Campeprosopa flavipes Macquart, 1850

Mason, Franco & Nÿ, Rudolf Rozko Š, 2008, A review of the Oriental Campeprosopa species (Diptera: Stratiomyidae), Zootaxa 1794, pp. 49-64 : 53-59

Campeprosopa flavipes Macquart, 1850

( Figs 9–22 )

Campeprosopa flavipes Macquart, 1850: 350 .

Campeprosopa munda Osten Sacken, 1881: 409 , syn. nov.

Campeprosopa bella Edwards, 1919: 24 , syn. nov.

Campeprosopa pulchra Edwards, 1919: 25 , syn. nov. Campeprosopa ornata Edwards, 1919: 26 , syn. nov.

Type material: Campeprosopa flavipes : The female holotype is deposited in London ( BMNH) and labelled as follows: Campeprosopa flavipes Ψ BMNH, Type, Campeposopa flavipes Macq. , Java ex Bigot Coll. B. M. 1960-539, HOLOTYPE Campeprosopa flavipes Macquart det. J. E. Chainey 1982, HOLOTYPUS Campeprosopa flavipes Macq. F. Mason & R. Rozkošný des. 2007. Conditions of the holotype: both flagellomeres missing, body mainly glued, right leg missing, both scutellar spines missing.

Campeprosopa munda : 2 male syntypes are deposited in Genoa ( MCSNG), one is designated as lectotype here to fix up the proposed synonymy. It is labelled as follows: Sumatra Mte Singalang luglio 1878 O. Beccari, Campeprosopa munda O.S. (in handwriting by Osten-Sacken), SYNTYPUS Campeprosopa munda Osten-Sacken, 1881 (red label), Museo Civico di Genova, LECTOTYPUS Campeprosopa munda Osten- Sacken, 1881: 409 F. Mason & R. Rozkošný des. 2006 (red label). Condition: Both antennal flagella missing, scutellar spines and left wing partly broken, hind right leg missing. Terminalia in a microvial on the same pin.

Campeprosopa bella : Male holotype and female paratype in London (BMNH), holotype labelled: Campeprosopa bella Edw. , Type; Scolak Daras, W. Sumatra, 1914, Robinson & Kloss; SYNTYPE (sic!) Campeprosopa bella Edwards det. J. E. Chainey 1982, HOLOTYPUS Campeprosopa bella Edwards 1919: 24 , F. Mason & R. Rozkošný des. 2006 (red label). The original locality label Scolak Daras differs from the Edward´s description where Siolak Daras is recorded. J.E. Chainey apparently overlooked a note made by Edwards (1919: 25) that "the male specimen is to be regarded as the type " and designated both specimens as syntypes. However, the male was correctly interpreted as the holotype by Woodley (2001). Condition of the holotype: left flagellomere missing, right wing twisted. Female paratype with the same labels but not designated as “ Type ” by Edwards and with a red labelled: PARATYPE Campeprosopa bella Edwards 1919: 24 , F. Mason & R. Rozkošný des. 2006. Condition of the paratype: body laterally squashed.

Campeprosopa ornata : Female holotype is deposited in London (BMNH) and labelled: Campeprosopa ornata Edw. Type, Sungei Kumbang Korinchi, W. Sum. 4500 ft. April 1914, Robinson & Klos 1916 - 65. Holotype Campeprosopa ornata Edwards det. J. E. Chainey 1982. Condition: eyes laterally squashed, fore legs missing, hind right tarsus missing, left spine missing and right spine broken.

Campeprosopa pulchra : Male holotype is deposited in London (BMNH) and labelled: Type Campeprosopa pulchra Edw. (round label marginated with red), 1916-65 Scolak Daras W. Sumatra 1914, HOLOTYPE Campeprosopa pulchra Edwards det. J. Chainey 1982, HOLOTYPE Campeprosopa pulchra Edwards 1919: 25 , F. Mason & R. Rozkošný des. 2006.Condition: left flagellum missing as well as last 5 flagellomeres on the right flagellum, both scutellar spines partly broken.

Diagnosis: The frontal vitta is relatively narrow and subantennal prominence rather low in both sexes. The scutellar spines are barely twice as long as maximum length of the scutellum. The black hind tibia has sometimes a broad transverse yellow band beyond the middle and the basal two thirds of the hind basitarsus are usually black.

