, designated by ZMMU]; 1 ♀, Байракумъ [Bayrakum] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // scutellaris F. Mor., ♀ [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 2 ♀, 4.[V.1871] // Байракумъ [Bayrakum] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus Hal.scutellaris Mor., design. Pesenko [1]985 <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen> [ZISP].(5 ♀). 1 ♀, the same label as in the lectotype; 1 ♀, 30.[V.1869] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина]  // N[359] , Iskander [River]; Kyrgyzstan: Osh.39°39'N, 66°57'E] // Halictussogdianus Mor., [N]342 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // sogdianus Mor., ♀, Lecto-Holotype, Blüthgen det. 1931 // Lecto-Type <red label> // Lectotypus Halictussogdianus Mor., design. Blüthgen 1934 <red label> [ZMMU].♀, designated by Halictussogdianus Mor. design. Blüthgen <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZMMU].(5 ♀). 1 ♀, 21.[VI.1870] // Искандеръ [Iskander] // [N]342; 1 ♀, 2.[VIII. 1871] // Ошъ [Osh] // [N]342; 2 ♀, 4.[VII.1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // [N]342; 1 ♀, 18.[VII.1870] // Джюзакъ [Dzhyuzak] // [N]342 // Paralectotype Halictus  pulvereus Morawitz, 1874 , Cyprus, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, Mongolia, north-western China .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae34.Morawitz, 1876FDA0BA5F-415E-5762-AF30-281E7AD30236Halictustrifasciatus Morawitz, 1876: 218 (key), 240, ♀.Bairkum .Kazakhstan: Bayrakum.42°05'N, 68°10'E] // Halictustrifasciatus Mor., [N]362 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictustrifasciatus Mor., design. Warncke [19]82 <red label, labelled by Yu. Pesenko> [ZMMU].♀, designated by Lasioglossum (Lasioglossum) lebedevi Ebmer, 1972, replacement name for Halictustrifasciatus Morawitz, 1876 .Male unknown.Southern Kazakhstan  is doubtTaxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae35.Morawitz, 187606CD3366-2926-552D-8046-EEA89F2366B4Halictusvaripes Morawitz, 1876: 217 , 220 , 223, ♀, ♂.Jizzakh (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: Katty-Kurgan [= Kattakurgan], Dzhyuzak [= Jizzakh], Karatyube [= Karatepa near Samarkand], Urgut, Sangy-Dzhuman; Kyrgyzstan: near Osh.40°07'N, 67°51'E] // [N]337 // Halictusvaripes Mor., ♀, Lecto-Holotype, P. Blüthgen det. // Typus <red label> // Lectotypus Halictusvaripes Mor., 1876, design. Blüthgen, 1955 <red label> [ZMMU].♀, designated by Halictusvaripes Mor. ♂, lecto-Paratype, Blüthgen det.; 1 ♂, the same label, but 14.[VII.1870] // Halictusvaripes Mor. ♂, lecto-Holotype, Blüthgen det.; 1 ♀, 20. [VI.1869] // Катты-Курганъ [Katty-Kurgan] // Halictusvaripes Mor. ♀, lecto-Paratype, Blüthgen det. // Paralectotype Halictusvaripes Mor., design. ZMMU].. 1 ♂, the same labels as in the lectotype // Halictus (Seladonia) lucidipennis Smith, 1853 , 250, ♀.Samarkand (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: Tashkent, Samarkand, Katty-Kurgan [Kattakurgan].39°39'N, 66°57'E// Hylaeus [sic!] vulgaris Mor., [N]379 [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Halictusvulgaris Mor., design. Astafurova et Proshchalykin, 2020 <red label> [ZMMU].♀, 3.[III.1869] ; 1 ♀, 3.[IV.1871] // Ташкентъ [Tashkent] // к. Ф. Моравица // Halictusvulgaris Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, 5.[IV.1871] // Ташкентъ [Tashkent] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz]; 2 ♀, 8.[IV.1871] // Ташкентъ [Tashkent] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz]; 1 ♀, 1.[IV.1871] // Ташкентъ [Tashkent] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus, Halictusvulgaris Mor., design. Astafurova et Proshchalykin <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen> [ZISP].(257 ♀). 26 ♀, 4., 20., 23., 30.[III.1869], 3., 11., 19.[IV.1869] // Самаркндъ [Samarkand]; 5 ♀, 28.[IV.1869] // Каттыкурганъ [Kattykurgan]; 222♀, 10., 11., 24., 26., 27., 28., [II.1871], 23., 24. [III.1871], 1., 2., 3., 5., 8., 10., 11.[IV.1871] // Ташкентъ [Tashkent] .41°10'N, 68°06'E] // Sphecodesnigripennis Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus, ZMMU].♀, designation by Sphecodesnigripennis Mor., design. Warncke <red label, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZMMU].1 ♀, 21.[V.1869] // Заравшан.[ская] дол.[ина] [Zeravshan River valley] // Paralectotype Sphecodesgibbus (Linnaeus 1758) , Israel, Jordan, Russia (east to Yakutia), Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, NW China, India .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae38.Morawitz, 1876168597F0-F09A-5EC4-B44F-55A8A2EA0C4ESphecodespectoralis Morawitz, 1876: 256, ♀.Shardara District of Turkistan Province (Kazakhstan).Kazakhstan: coasts of Kosaral Lake; Kyzylkum [desert] near Chakany Well.41°10'N, 68°06'E// Sphecodespectoralis Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus, ZMMU].♀, designation by Sphecodespectoralis Mor., design. Warncke <red label, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZMMU].1 ♀, 28.