Hypselothyrea brevipennis DE MEIJERE, 1906

Papp, L., 2003, New Species And Records Of Hypselothyrea De Meijere (Diptera, Drosophilidae), Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 49 (4), pp. 271-294 : 274-275

Hypselothyrea brevipennis DE MEIJERE, 1906

DE MEIJERE 1906: 195.

Material studied ( HNHM): holotype female: double mounted through a 10×5× 1.2 mm Sambucus-like bricklet, minuten covered by and transferred into FeS (?Ag 2 S) crystals, the original hole of minuten 4 mm deep, dark, the minuten was broken, the specimen repinned into bricklet behind the original hole; right wing on a white label pinned under the specimen, which is without head and abdomen, also hind legs lost and all setae broken .

Labels on holotype: 1) [printed card, 11× 4 mm] Sattelberg Huon Golf [on reverse side] “IX. 25.”; 2) [printed card, 10× 4 mm] N. Guinea, Biró 1898, 3) [grey paper, 5× 4 mm] “4” (a collection label of Biró or of the HNHM; an additional label between 3) and 4), printed number, 39, I think it as an identity label of DE MEIJERE during his studies; 4) [dirty white paper, 20* 9 mm, handwriting of DE MEIJERE] “ Hypselothyrea brevipennis de Meij. Type. de Meij. det.05.”; 5) [red margined Holotypus label of the HNHM, without writing] .

Wing length 1.31 mm, wing breadth 0.485 mm.

Another, topotypic female was found in the HNHM (rusty needle, double mounted in a Sambucus-like bricklet of 12×9× 5 mm with rusty minuten; specimen without head, left wing and left hind leg): labels 1) – 3) as on the holotype; the last one is obviously a collection label referring to the same locality as of the type, 4) [dirty white paper, 18× 10 mm, handwriting of DUDA] “ Hypselothyrea brevipennis de Meij. f d. Duda”, 5) [yellow paper, 15× 8 mm, handwriting of DUDA] “l. Flügel photogr.” .

There is a third pin in the HNHM, which is obviously a head of this species. Labels 1)–3) as above, 4) “ Hypselothyrea brevipennis f det. Duda” (DUDA’ s handwriting, i.e. labelled by DUDA, which emerges a mystery, since labels 1) and 2) were printed in Budapest).

The head may belong to any of the two specimens. This head is without setae and left antennae and glued massively on a plastic (celluloide) label. Right antenna with 6 dorsal and 3 ventral long aristal rays, frontal shield granulose. As a matter of course, I cannot decide whether the holotype specimen is a male or a female (cf. BÄCHLI 1984 b: 30).

OKADA (1980) did not see the type of this species and some of its characters were erroneously given there. This is why I add some additional features here.

I was able to detect only the posterior pair of dorsocentrals. Mesonotum microgranulose, mat, dark graphite-grey. Scutellum comparatively small, upright. Legs not unicolorous, as stated by OKADA: fore coxa, basal half of fore femur, basal 3/5 of mid and hind femora, whole mid tibia, mid and hind tarsi yellow, fore tarsus (except for the dark base of metatarsus) whitish, apical half of fore femur, apical2/5ofmidandhindfemoraandforetibiadark;righttibiaofthesecondspecimen is brown. Wing patterned (see fig. 4 of DUDA (1928)): dark brown with 3 light transverse bands consisting of 3 confluent light spots each, Cx 3.0 or so, 2.95 on holotype.

OKADA’ s (1980) key is improper to identify this species, which is otherwise a very distinct one.