TRICHOPTERA (INSECTA) COLLECTED IN MEDITERRANEAN RIVER BASINS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA: TAXONOMIC REMARKS AND NOTES ON ECOLOGY

As a result of the GUADALMED project, which was performed in Iberian Mediterranean basins, together with samples taken by the junior author in the area, we collected numerous caddisfly larvae, pupae and adults. Some larvae were also reared in the lab to obtain adults and allow proper identification. A total of 90 species were identified, which accounts for more than a fourth of the species known in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands. Here we confirm the presence of doubtful species in the Iberian Peninsula (Glyphotaelius pellucidus) and we expand the distribution range of others (Lype reducta, Micrasema minimum, Limnephilus guadarramicus, Sericostoma pyrenaicum). Moreover, because of the unconformity of morphological larval characteristics with present taxonomical keys (Mesophylax aspersus) or lack of larvae descriptions (Allogamus mortoni, Stenophylax espanioli), here we include some relevant taxonomical aspects that are useful to identify larvae. A brief description of the larva of a possible new species of Hydropsyche (from now on H. gr. instabilis) is also given.


TRICHOPTERA (INSECTA) COLLECTED IN MEDITERRANEAN RIVER BASINS OF THE IBERIAN PENINSULA: TAXONOMIC REMARKS AND NOTES ON ECOLOGY Introduction
Studies on caddisflies in the Iberian Peninsula date from the mid-nineteenth century; although most have been performed recently (González et al., 1992).Most taxonomic research has been done in northern and central areas of Spain (García de Jalón, 1982;González et al., 1987), although contributions from southern regions are increasing (e.g.Ruiz et al., 2001) and new species have recently been described (González & Ruiz, 2001;Zamora-Muñoz et al., 2002).Along the Mediterranean coast of the Iberian Peninsula, taxonomic and faunistic (see examples in González et al., 1992;Malicky, 2002) but also ecological studies have been performed on many caddisfly species (Puig et al., 1981;Herranz & García de Jalón, 1984;Gallardo-Mayenco, 1993;Gallardo-Mayenco et al., 1998), but no extensive studies have been performed until now.
In the Iberian Peninsula, the Order Trichoptera comprises numerous species with 390 records although only 325 species can be identified with confidence (see updated checklist of Trichoptera from the Iberian Peninsula by González, 2003).The Iberian Peninsula hosts more caddisfly species than other parts of Europe (e.g.England, with 207 species; Edington & Hildrew, 1995;Wallace et al., 1990), but has similar numbers to other Mediterranean Basin countries (e.g.Italy, with 381 species -Cianficconi, 2002).
Here we present a list of 90 caddisfly species after identification of 12,499 larvae, 177 pupae and 261 adults collected during a survey of 15 river basins located along the Mediterranean coast of the Iberian Peninsula.

Materials and methods
Trichoptera were collected mainly from 10 basins situated along the Mediterranean coast of the Iberian Peninsula and selected from the GUA-DALMED Project (Fig. 1): Besòs, Llobregat, Mijares, Turia, Júcar, Segura, Almanzora, Aguas, Adra and Guadalfeo (a description of the basins sampled can be found in Robles et al., 2002).Moreover, we also include data obtained from several ecological studies of the Foix, Tordera, Ter, Noguera Ribagorçana and Guadalquivir basins (Prat et al., 1999(Prat et al., , 2000(Prat et al., and 2001;;Rieradevall & Prat, 2000;Solà, 2001) (Fig. 1).Overall, the study area lies whitin the mediterranean climate zone (Köppen, 1923), with annual precipitation ranging from less than 300 mm in the more arid basins of the southeast to over 800 mm in northern basins and in some mountain areas.The basins are formed by limestone and sedimentary materials, although some siliceous areas are also present, such as in the Sierra Nevada, Pyrenees and Montseny ranges.The vegetation in the basins mainly consists of sclerophyllous and evergreen trees and shrubs, although in the more mountainous areas deciduous and coniferous forests are present.As in other mediterranean climate regions, the basins have been greatly affected by human activity (Trabaud, 1981), such as agriculture, cattle farming, urbanization, salinization, water utilization and regulation (Conacher & Sala, 1998).All these factors have negatively affected the rivers, either directly or indirectly (Prat & Ward, 1994).
Caddisfly larvae and pupae were obtained by sampling all available habitats with a kick net of 250 mm mesh size.They were then preserved in formalin (4%) or alcohol (70%) before identification to maximum taxonomic level in the lab.Larvae and pupae were also collected in the field, transported to the lab and reared to obtain pupae and adults, using a similar method as in Vieira-Lanero (1996).This system consists of a tank with a constant water temperature of 19ºC.A water pump recirculated and cleaned the water in a closed circuit, exposed it to natural light, and simultaneously provided oxygen.Pupae and larvae from last instars were located in small circular plastic cages and were separated by sampling sites or rivers.Each cage had a substrate composed of clean gravel.For shredders, leaf-litter was taken from riverbeds.For grazers, stones with periphyton were collected at the same site where larvae were obtained.We did not rear larvae of predators or filter-feeders.
In addition, adults were also obtained in the field by sweeping riparian vegetation with an entomological net or using a light trap with a UV-light connected to a car battery.To identify adults and pupae, genitalia were digested in a 10% KOH solution, at a constant temperature of 90ºC.Once digested, they were placed in a glycerin solution and were observed and identified under a stereoscope or microscope.