Description: Male ( Figs 9–14 ). Body length: 10.4–11.2 mm, wing length: 9.6–12.2 mm. Head ( Figs 9–10 ) almost round in profile though more straight posteriorly, only ocellar tubercle and relatively short subantennal prominence as well as narrow low postocular area protuberant above eye outline. Frontal vitta bluish shining black, in middle slightly broader than ocellar tubercle, frontal index 3.0. Postocular rim only narrow, often indistinct. Subantennal prominence barely longer than pedicel, subconical. Antenna (cf. Fig. 19 ) long, both basal antennal segments shining, scape brown and pedicell yellow. Pedicel only slightly longer than half length of scape, antennal index about 3.0, last flagellomere suboval, shorter than last but one, laterally flattened. Face below antennae flat, as broad as frontal vitta but slightly broadened downwards, metallic black and densely puncate. Lower part of postocular area slightly swollen, distinctly narrower than pedicel at base. Proboscis including labellae and palpi bright pale yellow. Head pile inconspicuous, short, erect and brown on Scales: 1.0 mm ( Figs 9–12 ), 0.1 mm ( Figs 13–14 ).

Thorax ( Fig. 11 ) dark, metallic bluish black, densely punctate, only greater part of anepisternum bare and shining. Other parts covered with appressed whitish hairs being somewhat longer on pleura. Pronotum broadly yellow in middle, postpronotal calli reddish brown. Scutellar spines somewhat upturned, 1.8–2.0 times as long as scutellum in medial line. Narrow posterior margin of scutellum and scutellar spines usually yellow to reddish brown. Thoracic pile short, appressed and almost golden yellow on scutum and scutellum, whitish on pleura.

Wing ( Fig. 11 ) with usual dense microtrichia in distal third and along posterior margin, central area around discal cell and basal third of wing chiefly bare and hyaline. Stigma brown. Distance between unusually oblique anterior crossvein and starting point of R2+3 distinctly longer than anterior crossvein. Last section of costa usually shorter than preceeding one. Discal cell distinctly dilated in basal part. M3 starting closer to M2 than CuA1. Narrow calypter pale yellow, halter bright yellow.

Legs ( Fig.12 ) yellow with dark brown to black pattern. Fore leg including coxa yellow, only tarsus beginning of basitarsal tip darkened. Mid leg likewise pale but mid tibia usually more brownish. Hind coxa predominantly black, hind femur dark brown to black in distal third. Hind tibia black with submedial broad transverse band yellow. Hind basitarsus dark in basal two thirds and yellow in apical third as following tarsomeres. Only last tarsomere contrastingly black. Colour of pile on leg mostly corresponding with ground collour. Hairs on legs inconspicuous, mostly appressed, slightly longer on ventral surface of tibiae and tarsi, somewhat elongated on last tarsomere apico-dorsally.

Abdomen ( Fig. 11 ) elongated, almost parallel-sided, nearly 4.0 times as long as broad, black with metallic bluish shade, but narrow lateral margin and segments 2 and 3 predominantly yellow with a dark pattern consisting of two pairs of dorsolateral patches, usually subtriangular on tergite 2 and suboblong on tergite 3. Sternite 1 narrowly yellow along poterior margin and sternite 2 and 3 entirely yellow. Abdominal pile chiefly short black and appressed dorsally and more whitish basally, laterally and ventrally.

Male terminalia ( Figs 13–14 ) ochre yellow. Dorsal part as in other species of genus, relatively densely and long haired. Genital capsule ( Fig. 13 ) with a large and apically rounded, subconical medial process, gonostylus markedly broadened in distal half (in caudal view) and with a short lobe in middle of inner side. Inner side with a row of long and strong setae. Phallic complex ( Fig. 14 ) bipartite, slihgthly dilated apically and with flattened basal third.

Female ( Figs 15–22 ). Body length: 9.4–14.4 mm, wing length: 9.3–14.5 mm. Very similar to male but frontal vitta ( Fig. 16 ) somewhat broader and subantennal prominence ( Fig. 15 ) usually somewhat longer and stouter. Frontal vitta in middle nearly twice as broad as ocellar tubercle (frontal index 2.2), with short lines consistiting of whitish toment along eye margin in lower third. Postocular rim somewhat swollen, at upper inner eye angle usually as broad as lateral ocellus and abruptly tapered laterad. Conical subantennal prominence as in male or indistictly longer. Antenna ( Fig. 19 ) as in male, scape almost twice as long as pedicel. Flagellum 3.0–3.3 times as long as both basal antennal segments combined. Last flagellomere subconical, barely longer than half length of preceding flagellomere, flattened laterally. Scutellar spines less upturned than in male but of same length. Anterior crossvein oblique as in male, slightly sinuate. Dark pattern on hind legs ( Fig. 18 ) resembling that in the typical form of C. flavipes . Last tarsomere of hind leg usually much paler than in male, barely brownish. Abdomen ( Fig.17 ) somewhat broader in middle, usually 2.7–3.0 times longer than broad and both pairs of dark patches on abdominal tergites 2 and 3 more rounded.

