Microphorinae, Collin, 1960

Shamshev, Igor V. & Perkovsky, Evgeny E., 2022, A review of fossil taxa of Microphorinae (Diptera, Dolichopodidae sensu lato), with redescription of the Eocene genus Meghyperiella Meunier, Zootaxa 5150 (3), pp. 411-427 : 423-424

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5150.3.6

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D59052B5-85CD-466F-B4EB-812226DC913E

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6646006

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EE87B7-D143-5132-0AB6-502C33D42F61

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Microphorinae
status

 

Key to fossil taxa of Microphorinae

1 Wing cell cua truncate apically; cell dm absent (dm-m crossvein absent) ( Grimaldi & Cumming 1999: 62, fig. 40). [Additional characters: male head dichoptic; frons with 3 pairs of fronto-orbital setae]. ( Avenaphora Grimaldi & Cumming ).......... 2

- Wing cell cua rounded apically; cell dm present............................................................. 3

2 Veins M 1 and M 2 not quite reaching wing margin; anal lobe of moderate size. Larger, wing length 0.96 mm. (Lower Cretaceous, Barremian, Lebanon)......................................................... A. hispida Grimaldi & Cumming

- Veins M1 and M2 distinctly reaching wing margin; anal lobe weakly developed ( Nel et al. 2017: 3, fig. 2). Smaller, wing length 0.7 mm. (Upper Cretaceous, early Santonian, France)............................ A. gallica Nel, Garrouste & Daugeron

3 Wing with two M veins beyond cell dm.................................................................... 4

- Wing with three M veins beyond cell dm................................................................... 5

4 Wing with cell dm almost parallel-sided, narrow; closing vein (i.e., base of M 2 + dm-m crossvein) straight ( Tang et al. 2019: 3, fig. 2). Male head dichoptic, with eye margins converging toward antennae. (Upper Cretaceous, lowermost Cenomanian, Myanmar).............................................. Pristinmicrophor hukawngensis Tang, Shi, Wang & Yang

- Wing with cell dm broadened toward apex; closing vein (i.e., base of M 2 + dm-m crossvein) smoothly undulating. Male head holoptic. (Eocene; Baltic region, Ukraine).................................. Meghyperiella porphyropsoides Meunier

5 Eyes covered with ommatrichia. Male: eyes separated by narrow frons, with margins converging toward antennae and meeting just above them (Lower Cretaceous, Barremian, Jordan)................................... Curvus khuludi Kaddumi

- Eyes bare. Male: eyes contiguous on frons (holoptic), with frons usually represented only by small subtriangular space just above antennae (unknown in Microphorites erikai , M. extinctus , M. moravicus , M. similis , M. utrillensis )............... 6

6 Scutellum with 1 pair of setae (unknown in Microphorites oculeus ); postpedicel abruptly tapered, broadened at base and constricted distally (lateral view) (e.g., Grimaldi & Cumming 1999: 59, fig. 38). [Some doubts may be in Microphor rusticus that, however, possesses two pairs of scutellar setae]............................................................. 7

- Scutellum with 2–3 pairs of setae; postpedicel more or less evenly tapered, usually subtriangular (lateral view), sometimes drop-shaped ( Microphorites similis ) or very short, almost onion-shaped ( M. pouilloni )............................. 10

7 Wing with brownish pterostigma ( Tkoč et al. 2016: 187, fig. 7); postpedicel elongate, nearly 4X longer than basal width, stylus shorter than postpedicel ( Tkoč et al. 2016: 187, fig. 9). (Cretaceous (Cenomanian) / lower Paleogene, Moravia).......................................................................... Microphorites moravicus Tkoč, Nel & Prokop

- Wing without pterostigma; postpedicel shorter, at most 2X longer than basal width, stylus longer than postpedicel........ 8

8 Costa ending as strong vein at R4+5. [Additional characters: postpedicel 2X longer than basal width, stylus nearly 2X longer than postpedicel ( Grimaldi & Cumming 1999: 59, fig. 38)] (Lower Cretaceous, Barremian, Lebanon)....................................................................................... Microphorites oculeus Grimaldi & Cumming

- Costa ending as strong vein just beyond R4+5 ( M. magaliae ) or between R4+5 and M1 ( M. deploegi )..................... 9

9 Wing with anal lobe weakly developed, anal angle obtuse; crossvein dm-m concave ( Nel et al. 2004: 25, fig. 3). [Additional characters: postpedicel nearly 2X longer than basal width ( Nel et al. 2004: 24, fig. 2)]. (Lower Cretaceous, uppermost Albian, France)............................................ Microphorites deploegi Nel, Perrichot, Daugeron & Néraudeau