Results
A total of 12,499 larvae, 177 pupae and 261 adults from 169 sites were identified.We present Trichoptera species following the taxonomical classification described by Wiggins (1996).We omitted subgenera because they are not widely used in the literature (Vieira-Lanero, 2000).For each species, the number of larvae (L), pupae (P) and adults ( m and f ) are given.In general, only the identification of male specimens is included.Females were identified only when they appeared with several males (e.g. in Agapetus), or when they belonged to families where females are quite well known (e.g.Limnephilidae).For pupae and adults, the sampling months are shown in brackets.Capture sites were classified by basin, and coded by a letter and a number.Their exact location is presented in the Appendix.In some cases, a question mark (?) is added before some sampling localities when the identity of the larvae found was not clear.

Rhyacophila nevada
Endemic to the  Information was obtained from our records and the following references: González et al., 1992;Terra, 1994;Vieira-Lanero, 2000;Ruiz et al., 2001. 2 Information in this column was obtained from our records.Northern basins go from Ter to Noguera Ribagorçana basins; Central basins go from Mijares to Júcar basins; Southern basins go from Segura to Guadalquivir basins. 3 Ecological information was obtained from our records.Longitudinal zonation was obtained using the stream order at an scale of 250.000 (Headwaters correspond to order to 1-2; Midstream reaches to 2-3; Lowland reaches to 3-4.Geological preferences were obtained using the percentage of geological substrate of the basin covered by each site, only in cases where this percentage was higher than 25 on more than 25% of occasions. Although R. evoluta was formerly cited in the midstream reaches of the Llobregat River (Puig et al., 1981), the revision of the original material (from the Barcelona University collection) and the new samples from the same sites do not show the presence of this species in this area.Therefore, all previous records of R. evoluta from the Llobregat River belong to R. dorsalis and the data from Puig et al. (1981) must be referred to this species.Hagen, 1859 MATERIAL STUDIED: ?3L, 2P mm (IV, VII).Ter Basin: T10;
We identified the pupae found in the Llobregat River (L60a) as R. fasciata denticulata, and the sclerites in the pupal cocoon presented a long sword process, which does not correspond to the larval description of R. denticulata (Despax, 1928).Moreover, some larvae collected in the Ter and Llobregat rivers presented the typical morphology of R. fasciata, with a long sword process and an apotome with a black posterior patch with black muscle insertions (according to Buholzer, 1978;Waringer & Graf, 1997).A specific study analyzing adults of R. fasciata denticulata and the variability of their larvae should be performed to determine whether R. denticulata is a subspecies of R. fasciata, and thus to confirm the presence of R. fasciata in the Iberian Peninsula.

Rhyacophila mocsaryi
In the Iberian Peninsula and Pyrenees this species is associated with the subspecies tredosensis (González et al., 1992).

