Heligmonevra russnota Martin, 1964 Stat. Rev
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5733/afin.055.0204 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B6764F23-CEA3-46CD-9CF5-56843CD40D99 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5679711 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B38796-E84D-5845-FEA4-AD31FEA9FEC0 |
treatment provided by |
Admin |
scientific name |
Heligmonevra russnota Martin, 1964 Stat. Rev |
status |
Stat. Rev |
Heligmonevra russnota Martin, 1964 Stat. Rev .
Figs 12-15 View Figs 12-15
Heligmoneura russnota Martin, 1964: 304 (figs 73 mesonotum, 83 ♂ terminalia).
Heligmonevra russnota: Oldroyd 1980: 338 (catalogue).
Congomochtherus russnota: Tomasovic 2006: 148 (figs 6 epandrium, 7 gonocoxite & dististylus, 8 hypandrium, 9 aedeagus).
Martin (1964) described this Madagascan species from the type locality of Ambalavao [c. 21°14'S 47°14'E c. 1280 m] and five other localities on the island. In the absence of a modern review of Heligmonevra, Tomasovic (2006) transferred H. russnota to Congomochtherus after studying material (9♂ 9♀) from Morarano Chrome, collected by A. Pauly and housed in GULB.As this was the first record of the genus from Madagascar, I borrowed two pairs of specimens from GULB in order to satisfy my curiosity regarding Tomasovic's action. While I can confirm the specific identification to be H. russnota , as the males possess the hypandrium uniquely tapering to a point ( Figs 12, 14 View Figs 12-15 ), I am not convinced that the species is correctly assigned to Congomochtherus and so here reassign it to Heligmonevra , where I believe it should reside, at least until a thorough revision of the genus has been undertaken. The Morarano Chrome specimens key out well to Heligmonevra using a key to the genera of Asilinae published by Londt (2002). There are currently 24 described Afrotropical species, 14 of which are Madagascan endemics (Note: Martin's (1964) study included 16 species, two of which have since been transferred to other genera).
In general appearance Congomochtherus species are far more robust and darkly pigmented than Heligmonevra species, which are rather slender and much paler in colour. While these genera are similar, the specimens of H. russnota do not agree with Congomochtherus species in a variety of features: (1) In H. russnota the antennal style appears 2-segmented -the small basal segment-like element is not clearly defined (in Congomochtherus this element is reasonably distinct). (2) In H. russnota all femora are slender and predominantly yellowish except for small dark-brownish areas (in Congomochtherus all femora are fairly robust and entirely to very extensively blackish). (3) In H. russnota the thoracic pruinescence is strongly developed (in Congomochtherus species it is weakly developed). (4) In H. russnota the face is only slightly ventrally protuberant (in Congomochtherus the face is obviously protuberant). (5) In H. russnota the female terminalia ( Fig. 15 View Figs 12-15 ) are relatively weakly sclerotised, in particular the hypogynial valves, and cerci are finely setose (in Congomochtherus the female terminalia are strongly sclerotised and the cerci commonly have short spine-like setae).
Material examined: MADAGASCAR: 2♂ 2♀ Morarano [19°26'S 47°29'E c. 1550 m] - Chrome, i.1992, A Pauly (GULB).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Heligmonevra russnota Martin, 1964 Stat. Rev
Jason G. H. Londt 2014 |
Congomochtherus russnota
: Tomasovic 2006: 148 |
Heligmonevra russnota:
Oldroyd 1980: 338 |
Heligmoneura russnota
Martin 1964: 304 |