[VI.1871] // Кызылъкумъ [Kyzylkum] // Paralectotype Sphecodespectoralis Morawitz, 1876.Sphecodescristatus sensu Meyer (non Hagens 1882)  see : 475.South Kazakhstan, Central Asia, China  , b, 2020Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae39.Morawitz, 1876871E77F6-9DDB-5017-9259-074246B9574DSphecodesrufithorax Morawitz, 1876: 255, ♀, ♂.Bairkum .Kazakhstan: Bayrakum [Bairkum]; steppe between Syr-Darya River and Tashkent.42°05'N, 68°10'E] // Sphecodesrufithorax F. Moraw., ♀ [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Warncke, 1975 <red label> [ZMMU].♀, designated by Sphecodesrufithorax F. Moraw., ♀ [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // F. Morawitz det., Typ.; 1 ♀, 20.[V.1871] // Степь м.[ежду] С.[ыр] д.[арьей] и Т.[ашкентом] [Steppe between Syrdarya River and Tashkent] // Sphecodesrufithorax Mor., ♂ [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Paralectotypus Sphec.rufithorax Mor., design. Warncke, [19]92 <red label, labelled by Yu. Astafurova> [ZMMU]; 1 ♀, the same labels [ZISP].. 1 ♀, Байракумъ [Bairkum] // кол.[лекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Sphecodesolivieri Lepeletier, 1825 , Turkey, Caucasus, Iran, Pakistan, Central Asia, Kazakhstan, NW China .Nomia Latreille, 1804Genus Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae40.Morawitz, 1876D6C3CB5F-DCAE-5E9E-8BD0-AAAB4FB031EANomiaedentata Morawitz, 1876: 259, ♀, ♂.Jizzakh (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: Samarkand, Dzhyuzak.40°07'N, 67°51'E] //Nomiaedentata Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus, ZMMU].♀, designated by Nomiaedentata Mor., design. Warncke <red label> [ZISP]; 1 ♂, 8.[VII.1869] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // Paralectotypus Nomiaedentata Mor., design. Warncke <red label> [ZMMU].(2 ♂). 1 ♂, the same labels as in the lectotype // Paralectotypus, Pseudapisedentata .North Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Central Asia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India .Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae41.Morawitz, 187665869E10-D5BC-5910-AE38-7623BFCCFE47Nomiarufescens Morawitz, 1876: 261, ♀.Zeravshan River valley (Uzbekistan).Uzbekistan: “Aykul Lake” in Zeravshan River valley.39°56'N, 66°49'E] // Nomiarufescens Mor. // Lectotypus, ZMMU].♀, designated by Pseudapisrufescens .Description of male. Turkey, Central Asia, Kazakhstan .Nomioides Schenck, 1866Genus Taxon classificationAnimaliaHymenopteraHalictidae42.Morawitz, 1876A04B3F23-E067-5F3E-8AE2-0316930DAE54Nomioidesparviceps Morawitz, 1876: 215, ♂.Bairamali (Turkmenistan).Uzbekistan: Samarkand.39°39'N, 66°57'E], 13.VI[1869], lost  parviceps Morawitz, 1876.Nomioidesconjungens .Tajikistan: Murzarabat; Uzbekistan: Sokh, Samarkand.39°39'N, 66°57'E] // turanica Mor., Typ. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] // Lectotypus Nom.turanica Mor., ♂, design. Pesenko, 1976 // Zoological Institute St. Petersburg, INS_HYM_0000131 [ZISP].♂, designated by Nomioidesturanica n. sp. F. Morawitz det.; 1 ♂, <gold circle> 8.[VII.1870] // Самаркандъ [Samarkand] // Nomioidesturanica Mor. [handwritten by F. Morawitz] [ZMMU]; 3 ♂, Сохъ [Sokh] // к.[оллекция] Ф. Моравица [Collection of F. Morawitz] // Nomioidesturanica Mor. // Paralectotypus ♂ Nom.turanica Mor., design. Pesenko, 1976 <identical red labels on each paralectotype specimen> [ZISP].(5 ♂). 1 ♂, 28.[VI.1871] // Сохъ [Sokh] // Nomioides (Nomioides) turanicus Morawitz, 1876.North Africa, Central Asia, Iran, Pakistan .


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-022-16666-6, published online 28 July 2022Correction to: The original version of this Article contained errors in Figure 1. During preparation of Figure 1 some of the data has been inappropriately superimposed. As a result, in Figure 1A a section of the spectrum for the “0.6 μM Sn” condition overlapped with a corresponding section in the spectrum of the “0.3 μM Sn” condition. A section of the spectrum for the “0.8 μM Ag” condition overlapped with corresponding sections in the spectra for “0.4 μM Ag” in Figure 1B, and “0.6 μM Sn” and “0.3 μM Sn” conditions in Figure 1A. The original incorrect Figure The original Article has been corrected.


Page 16, Acknowledgments, “82372592” should read “82372559.”Volume 8, no. 4, e00415-23, 2023, Page 17, Funding, “82372592” should read “82372559.”


Correction to: Pharmacological Reports (2023) 10.1007/s43440-023-00480-6 Figure 3A panel legend has the incorrect units for ADIPEG20 (“mg/ml” should be “ng/ml”)Figure 3D legend says incorrectly “75ong/ml” but should be “750 ng/ml”Figure 4B legend has the incorrect units for argininosuccinate (“mg/ml” but “µg/ml”)Figure 7B legend has the incorrect units for the scale bar (“mM” but needs to be “µm”)In this article following figures had incorrect units.The original article has been corrected.


