Masicera solivaga Rondani, 1861

Sforzi, Alessandra & Sommaggio, Daniele, 2021, Catalog of the Diptera types described by Camillo Rondani, Zootaxa 4989 (1), pp. 1-438 : 330-331

Masicera solivaga Rondani, 1861

ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION: 1861e: 18 (key), 24 (description).

TYPE LOCALITY: “ in planitie prope Parmam [plains near Parma (Italy)]”.

TYPE MATERIAL: 6 ♂♂, syntypes (one missing left fore-, right mid- and hind-legs; one missing fore-legs; one partially eaten by dermestids, missing fore- and hind-legs) ( MZUF: Box 14): Masicera Macq. / solivaga Rnd. / 746; 8 ♂♂, syntypes (one missing right mid- and left hind-legs; two missing mid-legs) ( MZUF: Box 15): Masicera Macq. / solivaga R., ♂ / 762; 1 ♂, syntype ( OUMNH General Collection: Box 167.7): syntype / Type / M. solivaga Ex. Coll. Big. / M. solivaga ♂ Italia Rond. / Verrall-Collin Palaearctic coll. Ox. Uni. Mus. Nat. Hist. ( OUMNH) OUMNH –1967–018 / Tachinidae Thelyconychia solivaga (Rondani, 1861) , Palaearctic.

CURRENT STATUS: valid species, as Thelyconychia solivaga ( Herting & Dely-Draskovits 1993: 209, Pape et al. 1995: 20, O’Hara et al. 2009: 83, Cerretti 2010: 214, O’Hara & Cerretti 2016: 108, O’Hara et al. 2020: 363).

REMARKS: Rondani (1861e: 24) described Masicera solivaga from just the male sex, without specifying the exact number of specimens, but giving a single measurement of length, despite there being 16 specimens in the type series found in this study: “ Masculum tantum legi [I collected the male only]”, treating it within the subgenus Ceromasia Rondani, 1856 , which is now considered as a valid genus ( O’Hara et al. 2011: 50). The MUZF has 14 specimens (six numbered “746” in Box 14, eight numbered “762” in Box 15) and the OUMNH has one specimen: we consider these 15 specimens as syntypes. An additional eight MZUF specimens numbered “1854” are not included in the type series because their labels are yellowish rather than the greenish color of Rondani’s original handwritten ones and are in a lower row in the Box, for which reason we treat them to be subsequent additions. O’Hara et al. (2009: 83) incorrectly reported a holotype in the MZUF.