Aphaniosoma suboculicauda Frey, 1958

Ebejer, Martin J., 2009, A revision of Afrotropical Chyromyidae (excluding Gymnochiromyia Hendel) (Diptera: Schizophora), with the recognition of two subfamilies and the description of new genera, African Invertebrates 50 (2), pp. 321-321 : 407-408

Aphaniosoma suboculicauda Frey, 1958

Fig. 52

Aphaniosoma suboculicauda: Frey 1958: 34 .

Frey’s description, though accurate on most points, has some errors and his illustration of this species is difficult to interpret. Given that so many species have been described since that time, an examination of the types was mandatory. The series of specimens that I received for study from MZH consisted of 11 specimens, none of which is labelled by Frey with the name of the species. The two specimens with a species’s name are those that I examined and labelled in 1997 (Ebejer 1998) for the revision of the Palaearctic species of this genus.Although not labelled by Frey as types, all the specimens I examined bear the same data as given in his paper for an unspecified number of specimens. There is no other species of Aphaniosoma that he refers to. For this reason, I consider them all to constitute the type series as Frey implied in his article.

The holotype ơ carries the following labels: “ Holotypus ” [red label]; “spec.typ.” [typed], “holotyp [sic]” [hand written below]; “Ins. Cabo Verde, Maio Rib. da Lagoa, 2.2.1954, Lindberg”. It is indeed a male in perfect condition with the phallic complex partly extruded. The apex of the distiph is not visible, but no black structures can be made out, even though the postabdomen is pale and semi translucent. In such cases, dark internal structures are visible through the integument, although detail might not be appreciated. The basiph, surs and psg are pale throughout. The prg cannot be discerned. Frey describes a pair of black spots on tg 6. None of the males in this series has a black spot. The small brown spot that is present is on the ep. Frey’s illustration of the male postabdomen and his comments upon it raise the possibility that the specimen it comes from might not be the same species as the one designated as the holotype. However, since all the type series represents one species, I am more inclined to believe that Frey rather overstated the features and in his illustration of the distiph over-inked the dark areas.There are no hairs on the distiph either in the male I dissected or indeed in any species of Aphaniosoma that I have seen with the sole exception of trilobatum sp. n. (see below). Dr Vilkamaa informs me that he has been unable to trace the slide preparations of the two abdomens that are missing from the type series and upon which Frey based his illustration. For these reasons, I give an illustration of a male paratype that I dissected in order to allow this species to be properly recognized. I labelled the remaining specimens as paratypes since they are so referred to, albeit indirectly, in Frey’s paper.

ơ “Ins. Cabo Verde, Maio Rib. da Lagoa , 2.2.1954, Lindberg”, in very good condition .

“ Paratypus ” [red label]; “ơ”; “17” [typed in large font]; “Ins. Cabo Verde, Boavista, Fundo de Figueiras , 30.1.1954, Panelius”. This specimen is in very good condition, but the abdomen was neatly removed from tg 3 onwards and therefore I cannot confirm the sex. The colouration of the head and thorax, the proportions of the wing veins and spaces between them and the chaetotaxy suggest that this is the same species as the holotype.

“ Paratypus ” [red label]; “pinz” [hand written, deciphered correctly?]; “Ins. Cabo Verde, Maio Pedro Vas , 3.2.1954, Lindberg”. This specimen is greasy and very badly damaged: headless, all right legs missing, tarsomeres of middle and hind leg missing on left side, right wing folded, left wing mostly missing and apex of abdomen missing (apparently through damage). There is nothing about the remains of this specimen that suggests it is a different species to the above. There are three more males bearing the same data and all are the same species as this. I dissected one of these .

“ Paratypus ” [red label]; “18” [typed in large font]; “Ins. Cabo Verde, Boavista Rabil , 31.1.1954, Lindberg”. The specimen is damaged: headless and left wing folded. The abdomen has been cleanly removed from tg 3 onwards. Therefore, I cannot determine the sex. This is the same species as the rest .

“ Paratype, ^Aphaniosoma suboculicauda Frey , det. M.J. Ebejer, 1997 ”; “Ins. Cabo Verde, Boavista, Fundo de Figueiras , 30.1.1954, Panelius”. Apart from missing the left wing the specimen is in good condition .

“ Paratype, ^Aphaniosoma suboculicauda Frey , det. M.J. Ebejer, 1997 ”; “Ins. Cabo Verde, Maio Pedro Vas , 3.2.1954, Lindberg”. The specimen has the scutum badly cracked, but the parts are still present, the head is shrivelled, but the chaetotaxy can be made out. This is a darker specimen than all the foregoing. It has more extensive darkening of pleura, scutal stripes and abdominal tg. The chaetotaxy is very similar to the foregoing specimens and I consider the chromatic differences of minor importance and well within the variation commonly seen in species of this genus .

Finally, a ơ also belonging to the same species as above, bears the following label: “Ins. Cabo Verde, S. Tiago Achada, Robao Areia, 11.2.1954, Lindberg”. It has a rather shrivelled head and the scutum is broken, but all parts are present.

Distribution: Cape Verde.

Figures

Fig. 52. Aphaniosoma suboculicauda Frey, ơ: (a) hypopygium, lateral; (b) st 6, ventral; (c) same, lateral. Scale bar = 0.1 mm.