Correction: Neural Dev 15, 3 (2020)10.1186/s13064-020-00139-5The authors would like to correct errors in the original publication of the article .1. Page 2, “the G4 embryonic stem cells derived from 129S6/SvEvTac × C57BL/6Ncr F1 embryos” corrected to “the G4 embryonic stem cells derived from a 129S6/SvEvTac × C57BL/6Ncr F1 embryo”.Lrig1 expression in the V-SVZ quiescent neural stem cells (qNSC’s) [12]” corrected to “In addition to our line of investigation , others have also previously observed Lrig1 expression in the V-SVZ quiescent neural stem cells (qNSC’s) [2. Page 6, “In addition to our line of investigation , others have also previously observed (qNSC’s) ”. An add3. Page 7, “When heterozygotes of this C57BL/6J congenic mouse line were interbred” corrected to “When heterozygotes of this C57BL/6J congenic mouse line were intercrossed”.Lrig1 expression domain” corrected to “consistent with the known Lrig1 expression domains”.4. Page 9, “consistent with the known 5. Page 11, Fig. 4 legend, “An ependymal cell at the lateral surface” corrected to “An ependymal cell at the ventricular surface”.6. Page 13, “as well as EdU + Ki-67 + , Ascl1 + , or EdU + Ki-67 + Dcx + proliferating cells (data not shown)” corrected to “as well as EdU + Ki-67 + Ascl1 + or EdU + Ki-67 + Dcx + proliferating cells (data not shown)”.7. Page 13, “very rare singlet RFP + cells with α/β morphologies that were EdU + Ascl1 + and Ki-67 + ” corrected to “very rare singlet RFP + cells with α/β morphologies that were EdU + Ascl1 + Ki-67 + ”.8. Page 13, “(2) we did not observe proliferating clusters of these cells during our experiments” corrected to “(2) we did not observe proliferating clusters of these cells during our experiments.”. A missing period was added.9. Page 14, “” was corrected to “”. One of the two p-values was corrected.10. Page 16, Fig. 6 legend, “Gfap- α/β subtype cells” corrected to “Gfap- α subtype cell”.11. Page 16, Fig. 6 legend, “Gfap + tanycytes” corrected to “Gfap + tanycyte”.12. Page 16, Fig. 6 legend, “Gfap- tanycytes” corrected to “Gfap- tanycyte”.13. Page 17, Additional file legend, “such as FGF-2, EGF, and BMP4” corrected to “such as FGF2, EGF, and BMP4”.


Whole exome sequencing (WES) can also detect some intronic variants, which may affect splicing and gene expression, but how to use these intronic variants, and the characteristics about them has not been reported. This study aims to reveal the characteristics of intronic variant in WES data, to further improve the clinical diagnostic value of WES. A total of 269 WES data was analyzed, 688,778 raw variants were called, among these 367,469 intronic variants were in intronic regions flanking exons which was upstream/downstream region of the exon (default is 200 bps). Contrary to expectation, the number of intronic variants with quality control (QC) passed was the lowest at the +2 and −2 positions but not at the +1 and −1 positions. The plausible explanation was that the former had the worst effect on trans-splicing, whereas the latter did not completely abolish splicing. And surprisingly, the number of intronic variants that passed QC was the highest at the +9 and −9 positions, indicating a potential splicing site boundary. The proportion of variants which could not pass QC filtering  in the intronic regions flanking exons generally accord with “S”-shaped curve. At +5 and −5 positions, the number of variants predicted damaging by software was most. This was also the position at which many pathogenic variants had been reported in recent years. Our study revealed the characteristics of intronic variant in WES data for the first time, we found the +9 and −9 positions might be a potentially splicing sites boundary and +5 and −5 positions were potentially important sites affecting splicing or gene expression, the +2 and −2 positions seem more important splicing site than +1 and −1 positions, and we found variants in intronic regions flanking exons over ± 50 bps may be unreliable. This result can help researchers find more useful variants and demonstrate that WES data is valuable for intronic variants analysis.The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12920-023-01542-7. The exome has been defined traditionally as the sequence encompassing all exons of protein coding genes in the genome, it covers 1–2% regions of the genome. The method of sequencing all the exons is known as whole exome sequencing (WES) [Exonic variants are often emphasized in WES data, however, intronic variants had been found to affect gene activity and protein production, leading to genetic disorders. Intronic variants mainly regulate biological activities by dysregulating mRNA splicing –7. For iIn this study, we analyzed 269 whole exome sequencing data to describe characteristics of intronic variants in data from conventional WES testing, which include: (1) the number of intronic variants in the WES data and whether the variant count of different positions in intronic regions flanking exons which are defined as the region upstream/downstream of the exon (default is 200 bps) have significant difference. (2) The proportion of false variants which cannot pass quality control (QC) and the number of pass variants which can pass QC at the different intron position, and whether these proportion and variants number between different position have significant different. (3) Whether the false proportion between intronic variants of flanking regions and exonic variants have significant different. (4) The number of deleterious variants which are predicted to be damaging by prediction software and the deleterious variants proportion of pass variants, and whether the deleterious variants number and proportion at different position of flanking regions have significant different. We hope that the result can help researchers better understand the characteristics of intronic variants in conventional WES testing data and find some meaningful intronic variants for genetic disease diagnosis or research study, finally improve the clinical diagnostic value of WES.https://github.com/OpenGene/fastp) [https://github.com/bwa-mem2/bwa-mem2) [https://github.com/samtools/samtools) [https://github.com/biod/sambamba) [https://github.com/broadinstitute/gatk/releases) [http://pcingola.github.io/SnpEff/) [https://annovar.openbioinformatics.org/) [https://github.com/WGLab/Phen2Gene) [https://cadd.gs.washington.edu/) [https://www.openbioinformatics.org/annovar/spidex_download_form.php) [http://www.liulab.science/dbscsnv.html) [The 269 WES data was from our WES genetic testing project for patients with adult genetic disorders, including cardiovascular diseases, nervous system diseases, digestive disease, endocrine disease, reproductive system disease, etc. Table . Patiente/fastp)  and selfwa-mem2) , samtoolamtools)  and sambambamba) . Bwa-memeleases) , the HapSnpEff/) , Annovarcs.org/) , Phen2Geen2Gene) , CADD (hon.edu/) , SPIDEX orm.php) , dbscSNVnv.html) , and selRaw variants were filtered by HardFilter module, and