Rhyacophila munda McLachlan, 1862
MATERIAL STUDIED: 141L, 4P mm 3P ff (I, IV, VII), 1 f (V).Mijares Basin: MI7; Turia Basin: TU12; Júcar Basin: JU5, JU9, JU12, JU13, JU19; Segura Basin: SE1, SE3, SE4, SE5, SE7, SE16; Almanzora Basin: AL2, AL6, AL10, AL11; Aguas Basin: AG1; Adra Basin: AD2, AD3, AD4; Guadalfeo Basin: GU4, GU5, GU6, GU7, GU8, GU9, GU10, GU11, GU12, GU13, GU14, GU15, GU16 The length of the sword process can be used to distinguish the larva of R. munda from other species of the Pararhyacophila-group; this process being shorter in R. munda (Viedma & García de Jalón, 1980).However, Malicky & Lounaci (1987) pointed out that an error in the original description of R. munda by Edington & Hildrew (1981) may have occurred, implying that R. munda may also present a long sword process.In this regard, we found that the specimens of R. munda from the south and southeast of the Iberian Peninsula always showed a longer process than that expected.All the specimens collected in Adra, Guadalfeo, Mijares, Turia, Júcar, Segura, Almanzora and Aguas basins presented a long sword process and a spherical protuberance on the posteroventral area of the protrochanter, characters that differ from the description of this species from Iberian material (Viedma & García de Jalón, 1980) and which are also discussed in Vieira-Lanero et al. (2001).We encountered some difficulties when applying published keys to identify larval specimens, although we classified them as R. munda.This species is widely distributed and very abundant in southern Spain and although more pupae and adults are needed to confirm larval identifications, in some of the basins studied, the rearing of larvae in the lab confirmed their identity in the Adra and Guadalfeo basins, as in other nearby basins (e.g.Genil and Guadiana Menor basins; Zamora-Muñoz, 1992;Picazo-Muñoz, 1995).
The larva of R. munda shows a strong similarity to the undescribed R. fonticola, which is also present in southern Spain and coexists at some sites (Ruiz et al., 2001).Because R. fonticola is still undescribed we classified all the specimens collected as R. munda.Schmid, 1952 MATERIAL STUDIED: 160L, 6P mm (II, IV, VII, X), 1 m (VII).

Rhyacophila nevada
Almanzora Basin: AL6, AL7; Segura Basin: SE1, SE3, SE4, SE8; Adra Basin: AD4; Guadalfeo Basin: GU1, GU2, GU3, GU4, GU5, GU6, GU7, GU9, GU10, GU11, GU12, GU13, GU14, GU15 Recently, after analyzing a few imagines, Malicky (2002) considered R. nevada a sub-species of R. dorsalis.However, according to Zamora-Muñoz & Alba-Tercedor (1992), these two species have distinctly different larvae, which are differentiated by size and colour patterns of head and pronotum.R. dorsalis cephalic pleurae show an inconspicuous pattern of dark spots, present on R. nevada, and a continuous shade pattern of the pronotum on the posterior half (Figs. 2a and 2b).Except in a few larvae, the head patterns of the specimens collected in northern basins, where only R. dorsalis was present, fitted well with Zamora-Muñoz's step-key corresponding to R. dorsalis.On the other hand, in southern basins, most of the specimens corresponded to R. nevada, and a few had typical features of R. dorsalis.Therefore, our material confirms that larvae of R. dorsalis and R. nevada can be distinguished along the Mediterranean coast of the Iberian Peninsula.
Rhyacophila nevada displayed an ecological profile which differed greatly from that of R. dorsalis.R. nevada shows preferential distribution in pristine headwaters with predominant siliceous basins, and was more sensitive to water pollution than R. dorsalis.Consequently, because of the differences observed in larval morphology and ecology of these two species, and because of the few specimens analyzed by Malicky, here we consider them as distinct species.

Rhyacophila cf. occidentalis McLachlan, 1879
MATERIAL STUDIED: 24L.Adra Basin: AD5; Guadalfeo Basin: GU1, GU11, GU15 Larvae from the Adra and Guadalfeo basins were similar to those of R. occidentalis.However, we did not find any mature pupae or adults to confirm the identity of the species.We found one imago in the Mongrony River (NE Spain, Pyrenees), which presented several taxonomic features similar to those of R. aquitanica, cited by Navás in nearby areas, a species that requires confirmation in the Iberian Peninsula (see González et al., 1992).However, we consider our specimen to be R. gr.tristis because of the absence of characters to differentiate the males of these two species with certainty and the high variability in R. tristis (González, pers. com., 2001).Similarly, it was difficult to distinguish the larvae of R. tristis from those of R. aquitanica.Buholzer (1978) observed that R. tristis does not present ventral transversal stripes in the cephalic capsule, whereas R. aquitanica does.In northwestern Spain, where only R. tristis has been found, the larva has such transversal stripes (Vieira-Lanero, pers. com., 2001), as is also the case in our specimens.Consequently, we considered both larvae and adult to belong to R. gr.tristis.

