Curtonotum hendeli Malloch

Klymko, John & Marshall, Stephen A., 2011, Systematics of New World Curtonotum Macquart (Diptera: Curtonotidae) 3079, Zootaxa 3079 (1), pp. 1-110 : 106-107

Curtonotum hendeli Malloch

Curtonotum hendeli Malloch, 1930: 325 .— Wirth, 1975: 78.3 [Neotropical catalogue].

Curtonotum gibbum sensu Hendel, 1913: 624 [misidentification, key].

Comments. Malloch (1930) contended that Hendel, in his comprehensive treatment of the Neotropical Curtonotidae (Hendel, 1913) , misidentified a previously undescibed species as C. gibbum . Malloch (1930) proposed the new species name C. hendeli for the misidentified specimens, and indicated that in addition to the specimens examined by Hendel, there are several specimens of this species at the USNM.

In Hendel’s 1933 response to Malloch, Hendel maintained that the specimens he used for his description of C. gibbum sensu Hendel were indeed C. gibbum , and Hendel therefore declared the new name C. hendeli unnecessary. Hendel (1913) indicated that his description of C. gibbum was based on specimens at NHMW from Brazil and that they are some of the same specimens that Wiedemann (1830) used in his redescription of Musca gibba Fabricius. As mentioned in the comments section under C. taeniatum , the M. gibba Fabricius type series is comprised of three species, a female syntype that is synonymous with C. taeniatum , two syntypes of a species in the C. murinum species complex, and two syntypes that agree with C. pantherinum . Hendel stated that based on his examination of the Wiedemann specimens in Vienna, Wiedemann had treated three separate species as C. gibbum : C. taeniatum , C. pantherinum , and a third species represented by the specimens from Brazil that Hendel treated as C. gibbum . Hendel chose this third species to be C. gibbum because it best fit Wiedemann’s 1930 description. What is not clear is whether or not Hendel examined any of the Fabricius type series, and whether or not Wiedemann’s specimens are actually synonymous with species in the Fabricius type series. Hendel did show some familiarity with the Fabricius type series, as he mentioned that it is of five specimens, that they are of multiple species, and that one of them (but not the one that Wiedemann based his description on) was synonymous with C. taeniatum .

Hendel’s description of C. gibbum cannot be unequivically assigned to any of the species treated in this revision, and as such the identity of Hendel’s C. gibbum is unclear. We have been unable to borrow the “ Brazil specimens” from NHMW, but it is nonetheless clear that Hendel’s C. gibbum is likely none of the species in the M. gibba Fabricius type series. It cannot be C. pantherinum , as this species is also treated in Hendel’s 1913 revision. It is also unlikely to the be the undescribed species from the C. murinum species complex. This is evident from the dichotomous key in Hendel’s 1913 revision. In this key he separates C. murinum and C. gibbum by their tergal markings, indicating the former has quadrate yellow microtomentose tergal maculae that are punctate, and the latter has rounded, weak blue-grey microtomentose tergal maculae. All species in the C. murinum species complex, including the undescribed species of the M. gibba Fabricius type series, would certainly key out as C. murinum .

As mentioned above, Malloch indicated that several C. hendeli specimens were present at the USNM. All the specimens currently housed at the USNM have been examined as part of this revision, and no specimens labeled C. hendeli have been found. The only specimens found that both predate Malloch’s publication and potentially fit Hendel’s description of C. gibbum are the C. hendelianum specimens that Curran had labeled with the manuscript name “ C. varipennis ” (see comments section under C. hendelianum ). It is plausible that Curran had communications with Malloch regarding the identity of those specimens, thus leading him to treat them as C. hendeli . However, even if those specimens are indeed the ones that Malloch identified as C. hendeli , it is not certain that these are actually synonymous with Hendel’s C. gibbum . The fact that Hendel later redescribed C. hendelianum as C. nigripalpe ( Hendel, 1936) suggests they are not, as it is unlikely that Hendel would redescribe the species he treated as C. gibbum .

At least until the specimens at NHMW can be examined, C. hendeli must be treated as a species incertae sedis.