the QC filter parameters included 1) SNV: QD < 2.0 or FS > 60.0 or MQ < 40.0 or MQRankSum < − 12.5 or ReadPosRankSum < − 8.0 or DP < 20 or DV < 8; (2) INDEL: QD < 2.0 or FS > 200.0 or ReadPosRankSum < − 20.0 or DP < 20 or DV < 8. These QC pass variants were called Pass variants. Variants which could not pass QC filtering would be counted as False variants, which might be caused by sequencing errors and PCR amplification. The proportion of false variants were called FP. To find the relationship between the FP and the sequencing depth of different positions, we calculated the average sequencing depth for each position of intronic region , and the damaging filter parameters included 1) population frequency (GnomAD_AF_POPMAX/In-House Database) < 0.05; (2) Not Benign/Likely_Benign variants in CLINSIG; (3) CADD score > 10 and SPIDEX dpsi_zscore > = 2 and dbscSNV > 0.6. These variants were called Deleterious variants  If the raw variants number of different positions in intronic regions flanking exons had significant difference. (2) If the FP of different positions in intronic regions flanking exons had significant difference (3) If the pass variants number of different positions in intronic regions flanking exons had significant difference. (4) If the deleterious variants number of different positions in intronic regions flanking exons had significant difference. (5) If the FP between variants in intronic regions flanking exons and variants in exonic region had significant different. When the p-value was 0.05 or lower, the result was trumpeted as significant, but if it was higher than 0.05, the result was non-significant.The average sequencing depth of all 269 WES was more than 100X in target region and 99% region was with more than 20X sequencing depth. If the variant was detected in multiple samples, the number of this variant was still counted as 1. Finally, 688,778 unique raw variants detected from 20,791 genes were called from 269 WES data, which contain 377,807 intronic variants and 310,971 exonic variants , and this distance was more and more small with the position away from nearby exons was more and more far expect at the +18 and −18 positions, +20 and −20 positions, +40 and −40 positions and so on. If the region was within 20 bp or more than 150 bp from nearby exon, the variants number at different position in these regions was always significant difference (p < 0.01), expect when we compared the first (± 1) position with the +2 and −2 positions, +3 and −3 positions, +185 and −185 positions to +195 and −195 positions, and so on Fig. a.Fig. 7SWe compared the FP and the number of pass variants and deleterious variants at different positions in intronic regions flanking exons with each other, the FP and the number of pass variants was non-significant difference (p > 0.05) between most positions. The number of deleterious variants was significant difference (p < 0.05) between some positions, expect when we compared the position at ± 1 versus ± 2, ± 1 versus ± 4 ~ ± 5, ± 9 versus ± 3 ~ ± 8, ± 10 versus ± 1 ~ ± 2, ± 10 versus ± 4 ~ ± 7, ± 11 versus ± 4 ~ ± 10, ± 13 ~ ± 14 versus ± 4 ~ ± 11, ± 18 ~ ± 20 versus ± 4 ~ ± 11, ± 29 ~ ± 32 versus ± 23 ~ ± 26, ± 35 ~ ± 38 versus ± 23 ~ ± 26, ± 35 ~ ± 38 versus ± 30 ~ ± 32, ± 40 ~ ± 46 versus ± 23 ~ ± 26, ± 40 ~ ± 46 versus ± 29 ~ ± 32, ± 40 ~ ± 43 versus ± 23 ~ ± 26, ± 45 ~ ± 46 versus ± 40 ~ ± 44, 48 versus ± 23 ~ ± 26, ± 48 versus ± 29 ~ ± 32, ± 60 versus ± 35 ~ ± 51, ± 63 versus ± 23 ~ ± 52, ± 65 ~ ± 66 versus ± 23 ~ ± 52, ± 69 versus ± 23 ~ ± 52, ± 71 ~ ± 73 versus ± 23 ~ ± 25, ± 71 ~ ± 73 versus ± 30 ~ ± 32, ± 123 ~ ± 124 versus ± 35 ~ ± 38, ± 128 ~ ± 129 versus  ± 35 ~ ± 38, ± 123 ~ ± 128 versus ± 40 ~ ± 46, ± 123 ~ ± 128 versus ± 48, ± 122 ~ ± 128 versus ± 51 ~ ± 52, ± 123 ~ ± 128 versus ± 84 ~ ± 87, ± 123 ~ ± 128 versus ± 92 ~ ± 93, ± 129 versus ± 106 ~ ± 114, ± 123 ~ ± 128 versus ± 118 ~ ± 120, ± 127 versus ± 122 ~ ± 126, ± 128 versus ± 123 ~ ± 127, ± 131 ~ ± 143 versus  ± 23 ~ ± 26, ± 131 ~ ± 143 versus ± 29 ~ ± 32, ± 131 ~ ± 133 versus  ± 35 ~ ± 38, ± 136 ~ ±  ~ ± 139 versus ± 35 ~ ± 38, ± 131 ~ ± 135 versus ± 40 ~ ± 46, ± 137 ~ ± 138 versus ± 40 ~ ± 46, ± 140 ~ ± 143 versus ± 41 ~ ± 46, ± 131 versus ± 48 ~ ± 52, ± 134 ~ ± 135 versus ± 48 ~ ± 53, ± 140 versus ± 48 ~ ± 53, ± 143 versus ± 48 ~ ± 53, ± 131 ~ ± 135 versus  ± 65 ~ ± 66, ± 130 ~ ± 148 versus ± 63, ± 137 ~ ± 148 versus ± 65 ~ ± 66, ± 168 ~ ± 174 versus ± 106 ~ ± 114, ± 175 ~ ± 192 versus ± 118 ~ ± 120, ± 178 ~ ± 192 versus  ± 123 ~ ± 128, ± 175 versus ± 118 ~ ± 153, ± 194 ~ ± 200 versus ± 122 ~ ± 128, ± 168 ~ ± 192 versus ± 131 ~ ± 133, ± 168 ~ ± 174 versus ± 154 ~ ± 166, ± 194 ~ ± 200 versus ± 181 ~ ± 192, ± 188 ~ ± 192 versus ± 175 ~ ± 187, ± 181 ~ ± 192 versus ± 140 ~ ± 153, ± 178 versus ± 118 ~ ± 143, and so on  between these two groups, the FP in intronic regions flanking exons was much greater than exonic variants, which might result from the average sequencing depth in exonic region was much more than intronic region  cases [Introns are a hallmark of eukaryotic evolution, and a substantial intron gain has accompanied the origin of metazoan . Severald adults . Weisschvariants . Qian etvariants . Li et avariants . Fitzgermyopathy . Lin et D) cases . mRNA seD) cases . HoweverWES is more widely used than whole genome sequencing (WGS) in the clinical setting due to lower cost and more manageable data volumes. Reanalyzing WES raw data is recommended before performing WGS . To imprWe also found the farther away from the nearby exon, the less the number of pass variants. The FP in the intronic regions flanking exons generally accorded with “S”-shaped curve. However, the distribution of average depth at different positions in intronic regions flanking exons was inversely proportional to the FP distribution. As we thought, in the WES sequencing data the FP of variants in intronic regions flanking exons was much greater than in exonic regions. The false variants can be caused by low coverage, sequencing errors, and PCR amplification . The seqhttps://github.com/Illumina/SpliceAI) [The greatest number of deleterious variants was at the +5 and −5 positions, which was also the position at which many pathogenic variants had been reported in recent years –42, all pliceAI)  can predThrough the analysis of statistical differences, we found that the number of unfiltered intronic variants was significantly different between most positions, but the number of intronic pass variants and deleterious variants was significantly different only in some regions, and there was no obvious pattern. The results of statistical differences analysis indicated that in the process of evolution the variation rate between different intron regions has non-significant difference. Because, while the variants that do not change the amino-acid sequence, such as intronic variants, are under lower evolutionary constraints, but for flanking intronic sequences, there was a higher level of conservation in mammals , 45. ThuOur study