- Wing with anal lobe strongly developed, anal angle 90°; crossvein dm-m straight ( Perrichot & Engel 2014: 32, fig. G2). [Additional characters: postpedicel nearly 1.5X longer than basal width ( Perrichot & Engel 2014: 31, fig. G1, 2)]. (Upper Cretaceous, Turonian, France).................................................... Microphorites magaliae Perrichot & Engel

10 Wing with anal lobe strongly developed, anal angle 90°...................................................... 11

- Wing with anal lobe weakly developed, anal angle obtuse.................................................... 14 Note. Since the anal lobe margin is unknown in Microphorites similis , this species is included in both sections.

11 Wing with brownish pterostigma. [Additional characters: vein CuA+CuP (anal vein) more or less distinct but fine, extending slightly beyond midway to wing posterior margin ( Hennig 1971: figs 17, 19); acrostichal setae arranged in 3–4 irregular rows on about middle part of mesoscutum; postpedicel short, at most 1.5X longer than basal width, with slightly deeper concave dorsal margin distally ( Hennig 1971: 5, fig. 4)] (Upper Eocene; Baltic region).............. Microphor rusticus (Meunier)

- Wing without pterostigma............................................................................. 12

12 Postpedicel drop-shaped, 1.7X longer than basal width ( Grimaldi & Cumming 1999: 58, fig. 37); notopleural setae not differentiated from acrostichals/dorsocentrals. Male unknown (Lower Cretaceous, Barremian, Lebanon) [See also couplet 17]..................................................................... Microphorites similis Grimaldi & Cumming

- Postpedicel elongate subtriangular, 2.5–3X longer than basal width ( Brooks et al. 2019: 127, fig. 5); notopleural setae stronger than acrostichal and presutural dorsocentral setae. [Additional character: Male: hypopygium with medial hypandrial prolongation ( Brooks et al. 2019: 127, fig. 7)]. ( Schistostoma )........................................................ 13

13 Male: fore tibia truncate apically, bearing laminate, spine-like setae along ventral margin ( Brooks et al. 2019: 127, fig. 6). Female unknown. (Upper Cretaceous, lowermost Cenomanian, Myanmar)...... S. burmanicum Brooks, Cumming & Grimaldi

- Male: fore tibia acute apically, bearing fringe-like marginal setae ( Brooks et al. 2019: 127, fig. 8). Female unknown. (Upper Cretaceous, lowermost Cenomanian, Myanmar)............................ S. foliatum Brooks, Cumming & Grimaldi

14 Wing with brownish pterostigma; scutellum with 3 pairs of setae. (Lowermost Eocene, France)............................................................................................. Microphorites erikai Bramuzzo & Nel

- Wing without pterostigma; scutellum with 2 pairs of setae.................................................... 15

15 Postpedicel very short, 1.2X longer than basal width; stylus 3.8X longer than postpedicel ( Ngô-Muller et al. 2020: 2, fig. 1A, D); wing with base of M 2 nearly as long as crossvein dm-m ( Ngô-Muller et al. 2020: 2, fig. 1B) (Upper Cretaceous, lowermost Cenomanian, Myanmar).............................................. Microphorites pouilloni Ngô-Muller & Neal

- Postpedicel longer, at least 1.7X as long as basal width; stylus at most 2X longer than postpedicel; wing with base of M 2 much shorter than crossvein dm-m........................................................................... 16

16 Wing with crossvein dm-m arched ( Hennig 1971: fig. 21). [Additional character: female eye with upper ommatidia distinctly enlarged.] (Lower Cretaceous, Barremian, Lebanon)................................. Microphorites extinctus Hennig

- Wing with crossvein dm-m straight ( Grimaldi & Cumming 1999: 58, fig. 37; Arillo et al. 2008: 34, fig. 3).............. 17

17 Postpedicel drop-shaped, 1.7X longer than basal width; stylus about 2X longer than postpedicel; scutellum with strong apical and fine lateral setae; costa extending as strong vein to R 4+5. (Lower Cretaceous, Barremian, Lebanon). [See also couplet 12]................................................................ Microphorites similis Grimaldi and Cumming

- Postpedicel subtriangular, bilaterally symmetrical, nearly 3X longer than basal width; stylus nearly as long as postpedicel ( Arillo et al. 2008: 33, fig. 2); scutellum with equally strong setae; costa extending as strong vein to M 1. (Lower Cretaceous, Albian, Spain).............................................................. Microphorites utrillensis Peñalver

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Diptera

Family

Dolichopodidae