Female terminalia ( Figs 20–22 ): Both segments of cerci subequal ( Fig. 21 ). Frame of genital furca ( Fig. 22 ) somewhat more massive than in C. longispina , posterolateral projections shorter and stouter. Middle aperture usually smaller.

Variation. Among 121 examined specimens of both sexes a considerable variation was recorded especially as regards the colour pattern of the hind leg. From this viewpoint, essentially 6 colour forms may be distinguished: (1) the form typica corresponds with the original description of C. flavipes ; it is characterized by the hind femur darkened in the apical third, the dark hind tibia with a contrasting yellow submedian transverse band, the black basal 2/3 of hind basitarsus and the yellow following tarsomeres, though the last tarsomere is usually black in the males; (2) the form flavitarsis displays the entirely black hind tibia and the completely yellow hind tarsi; (3) the form nigritibia shows the same pattern as the form typica but the hind tibia is entirely black; (4) the form intermedia is characterized by the different darkening of 2–4 distal tarsomeres of the hind leg in both sexes and additional pattern as in typica; (5) the form munda possesses the entirely black hind tibia and tarsus and (6) the form transversa is as dark as munda but a yellow submedial band on the hind tibia may be more or less distinct. Independently on this variation also the extent of the darkening of the fore and mid tibia and basitarsus may vary and the bases of the hind femur may be darkened in a different extent. The usually yellow scutellar margin may be reduced, a cloud on the wing apex may be more or less distinct and the shape of the dark paired patches on abdominal tergites 2 and 3 may be more angulate or rounded.

Synonymies. Despite the extensive variability commented above, we believe that all these forms belong only to C. flavipes . The majority of these colour forms was well known to earlier dipterists and e.g. the famous Dutch dipterist J.C.H. de Meijere identified even the extreme forms only as “ flavipes “ in 1925–1926 as may be documented by the extensive material from ZMAN. Moreover, many forms occur within the same populations collected e.g. in Sumatra (Singalang Mt.) or Java (Preanger) and even a set of transitorial “subforms” was proved. According to the present knowledge the all newly defined valid species are allopatric and each of them displays a well separated distribution area.

It is thus quite clear that the new synonyms proposed here represent only colour variants of C. flavipes . Such a conclusion is also supported by the identical shape of the male terminalia as far as the males of individual forms were available.

Campeprosopa munda is based on the two male specimens which represent the form designated with the same name here. The hind tibia and the entire hind tarsus are completely black. The type locality is Singalang Mt. on Sumatra, where virtually all other forms were collected among 27 specimens captured from June to August 1925 by E. Jacobson (in ZMAN).

Campeprosopa bella is based on a pair of specimens which have the hind tibia virtually entirely dark, though there is “a very indistict dark reddish-brown band beyond the middle” ( Edwards 1919: 25). Campeprosopa bella represents thus a transitorial form between the forms typica and nigritibia.

The female holotype of C. ornata resembles the nigritibia form but also the basal third of hind femur is darkened and the black part of the hind basitarsus is reduced to the basal third only. The wing apex is intensively infuscated.

The male holotype of C. pulchra is virtually identical with the munda form, only basitarsi of the fore and mid legs are more extensively yellow, the posterior margin of the scutellum is completely black, not narrowly yellow. The type locality (Siolak Daras) is identical with that of C. bella and even Edwards did not exclude in the original description that “ C. bella and C. pulchra may both eventually prove to be varieties of C. munda ”.