revealed the characteristics of intronic variant in conventional WES testing data for the first time. We found that contrary to expectation, the number of intronic variants with QC passed was the lowest at the +2 and −2 positions but not at the +1 and −1 positions. The plausible explanation was that the former had the worst effect on trans-splicing, whereas the latter did not completely abolish splicing. And surprisingly, the number of intronic pass variants was the highest at the +9 and −9 positions, indicating a potential splicing site boundary. The FP in the intronic regions flanking exons generally accorded with “S”-shaped curve. At +5 and −5 positions, the number of variants predicted damaging by software was most which was also the position at which many pathogenic variants had been reported in recent years. And we found variants in intronic regions flanking exons over ± 50 bps might be unreliable.This result can help researchers find more useful variants and demonstrate that WES data is valuable for intronic variants analysis. Although the 269 samples in our study is still not very sufficient, G*Power software  was usedAdditional file 1. All Annotated Pass Variants Information.Additional file 2. The Number of Raw/Pass/Deleterious Variants and The Number of Genes associated with these variants.Additional file 3. The Number Distribution of The Raw Intronic Variants.Additional file 4. The FP Distribution of The Raw Intronic Variants.Additional file 5. The Number Distribution of The Pass Intronic Variants.Additional file 6. The Number Distribution of The Deleterious Intronic Variants.


Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-023-37194-5, published online 05 May 2023Correction to: R′ to R″ on productivity P in plot i is defined as [(R″) − (R′)], where Pi(R″) is the potential productivity outcome when R = R″ and P(R′) is the potential productivity outcome when R = R′ (R′ ≠ R″).” and “The average causal effect of a change in biodiversity from R′ to R″ across all plots is [(R″) − P(R′)], where E[·] is the expectation operator.”. The correct version states “[Pi(R′′) − Pi(R′)]” in place of “[(R″) − (R′)]”, “Pi (R′)” in place of “P (R′)”, and “E[Pi(R′′) − Pi(R′)]” in place of “[(R″) − P(R′)]”. This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.The original version of this Article contained errors in the Methods section ‘Target causal effect’, in which terms were omitted from the mathematical definitions of the causal effect and average causal effect. These sentences incorrectly read “The causal effect of a change in richness from


The authors wish to make the following corrections to their published paper . The autText CorrectionThere was a typing error included on page 5. In Section 3.1, the first paragraph, line four, the numerical value “7.53” should be changed to “7.5”, the numerical value “5.95 ± 0.24 µg/g” should be revised to “4.33 ± 0.18 µg/g”, and the numerical value “0.79 ± 0.02 µg/g” should be revised to “0.58 ± 0.01 µg/g”.Errors in TableIn the original publication, there was a typing error in


Troglonectes is a small-body loach endemic to the Guangxi and Guizhou provinces of China, showing a particular affinity for cave areas. Twenty species were recorded in this genus, including one new species. The new species, Tr. canlinensis, can be distinguished from other congenetic species by their morphological characteristics and molecular evidence. In the genus of Troglonectes, the eye, lateral line and scale present or absent, the number of branched pectoral fin rays, caudal fin rays and anal fin rays, and the depth of the upper adipose keel on the caudal peduncle are important identifying characteristics.Troglonectes is described based on specimens from a karst cave in Andong Town, Xincheng County, Liuzhou City, Guangxi, China. Troglonectes canlinensis sp. nov. can be distinguished from its congener species by the following combination of characteristics: eye degenerated into a black spot; whole body covered by scales, except for the head, throat, and abdomen; incomplete lateral line; forked caudal fin; 8–10 gill rakers on the first gill arch; 13–14 branched caudal fin rays; 8–9 branched dorsal fin rays; 5–6 anal fin rays; 9–10 pectoral fin rays; upper adipose keel depth mostly 1/2 of the caudal peduncle depth; and caudal fin forked.A new species of the genus  Troglonectes Zhang, Zhao, and Yang, 2016 (abbreviation is Tr. in this study in order to differ from the abbreviation of Triplophysa) are small-bodied fish that mainly occur in the Guangxi and Guizhou provinces of China, showing a particular affinity for cave areas. Troglonectes was separated from the genus Oreonectes Günther, 1838, that Du et al. [Oreonectes into the platycephalus group, i.e., caudal fin rounded or truncated, and the furcocaudalis group, i.e., caudal fin forked. Subsequently, Zhang et al. [Troglonectes and assigned seven nominal species to Troglonectes, i.e., Tr. acridorsalis , Tr. barbatus , Tr. elongatus , Tr. macrolepis , Tr. microphthalmus , and Tr. translucens , in addition to the type species Tr. furcocaudalis . Troglonectes can be distinguished from other genera in the Nemacheilidae by possessing narrowly separated nostrils, tube-shaped anterior nostril, tip of the anterior nostril extending into the barbel, dorsal fin origin anterior to the pelvic fin origin, and caudal fin forked or truncated [Oreonectes placed in Troglonectes, some species of Paracobitis and Triplophysa were also placed in Troglonectes based on their morphology and molecular evidence. Chen et al. [P. longibarbatus Chen, Yang, Sket, and Aljancic, 1998 from Libo County, Guizhou, but Du et al. [Triplophysa, based on the morphological characteristics, elongated barbel-like anterior nostril, and sexual dimorphism present in males. Li et al. [P. maolanensis Li, Ran, and Chen, 2006 and T. jiarongensis Lin, Li, and Song, 2012 from Guizhou Province, respectively. However, Huang et al. [P. longibarbatus, P. maolanensis, and T. jiarongensis in the Troglonectes. Subsequently, Luo et al. [T. jiarongensis as a synonym of Tr. elongatus. Additionally, Huang et al. [O. daqikongensis Deng, Wen, Xiao, and Zhou, 2016 and O. shuilongensis Deng, Wen, Xiao, and Zhou, 2016 also belong to the genus Troglonectes due to the forked caudal fin, dorsal fin originating anterior to the pelvic fin origin, and presence of caudal crests. Luo et al. [T. huanjiangensis Yang, Wu, and Lan, 2011, T. lihuensis Wu, Yang, and Lan, 2012, T. lingyunensis , and O. retrodorsalis Lan, Yang, and Chen, 1995 in the Troglonectes based on molecular analysis. Zhao et al. [T. hechiensis Zhao, Liu, Du, and Luo, 2021, and stated that 17 species were contained within the Troglonectes. Luo et al. [Karstsinnectes Zhou, Luo, Wang, Zhou, and Xiao, 2023 , and placed O. acridorsalis and Heminoemacheilus parvus Zhu and Zhu, 2014 in this genus. In conclusion, 19 species of Troglonectes have been recorded in China, including