Family GLOSSOSOMATIDAE Wallengren, 1891
Subfamily Agapetinae Martynov, 1913Agapetus Curtis, 1834 This genus is abundant and widely distributed in the Mediterranean, but the larvae of several species have not been described to date (e.g. A. theischingeri, A. incertulus -but see Ruiz et al., in press).We found many larvae of this genus, but because of the uncertainties in its identification, we present only the species confirmed by pupae or adults.It is interesting to point out that the Agapetus specimens found in southern basins were more tolerant to pollution than expected from literature (González del Tánago & García de Jalón, 1984), especially with regard to suspended solids, conductivity, nitrites and ammonium.This tolerance could indicate the presence of one or several undescribed species.Curtis, 1834 MATERIAL STUDIED: 8P mm 3P ff (II, IV, V, VII), 1 m (V).

Agapetus incertulus McLachlan, 1884
MATERIAL STUDIED: 1P m (VII), 3 mm (V, VII).Segura Basin: SE16; Adra Basin: AD3, AD1 Although this species appears to be widespread in the Iberian Peninsula according to the literature (see González et al., 1992;Ruiz et al., in press), the records in north Spain (Vizcaya region) seem to be an error.Checking the original source of the Vizcaya record (García de Jalón, 1982), A. incertulus was only recorded in Guadalajara and Jaén (central and southern Spain).The species of Agapetus recorded in Vizcaya to date are A. delicatulus, A. fuscipes and A. ochripes (Basaguren, 1990).

Synagapetus McLachlan, 1879
This genus was found in the Ter, Tordera and Besòs basins and coexisted with Agapetus.However, because many larvae still remain undescribed and we did not collect pupae or adults, we were unable to identify larvae at species level.
Hydroptila Dalman, 1819 Given the fact that the larvae of several species distributed along the Mediterranean coast of the Iberian Peninsula remain undescribed (of 31 species recorded in the Peninsula, only the larvae of 6 are known -Vieira-Lanero, 2000), and the difficulties to distinguish those already described, here we present only the results obtained from pupae and adults.

Hydroptila gr. sparsa Curtis, 1834
MATERIAL STUDIED: 1P m (VIII).Llobregat Basin: L68 The sparsa-group is highly variable (Malicky, 1997) and is distributed throughout Europe, north Africa and southwest Asia.Our specimen resembled H. angustata, which is recorded only in the southern basins of the Iberian Peninsula.

Wormaldia McLachlan, 1865
The difficulty to distinguish larvae, and even adults, of this genus is notable.Therefore, although larval specimens from the same genus were found in the Tordera, Besòs, Turia and Júcar basins, only adult records are presented.McLachlan, 1878 MATERIAL STUDIED: 1 m (IV).Llobregat Basin: L45

Wormaldia saldetica
Chimarra marginata (Linnaeus, 1767) MATERIAL STUDIED: 786L, 1P m (X), 2 mm (V, VIII Hydropsyche cf.acinoxas Malicky, 1981 MATERIAL STUDIED: 4P mm (IV, VIII).Tordera Basin: ToM7, ToM8, ToM12; Besòs Basin: B8a The pupae found fit quite well under H. acinoxas, although there were slight differences in the X segment, which were difficult to evaluate (González, pers. com., 2001).The larvae collected and sclerites found from pupae could be confused with larvae and sclerites of H. dinarica and H. ambigua (Fig. 2c and Zamora-Muñoz et al., 1995, for comparison).However, the apotome was less wide and pentagonal than H. dinarica and not as rounded in its lateral edges than in H. ambigua.In the dark colouration of the apotome only three light indistinct spots can be distinguished: two on the epistomal sulcus and one on the oral area (Fig. 2c).The apotome of H. cf.acinoxas lacks any light aboral spots, as in H. ambigua.

Hydropsyche fontinalis
Larvae identified as H. iberomaroccana followed the distinctive head pattern reported by Zamora-Muñoz et al. (1995) (= H. cf. punica).We collected H. iberomaroccana only in southern areas, although it was difficult to distinguish its larvae from those of H. incognita.However, characteristic H. iberomaroccana larvae (like those divided in step 17 by Zamora-Muñoz et al., 1995) were not found in northern basins.Pitsch, 1993 Because of the difficulty in distinguishing larvae of H. incognita from those of H. iberomaroccana, both species found in the Iberian Mediterranean area (Zamora-Muñoz et al., 1995), only the records from pupae or adults of the former are presented.We also collected 1,677 larvae that we identified as H. gr.pellucidula.

