Rhyncomya viduella Villeneuve, 1927

Thomas-Cabianca, Arianna, Villet, Martin H., Martinez-Sanchez, Anabel & Rojo, Santos, 2023, South African nose flies (Diptera, Calliphoridae, Rhiniinae): taxonomy, diversity, distribution and biology, Biodiversity Data Journal 11, pp. 72764-72764 : 72764

Rhyncomya viduella Villeneuve, 1927

= Rhyncomya viduella Villeneuve, 1927: 18 (see taxonomic notes). Type locality: South Africa, Transvaal [Mpumalanga], Barberton. Remarks: HT in SAMC; nec Rhynchomya cassotis (Walker, 1849) sensu Zumpt (1958) (see discussion).

Distribution

Afrotropical: South Africa (Fig. 115 ).

Notes

Preferred environment: hillside with flowers. Recorded elevations: 495 m a.s.l. Seasonality: low numbers in September, October and December. Behaviour and ecology: unknown. Life cycle and developmental stages: unknown. Collection methods: sweeping from Asparagus sp. ( Asparagaceae ). Illustrations and photographs: male habitus as in Fig. 116 . Male terminalia unknown.

Taxonomic notes: Rhyncomya viduella stat. rev. is reinstated as a valid species. Previously listed as a synonym of R. cassotis (Fig. 37) by Zumpt (1958), R. viduella stat. rev. is characterised by a dark fronto-orbital plate and parafacial, a parafacial and genal-dilatation covered by black setulae, an abdomen predominately dark with small testaceous fringe in the posterior tergites border and a body length of 7-9 mm. In contrast, the typical morphotype of R. cassotis is represented by having a yellow-golden fronto-orbital plate and parafacial, a bare parafacial, genal-dilatation covered with pale setulae, a predominately yellow abdomen with variable dark patterns on tergites 4 to 5 and a body length of 4-7 mm. Thus, the morphologies of R. viduella stat. rev. and R. cassotis indicate that they are distinct species, as Peris (1952a) indicated in his monographs. Despite these morphological differences, Zumpt (1958) considered that R. viduella stat. rev. was probably a dark morphotype of R. cassotis because he did not find differences between the male terminalia of the dark and light morphotypes and remarked that the taxonomic status of the forms is not quite clear, an opinion he also held regarding the readily distinguishable species Chrysomya chloropyga (Wiedemann, 1818) and Chrysomya putoria (Wiedemann, 1830) (e.g. Zumpt, 1965; cf. Rognes and Paterson 2005). After dissecting and examining the HT of R. viduella stat. rev. at SAMC and comparing it with typical R. cassotis specimens, we found that their male terminalia are clearly different, confirming that they are different species (Thomas-Cabianca et al., unpublished).

Type material examined: R. viduella : 1? // Barberton / Transvaal /H Edwards // Dec 1911 // Rhyncomyia / Rhyncomya viduella /? Type // [SAMC DIP A011183].

Material examined: Suppl. material 1.

Figures

Figure 115. Rhyncomya viduella occurrence map in South Africa, including eSwatini (eSw) and Lesotho (Le); horizontal axis longitude east and vertical axis latitude south.

Figure 116. Habitus, left lateral view of Rhyncomya viduella male SANC from South Africa; scale bar = 2 mm.