Tr. barbatus, Tr. daqikongensis, Tr. donglanensis, Tr. dongganensis, Tr. duanensis, Tr. elongatus, Tr. furcocaudalis, Tr. hechiensis, Tr. huanjiangensis, Tr. jiarongensis, Tr. lihuensis, Tr. lingyunensis, Tr. longibarbatus, Tr. macrolepis, Tr. maolanensis, Tr. microphthalmus, Tr. retrodorsalis, Tr. shuilongensis, and Tr. translucens.Cave loaches of the genus i et al.  and Lin i et al.  describeTroglonectes were collected from a cave in Andong Town, Xincheng County, Liuzhou City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (hereinafter referred to as Guangxi), China. Morphological and molecular evidence supported these loach specimens representing a new species of Troglonectes. Hence, the new species is described herein.In July 2022, 10 specimens of Troglonectes canlinensis sp. nov. were collected by F.G. Luo and euthanized rapidly by an overdose of clove oil anesthetic. The right-side pectoral fin and pelvic fin of one specimen were removed and preserved in 99% ethanol. The specimens for the morphological study were stored in 10% formalin, then transferred to 75% alcohol for long-term preservation in the Kunming Natural History Museum of Zoology, Kunming Institute of Zoology (KIZ), Chinese Academy of Science (CAS), China.All care and use of experimental animals complied with the relevant laws of the Chinese Laboratory of Animal Welfare and Ethics (GB/T 35892-2018). Specimens of b reference sequences of twenty-four Nemacheilidae and two Botiidae species from the NCBI GenBank database for phylogenetic tree reconstruction. Parabotia fasciata Dabry de Thiersant, 1872 and Leptobotia elongata , two species of Botiidae, were used as outgroups. To test the phylogenetic position of Troglonectes canlinensis sp. nov., Bayesian inference (BI) analysis was performed using MrBayes on XSEDE (v3.2.7a) and the CIPRES Science Gateway [Counts and measurements followed Du et al. ,9, Tang  Gateway . Two runTroglonectes canlinensis sp. nov. , Andong Town, Xincheng County, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China; 24°18.57′ N, 108°59.61′ E, 179 m a.s.l.; collected by F.G. Luo, 20 July 2022.Paratypes. KIZ-GXNU202207–09, 9 ex., 29.9–54.3 mm SL, collected with holotype.Troglonectes canlinensis sp. nov., T. duanensis, T. lingyunensis, T. macrolepis, T. hechiensis, and T. retrodorsalis share their whole trunk being scaled, except for the head and area between the pectoral fins and pelvic fins; other species of Troglonectes have scaleless bodies or bodies scaled after the dorsal fin origin in Tr. furcocaudalis. However, the new species can be distinguished from T. duanensis by the incomplete lateral line (vs. absent), from T. lingyunensis and T. macrolepis by the eye being present (vs. eye reduced to black pigment), from T. hechiensis by the 8–10 inner-gill rakers on first gill arch (vs. 14), and from T. retrodorsalis by the tip of the anterior nostril being elongated to barbel-like and the nostril barbel length being nearly twice the nostril tube length (vs. nostril barbel length being less than 1/2 of the tube length).Diagnosis. Troglonectes canlinensis sp. nov. are given in Description. The morphometric data of the type specimens of Body elongated, slightly flattened in front, strongly compressed in back. Dorsal profile convex and ventral profile straight in live specimen, but it inversed in preserved specimens. From snout to dorsal fin origin, the body depth increases to its maximum, maximum body depth of 18.2–21.3% SL. Head slightly depressed and flattened, maximum head width greater than the deepest head depth. Anterior and posterior nostrils adjacent, distance less than the diameter of the posterior nostril. Eyes reduced, eye diameter 7.5–11.6% of the lateral head length. Mouth inferior, snout obtuse, upper and lower lips with small furrows and without papillae, median of the lower lip with a V-shaped notch. Three pairs of barbels, inner, outer, and maxillary barbels, extend vertically to the posterior margin of the anterior nostril, anterior margin of the eye, and preopercle, respectively.Distal margin of dorsal fin truncates, origin anterior to the pelvic fin origin, predorsal length of 54.2–58.6% SL. Tip of pectoral fin reaching halfway to the pelvic fin origin. Tip of pelvic fin far away from the anus. Anus with close-set anal fin base. Caudal fin forked, upper part slightly longer than the lower part. Upper and lower edges of the caudal peduncle with caudal adipose keels, upper adipose keel height mostly 1/2 of the caudal peduncle depth. Caudal peduncle length 90.2–119.0% of its depth. Body trunk covered by tiny scales, except for the ventral surface before the pelvic fin origin. Lateral line incomplete. Cephalic lateral line system with 3 + 3 supratemporal, 6 supraorbital, 3 + 8 infraorbital, and 7–11 preoperculo-mandibular pores.Stomach U-shaped, intestine long, after stomach, with a bend. Swim bladder divided into two chambers. Anterior chamber covered by dumbbell-shaped bony capsule, and posterior chamber developed.Coloration. Dorsal surface and trunk of body yellowish brown, abdomen gray and translucent, stomach and intestine visible from outside. Fin membrane hyaline.Troglonectes canlinensis sp. nov. lives in a karst cave, where water accumulates to form a pool. Most specimens were collected in the rainy season. During the winter, the pool dries up and the cave opening is too narrow for human access. The water temperature was 20 °C during the survey period in July 2022.Distribution and habitat. The new species was collected from Andong Township, Xincheng County, Laibin City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China . canlinensis” is derived from the pinyin of “can” and “lin”, which refer to resplendence and forest, respectively, with “canlin” symbolizing health and tenacious vitality. Troglonectes canlinensis sp. nov. is valuable and rare and requires strong vitality to maintain a viable population. We suggest the common Chinese name “灿 (càn) 林 (lín) 洞 (dòng) 鳅 (qīu)”.Etymology. The specific name “Troglonectes species formed a monophyletic group, sister to the genus Paranemachilus. Troglonectes canlinensis sp. nov. was sister to the clade including T. dongganensis, T. duanensis, T. macrolepis, T. microphthalmus, and T. translucens, with bootstrap values of 100. Additionally, the species of Troglonectes were divided into two sub-clades: sub-clade 1 contained species with truncated caudal fins, i.e., Tr. shuilongensis, Tr. retrodorsalis, and Tr. hechiensis; sub-clade 2 contains species with forked or emarginated caudal fins, i.e., Tr. elongatus, Tr. jiarongensis, Tr. dongganensis, Tr. longibarbatus, Tr. daqikongensis, Tr. barbatus, Tr. furcocaudalis, Tr. duanensis, Tr. donglanensis, Tr. microphthalmus, Tr. macrolepis, and Tr. canlinensis sp. nov.Genetic comparisons. The molecular phylogenies based on BI analysis showed that b revealed that the average uncorrected p-distances interspecies of Troglonectes ranged from 0.2% to 12.2% .TroglonectesIdentification Key to Species of 1. Eye