Hydropsyche infernalis
No pupae or adults were collected, but larvae displayed a V-shape aboral spot in the apotome, as described in Zamora-Muñoz et al. (1995) (Fig. 2d).In northwestern Spain (where H. infernalis has not been recorded -Vieira-Lanero, 2000), H. siltalai (a close species that also lacks gills on the 7th abdominal segment) has an apotome similar to H. infernalis with a V-shaped aboral spot (Vieira-Lanero, 2000), instead of the typical U-shaped spot (Edington & Hildrew, 1995;Zamora-Muñoz et al., 1995).Therefore, in areas where these two species may coexist, it may be difficult to distinguish larvae.For example, because H. infernalis has been collected in southern and in some central areas in the Iberian Peninsula (González et al., 1992 andZamora-Muñoz et al., 1995), we cannot ensure, without pupae or adult specimens, that our larval samples from the Turia basin are truly H. infernalis.

Hydropsyche siltalai
In northwestern Spain, H. siltalai presents a high variability in head colour pattern, with the light aboral spot being more frequently V-than Ushaped (Vieira-Lanero, 2000;Vieira-Lanero, pers. com., 2001).Our specimens from northern basins always showed a U-shaped spot, similar to other specimens collected in central Spain (see Zamora-Muñoz et al., 1995).
Until the description of the larva of H. infernalis (Zamora-Muñoz et al., 1995), the only European species lacking gills on the 7 th abdominal segment was H. siltalai.This fact questions the records in the Ibeiran Peninsula based only on larval identifications previous to the description of H. infernalis, especially those from southern Spain, where H. infernalis is predominant.

Cyrnus Stephens, 1836
Cyrnus cf.montserrati González & Otero, 1983 MATERIAL STUDIED: 7L.Segura Basin: SE2 Although no pupae or adults were collected in the study area, and larvae of C. montserrati are not described, the specimens found presented a distinct head colour pattern close to that of C. cintranus (Vieira-Lanero, pers. com., 2001).Moreover, in the first abdominal segment, our specimens had 2 setae sa3 and larvae of C. cintranus present only 1 setae in this position (Vieira-Lanero, 2000).Larvae in the Segura basin expands the distribution area of Micrasema minimum to the southeast of the Iberian Peninsula.
Specimens collected in central and some southern basins expand the distribution area of Limnephilus guadarramicus in the Iberian Peninsula.Curtis, 1834 MATERIAL STUDIED: 3L, 2P mm (IV).Llobregat Basin: L64a,

Glyphotaelius Stephens, 1833
Glyphotaelius pellucidus (Retzius, 1783) MATERIAL STUDIED: 20L, 2P mm 1P f (II, IV), 4 mm 1 f (II).Ter Basin: SO; Besòs Basin: B7, B7a Prat et al. (1983) recorded G. pellucidus larvae in the Besòs basin.Because no pupae or adults have been collected in Spain, Vieira-Lanero (2000) considered that its presence required confirmation.We obtained several pupae and adults of G. pellucidus after rearing larvae from the Besòs basin, which showed the characteristic genitalia and anterior wing morphology (see Schmid, 1952;Malicky, 1983).Our observation confirms the presence of this species in the Iberian Peninsula.Moreover, the larvae fitted the keys by Waringer & Graf (1997) and Vieira-Lanero (2000) very well, showing 2 ventral setae of distinct colour in the first femur (Fig. 2g).Most of the specimens collected had a typical case made of round pieces of litter arranged in the characteristic way, although others used nonrounded pieces disposed longitudinally.On the other hand, some collected Potamophylax sp.(see below) built a similar case to the one from Glyphotaelius, a characteristic observed by other authors (e.g.Wallace et al., 1990, Vieira-Lanero, 2000).In our study, G. pellucidus was found exclusively in the headwaters of temporary rivers, and had an earlier flight period than in more temperate climates (Sommerhäuser et al., 1997).

TRIBUS Chaetopterygini Hagen, 1858
Chaetopteryx Stephens, 1829 We recorded the larvae of Chaetopteryx in the Ter, Besòs, Llobregat, Turia, Júcar, Segura and Guadalfeo basins.Because of the difficulty to identify larvae at species level, only records from pupae and adults are presented.
Stenophylax Kolenati, 1848 It is difficult to identify Stenophylax species in the Iberian Peninsula because of numerous undescribed larvae.Therefore, we include only the pupae or adults collected.The larvae of this genus were found in several temporary streams in the Besòs, Júcar, Segura, Almanzora and Guadalfeo basins.Schmid, 1957.MATERIAL STUDIED: 2P mm (X), 1 m (X).Ter Basin: T10

Stenophylax espanioli
The larvae of this species remain undescribed.In larval sclerites we found setae insertions at the anterior sides of meso-and meta-femora, which indicates that S. espanioli larvae are similar to that of S. permistus, according to Vieira-Lanero (2000).

