---

I don't trust Collin's illustrations of the genitalia. The way the genitalia look in lateral and posterior aspects is too dependent on how the specimen dried. The only one that can be separated reliably on the basis of these illustrations is R. sulcata. I must admit I have never seen sulcatina but from what I understood the acrostichals provide a reliable character for identification without dissection (two rows in sulcatina, 3-4 in others), the aedeagus is also characteristic if you pry it from between the genital lamellae. I have a few additional characters to separate cinerascens from sulcatella, but these notes are at the office. Moreover, I don't think cinerascens and subcinerascens are different species.