present··················································································································································································································2–. Eye degenerated or absent·····················································································································································································5Tr. furcocaudalis2. Body scaled after dorsal fin origin·········································································································································–. Whole body scaled except for head and thorax··············································································································································3Tr. duanensis3. Caudal fin forked·············································································································································································–. Caudal fin truncated································································································································································································4Tr. hechiensis4. Caudal peduncle length 12.0–13.6% SL··································································································································Tr. retrodorsalis–. Caudal peduncle length 10.8–12.0% SL·····························································································································5. Eye degenerated with black pigment····························································································································································6–. Eye absent··················································································································································································································106. Body scaleless·············································································································································································································7–. Whole body scaled except for head and thorax··············································································································································8Tr. microphthalmus7. Upper adipose keel height larger than caudal peduncle depth·············································································Tr. donglanensis–. Upper adipose keel height mostly 1/2 the caudal peduncle depth···········································································Tr. lingyunensis8. Posterior chamber of swim bladder degenerated············································································································–. Posterior chamber of swim bladder developed·············································································································································9Tr. macrolepis9. Total of 12–13 inner gill rakers on first gill arch·····················································································································Tr. canlinensis sp. nov.–. Total of 8–10 inner gill rakers on first gill arch······································································································Tr. shuilongensis10. Caudal fin truncated································································································································································–. Caudal fin emarginated or forked····································································································································································1111. Caudal fin emarginated······················································································································································································12–. Caudal fin forked····································································································································································································14Tr. jiarongensis12. Lateral line complete···································································································································································–. Lateral line incomplete or absent······································································································································································13Tr. translucens13. Lateral line incomplete································································································································································Tr. lihuensis–. Lateral line absent················································································································································································14. Lateral line absent································································································································································································15–. Lateral line complete or incomplete································································································································································16Tr. barbatus15. Standard length 2.6–3.5 times the lateral head length·······································································································Tr. huanjiangensis–. Standard length 4.3–4.9 times the lateral head length································································································16. Lateral line complete···························································································································································································17–. Lateral line incomplete·························································································································································································19Tr. maolanensis17. Dorsal fin with six branched rays, anal fin with four branched rays······································································–. Dorsal fin with eight or nine branched rays, anal fin with six branched rays···················································································18Tr. daqikongensis18. Standard length 10.1–14.0 times the caudal peduncle depth··················································································Tr. longibarbatus–. Standard length 14.5–18.1 times the caudal peduncle depth····················································································Tr. dongganensis19. Pelvic fin origin opposite the dorsal fin origin···············································································································Tr. elongatus–. Pelvic