Additional material examined: Indonesia: Sumatra: 1 Ψ without further data, in MSNM; 1 ɗ without further data, in ZMAN. Singalang Mt., 1600 m, viii.1925 2 Ψ; 1800 m, 16. vi.1925 1 Ψ, 15. vii.1925 1 ɗ, 3 Ψ, vii.1925 10 ɗ, 5 Ψ, viii.1925 2 ɗ, 1925 1 ɗ, 2 Ψ; Art Njruk, Dempu, 15. ix.1916 1 ɗ, Tanangtalu, 1 Ψ; Fort de Kock, 920 m, 1924 2 ɗ, 15. vi.1925 1 ɗ, 1925 1 ɗ; Tandj, Andalas, without date 1 ɗ, v. 1914 2 ɗ; Sungai Kumbang, ix. 1915 2 ɗ, 2 Ψ, 15. xi.1915 1 Ψ; Anei Kloof, 500 m, 1926 1 Ψ; all E. Jacobson, in ZMAN. Java, 1 ɗ, without collector; 1 ɗ, 1 Ψ, E. Jacobson, all in ZMAN. Nongkodjadjar, i.1911 2 Ψ, ii.1911 3 ɗ, E. Jacobson, in ZMAN. Preanger, 14–21. xii.1937 3 ɗ, 31. xii.1937 3 ɗ, 4 Ψ, 27.x–3. xi.1941 1 ɗ, 25. xi.1937 1 Ψ, 31. xii.1937 1 Ψ, all J.M.A. Groenendael, in ZMAN. Preanger, Patocha Mt., 15. ii.1937 1 ɗ; Preanger, Prahooe, Tangkoeoan Mt., 4000–5000 m, 7. xi.1928 1 Ψ, both F.C. Drescher, in ZMAN. Ordjoeng, Gentong Bay, ix. 1936 2 ɗ; without date, 1 ɗ; Bibidjilan Mts., Djampangs, 15. xi.1906 1 Ψ, ix.1936 2 Ψ; Wynkoopsbay, 15. ii.1937 2 ɗ, ii.1937 1 ɗ, 2 Ψ; all without collector, all in IRSN. Djampang Tengah, 27. iii.1939 2 ɗ, 4– 6. v.1939 1 Ψ, 15. v.1939 1 ɗ, 24. i.1940 2 ɗ, 4 Ψ; Djampang Tengah, Soekabomi, 27. iii.1937 1 ɗ; Djampangh Tengah, Tjimerang, 8.–10. iv.1939 1 ɗ, 1 Ψ, 15. v.1939 1 ɗ; Bogor, 6. v.1939 1 ɗ; Banten Tjimadoer, 9. xi.1939 1 ɗ; all J.M.A. Groenendael, in ZMAN; Pangerango, 15. x.1908 1 ɗ, x.1908 3 ɗ, E. Jacobson, 1 ɗ without date and collector, in ZMAN; Botoerraden, Slamat Mt., 1. v.1928 1 ɗ, 5 Ψ, 13. vi.1928 2 Ψ, 14. vi.1928 1 ɗ, 29. vii.1928 1 Ψ, 21. x.1928 1 Ψ, all F.C. Drescher, in ZMAN. W Priangan, 1800 ft, 15.v.1933 –15. xii.1934 1 Ψ, v–vii. 1933–1934 1 Ψ, 1933–1939 1 Ψ, vii. 1935 1 Ψ, 27.x–3. xi.1941 1 ɗ, J.M.A. Groenendalen, in ZMAN. Tjiajoean, Soekanegara, 30. x.1941 2 Ψ, J.M.A. Groenendael, in ZMAN. Tjiobodas, Gede Mt., 15. vi.1909 1 Ψ, Briaret & Palmes, in USNM. Soekaboemi, 1 Ψ, in FSMU; 1 Ψ, in ZMAN.

Geographical distribution ( Fig. 44 ): Thailand: Patani, Bukit Besar ( Brunetti 1923 sub C. bella ). Indonesia: Java ( Macquart 1850), Sukabumi (de Meijere 1907), Pangerango, Nongkodjadjar ( Brunetti 1923), Preanger Regency, Papandajan ( Brunetti 1927), Telaga Warna ( Lindner 1935) and material examined (see above). Sumatra: Singalang Mt. (Osten-Sacken 1881 sub C. munda ), Soekaranda ( Enderlein 1914, sub C. munda ), Scolak Daras = Siolak Daras ( Edwards 1919 sub C. bella and C. pulchra ), Korinchi, Sungai Kumbang ( Edwards 1919 sub C. ornata ) and material examined (see above).

Figures

FIGURE 44. Distributional map of the Campeprosopa species: C. borneensis, C. flavipes (some markings in the areas with accumulated collecting sites may represent 3 – 5 closely placed localities), C. longispina.

FIGURES 9 – 14. Campeprosopa flavipes, male. 9. Head in lateral view. 10. Head in frontal view. 11. Body and wing in dorsal view. 12. Left hind leg. 13. Genital capsule. 14. Phallic complex.

FIGURES 15 – 22. Campeprosopa flavipes, female. 15. Head in lateral view. 16. Head in frontal view. 17. Body in dorsal view. 18. Left hind leg. 19. Antenna. 20. Subgenital plate. 21. Terminalia in dorsal view. 22. Genital furca. Scales: 1.0 mm (Figs 15 – 19), 0, 1 mm (Figs 20 – 22).