Schizopelex McLachlan, 1876
The Iberian Peninsula hosts two species of this genus (S. festiva and S. furcifera).Because S. furcifera remains undescribed, we present only species confirmed by pupae and adult specimens of this genus.Vieira-Lanero (2000) described some taxonomical features to distinguish Schizopelex from Sericostoma, but all the Sericostomatidae larvae that we collected were identified as Sericostoma.McLachlan, 1880 MATERIAL STUDIED: 1P m (VIII), 1 m (VII).Ter Basin: T20; Tordera Basin: ToM7

Discussion
Compared with other temperate areas, Mediterranean Basin fauna are highly diverse, with a considerable level of endemicity and complexity as the result of the interaction of complex historical and ecological factors (Balletto & Casale, 1991).However, in spite of the high caddisfly richness of the Iberian Peninsula (Gonzalez, 2003), the Mediterranean area is poorer in species than other less mediterranean zones in the north and especially northwest of Spain (González et al., 1987).This phenomenon has been related to ecological and historical factors though it also should be born in mind that the majority of studies were performed in the northern regions of the Iberian Peninsula, far from the Mediterranean area (González et al., 1987).A total of 90 species were identified in our study, which accounts for 27.7% of the species recorded and identified with confidence in the Iberian Peninsula.Although this percentage might seem poor, it must be stated that not all mediterranean basins have been sampled and not all collected larvae were identified to species level.The maximum diversity of caddisflies in the area sampled was found in regions with high-mountain influences (e.g.rivers from Pyrenees, Montseny and Sierra Nevada ranges) or those where northern and southern species mix (e.g. in the Segura basin).In addition, Mediterranean rivers in central and some southeastern areas (e.g.rivers from the Almería province) present a depleted caddisfly fauna (Bonada, 2003).This depletion may be related to the lack of extensive studies (González et al., 1987), but it is especially attributable to the harshness of the climate and to the high human impact on the southern arid regions.
The groups of species according to their distribution areas are shown in Figure 3, where sampling sites have been grouped into three sets (northern, central and southern basins) to facilitate interpretation.According to the literature, the species have been grouped into three categories depending on their distribution: widespread, Iberian-north African and endemic species of the Iberian Peninsula and/or Pyreness.Overall, most of the caddisflies collected in the area were widely distributed, which is in accordance with González et al. (1987).In comparison with northern and central basins, southern basins showed the highest proportion of endemic species, with a mix of species that are widely distributed around the Iberian Peninsula and those exclusive to the Baetic-Rift area.Our results emphasize the importance of southern basins as a speciation area for several groups of invertebrates (Ruiz et al., 2001).

Fig. 3 .
Fig. 3.-Percentage of caddisfly species with a widespread distribution, Iberian-north African and endemic species of the Iberian Peninsula and Pyrenees classified into three groups of basins sampled.Northern basins include the Ter, Tordera, Besòs, Llobregat, Foix and Noguera Ribagorçana.Central basins include the Mijares, Turia and Júcar.Southern basins include the Segura, Almanzora, Aguas, Adra, Guadalfeo and Guadalquivir.The graph is based on 89 species.Hydropsyche gr.instabilis has been omitted because the limits of its distribution are unknown.

( c )
Sociedad de Amigos del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales y Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Licencia Creative Commons 3.0 España (by-nc) http://graellsia.revistas.csic.es(c) Sociedad de Amigos del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales y Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Licencia Creative Commons 3.0 España (by-nc) http://graellsia.revistas.csic.es Table 1 includes information about ecology and the general and local distribution of each species collected, based on our study and the literature.

Table 1 .
-Global and local distribution, ecological characteristics and water quality preferences of the caddisfly species collected in the area sampled.Only species are presented.Genera were omitted and their ecological information can be found in the text.Tabla 1.-Distribución global y local, características ecológicas y tolerancia a la calidad del agua de las especies de tricópteros recolectadas en la zona muestreada.Solamente se presentan las especies.Los géneros han sido omitidos y su información ecológica se halla en el texto.