fin origin anterior to the dorsal fin origin······················································································································Mitochondrial differentiation. The pairwise comparisons of ctyTroglonectes is currently distributed in the Pearl River system in Guangxi and Guizhou Provinces, and is endemic to China. Although Zhang et al. [Troglonectes divided into sub-clade 1 contains species with truncated caudal fins and sub-clade 2 contains species with emarginated or forked caudal fins. Hence, the caudal fin shape and phylogenetic tree support that Troglonectes could be divided into two groups; the truncated caudal fin group contains Tr. hechiensis, Tr. retrodorsalis, and Tr. shuilongensis, and the emarginated or forked caudal fin group contains Tr. donglanensis, Tr. microphthalmus, Tr. macrolepis, Tr. canlinensis sp. nov., Tr. lingyunensis, Tr. barbatus, Tr. huanjiangensis, Tr. longibarbatus, Tr. maolanensis, Tr. daqikongensis, Tr. dongganensis, Tr. elongatus, Tr. translucens, Tr. jiarongensis, Tr. lihuensis, Tr. furcocaudalis, and Tr. duanensis. Thus, based on our BI analysis and external characteristics, the genus description for Troglonectes includes the following characteristics: anterior and posterior nostrils separated by a short distance shorter than the diameter of the posterior nostril, tip of anterior nostril elongated to barbel-like, and adipose keels on the upper and lower edges of the caudal peduncle present.The genus g et al.  mentioneTr. donglanensis and Tr. duanensis as synonyms of Tr. translucens, and Tr. jiarongensis and Tr. dongganensis as synonyms of Tr. elongatus based on morphological characteristics and a lack of genetic differences, respectively. Troglonectes dongganensis, Tr. elongatus, Tr. jiarongensis, and Tr. longibarbatus formed a monophyletic group in the phylogenetic tree, and the genetic distance was 0.4–1.0% (average 0.7%). However, they can be morphologically distinguished from each other by the lateral line , branched caudal fins (16 in Tr. jiarongensis and 13–14 in other species), and body depth . Hence, we treated T. dongganensis, T. elongatus, T. huanjiangensis, T. jiarongensis, and T. longibarbatus as valid species in this study. Additionally, Tr. donglanensis, Tr. duanensis, and Tr. translucens can be distinguished from each other by the 16 branched caudal fins in Tr. translucens (vs. 13–14 in Tr. donglanensis and Tr. duanensis) and the body being covered by scales and the lateral line being absent in Tr. duanensis . Thus, we propose Tr. donglanensis, Tr. duanensis, and Tr. translucens as valid species.Luo et al.  treated Troglonectes, 20 valid species were recorded, including the new species. Troglonectes canlinensis sp. nov. can be distinguished from Tr. hechiensis, Tr. retrodorsalis, and Tr. shuilongensis by its forked caudal fin (vs. truncated) and upper adipose keel height being mostly 1/2 of the caudal peduncle depth (vs. 1/4), and it can be further distinguished from Tr. shuilongensis by its degenerated eye with a black pigment (vs. absent), scaled body , incomplete lateral line (vs. complete), and 8−10 inner-gill rakers on the first gill arch (vs. 10−12); from Tr. hechiensis by the 8−10 inner-gill rakers on the first gill arch (vs. 14) and 9−10 branched pectoral fin rays (vs. 11); and from Tr. retrodorsalis by the 8−10 inner-gill rakers on the first gill arch (vs. 13−14) and 9−10 branched pectoral fin rays (vs. 11−12). Troglonectes canlinensis sp. nov. is different from Tr. translucens, Tr. jiarongensis, and Tr. lihuensis owing to its forked caudal fin (vs. emarginated) and scaled body ; it can be further differentiated from Tr. jiarongensis and Tr. lihuensis by its incomplete lateral line (vs. absent in Tr. lihuensis and complete in Tr. jiarongensis) and upper adipose keel height being mostly 1/2 of the caudal peduncle depth ; and from Tr. jiarongensis by the 13−14 branched caudal fin rays (vs. 16). The new species is different from Tr. furcocaudalis owing to its whole body being scaled, except for the head and thorax , 8−10 inner-gill rakers on the first gill arch (vs. 12−13), and 5−6 branched pelvic fin rays (vs. 7); from Tr. duanensis owing to the incomplete lateral line (vs. absent), 8−10 inner-gill rakers on the first gill arch (vs. 13), anal fin with 5−6 branched rays (vs. 6−7), and eye degenerated with black pigment (vs. present); from Tr. lingyunensis by the developed posterior chamber of the swim bladder (vs. degenerated), caudal fin with 13−14 branched rays (vs. 16), dorsal fin with 8−9 branched rays (vs. 6−7), and upper adipose keel height being mostly 1/2 half of the caudal peduncle depth (vs. 1/4); and from Tr. macrolepis by the 8−10 inner-gill rakers on the first gill arch (vs. 12−13), dorsal fin with 8−9 branched rays (vs. 9−11), pectoral fin with 9−10 branched rays (vs. 10−12), and upper adipose keel height being mostly 1/2 of the caudal peduncle depth . Troglonectes canlinensis sp. nov. is different from Tr. barbatus, Tr. huanjiangensis, Tr. longibarbatus, Tr. maolanensis, Tr. daqikongensis, Tr. dongganensis, Tr. elongatus, Tr. donglanensis, and Tr. microphthalmus owing to its scaled body ; it can be further distinguished from these species by the eye being degenerated with black pigment , lateral line being incomplete , dorsal fin having 8−9 branched rays , anal fin having 5−6 branched rays , and upper adipose keel height being mostly 1/2 of the caudal peduncle depth .Within the genus Troglonectes are highly adapted to survive in cave habitats and are found only in limited regions with relatively small populations. Ma et al. [Troglonectes have developed barbels, well-developed adipose keel on the upper and lower caudal peduncles, reduced or no eyes, lateral line, scales, and pigment; these characteristics are adaptions to cave environments. As their life histories are limited to caves, these fish are vulnerable to various threats, such as habitat degradation, hydrological alterations, environmental pollution, resource overexploitation, and non-native species introduction [Species of a et al.  mentioneoduction . Karst coduction . On 16 STroglonectes is described herein based on its morphological characteristics and molecular analysis. Additionally, the phylogenetic tree indicates species of Troglonectes divided into two sub-clades, viz. the truncated caudal fin sub-clade and emarginated or forked caudal fin sub-clade.One new species of http://zoobank.org/ (accessed on 10 February 2023).This published work and the nomenclatural acts it contains have been registered in ZooBank LSIDs (Life Science Identifiers) and can be resolved, and the associated information can be viewed through any standard web browser by appending the LSID to the prefix Publication LSID:urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:5DB60B6B-94EC-4E18-B734-9258F9E31D2A.Troglonectes canlinensis LSID:urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:1FEADE1C-2EBF-4956-A052-F6926AB9124C.