Zelia picta ( Bigot, 1889 ), 2024
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5419.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:216B42C5-A00F-45AE-9524-D055D777B088 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10786235 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/102DE926-FFEB-1C62-0CE0-4165FC539E2F |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Zelia picta ( Bigot, 1889 ) |
status |
|
Zelia picta ( Bigot, 1889) View in CoL
( Fig. 10 View FIGURE 10 )
Rhamphinina picta Bigot, 1889: 265 View in CoL . References: Brauer (1897: 359, taxonomic placement, close to Stomatodexia Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889 View in CoL or Leptoda View in CoL ); Austen (1907: 343, discussion on the taxonomic status of R. picta View in CoL , close resemblance with Dexia potens View in CoL ).
Zelia picta ( Bigot, 1889) View in CoL . References: Guimarães (1971: 103, new combination, considered as “unrecognized”); O’Hara et al. (2020: 85, checklist of World Tachinidae View in CoL ).
Type material examined. Holotype ♂: ‘ Holo- /type;’ ‘ Rhamphinina picta /Type’; ‘ R. Picta ♂ / Rhamphinina J. Bigot. / Mexique? Cuba. J. Bigot’ ‘ Cuba./Ex coll. Bigot./ Pres. by/ G.H. Verrall,/ Oct. 1904 / 1904-274’; ‘BMNH (E) #/ 230974’; ‘ NHMUK 013933626’.
The following note was attached to this holotype: ‘Original label in Bigot’s hand-/writing placed below this speci-/men in the Bigot collection./ E. E. Austen, 8.XII.04’
Additional material examined. Dominican Republic [as West Indies ]: Santo Domingos , 1 male, ex. coll. Saunders; 2 males ( NHMUK) ; Haiti: 6 males, ex. Bigot collection ( NHMUK) .
Diagnosis. Eye bare. Facial carina undeveloped. Head entirely silvery pruinose. Postpedicel blackish. Lower facial margin protruding, visible in profile. Scutum with four dark vittae. Katepisternum with 2+1 setae. Wing hyaline. Similar to Z. angusta on abdominal characters, but it can be differentiated by: interrupted median brown longitudinal vitta (that forms a triangle) on syntergite 1+2 to tergite 5; posterior margin of tergites 1+2 to 4 brownish black, increasing in extension along the tergites; tergite 5 light brown mid-dorsally. Abdominal tergite 3 with two discal setae increasing in size anteriorly.
Redescription. Male. Body length: 12.1 mm.
Coloration ( Fig. 10 View FIGURE 10 ). Frontal vitta and ocellar triangle dark brown to black. Head with silvery pruinosity, but gena brownish black. Occiput with long and silver to golden setulae. Postpedicel brownish black, but proximal 1/6 brownish orange. Palpus brownish black, but apical region yellow-tawny. Thorax brown to dark brown with silver pruinosity; scutum with four dark vittae, in prescutum the two inner vittae are thinner than the outer, in postscutum, the inner vittae is half the length of the outer, neither reaching the scutellum. Scutellum light brown, with silver pruinosity posteriorly. Wing hyaline, slightly light brown along the veins. Calypteres hyaline. Halter yellow-tawny. Posterior spiracle brownish black. Legs brown to tawny, but silver pruinosity on coxae, and ventrally on femur; tarsi darker. Claws brown, pulvilli yellow. Abdomen pale yellow, with interrupted median brown longitudinal vitta (that forms a triangle) on syntergite 1+2 to tergite 5; posterior margin of tergites 1+2 to 4 brownish black, increasing in extension along the tergites; tergite 5 reddish black; silver pruinosity on 1/6 of anterior margin in tergites 1+2 to 4, tergite 5, except for the reddish black vitta, entirely silver pruinose.
Head ( Fig. 10 View FIGURE 10 ). Vertex about 0.17x head width in dorsal view. Frontal vitta, in the narrowest point, equal to or wider than ocellar triangle. Fronto-orbital plate with 14–15 pairs of proclinate setae; narrower than frontal vitta and parafacial. Width of parafacial measured between inner margin of compound eye and antennal insertion is 0.5x the width of gena. Postpedicel slender, 2x the combined length of scape and pedicel; longer than the dorsal, longest cilia ca. 8x basal width of arista. Facial ridge with two to three setulae on lower third. Lower facial margin protruding, visible in profile. Eye about 0.72x the head height. Gena about 0.31x eye height. Vibrissa long, inserted above lower facial margin. Prementum as long as palpus. Labella developed, little longer than 0.5x the prementum.
Thorax ( Fig. 10A, C View FIGURE 10 ). Acrostichals 2+2. Dorsocentral 3+4. Intra-alar 1+2; intra-postalar absent. Supra-alar 2+3, first postsutural weak. Postpronotal lobe with four setae, three forming an anterior row and one posterior. Anepisternum with four strong setae and with one upward directed setulae anteriorly. Scutellum with one basal, one lateral, one apical and one discal pairs of setae. Katepisternum with 2+1 setae. Anepimeron with one long setae. Postalar callus with 3 setae. Legs. Fore coxa with many setae anteriorly; fore femur with dorsal and posteroventral rows of setae; fore tibia with 3 anterodorsal setae on apical third, 1 posteroventral seta on median third, 3 preapicals, 2 anteriors and 1 posteroventral. Mid femur with one anterodorsal seta on median third, mid tibia with 2 posterodrosal setae on median third, 5 preapicals, 2 anterodorsals and 3 posteorventrals. Hind femur with three anteroventral setae on basal half and three ventral setae on basal half and with row of anterodorsal setae; 3 anterodorsal setae on medina third posterodorsal preapical seta; hind tibia with two anterodorsal and 1 posterodorsal on median third, 1 posteroventral seta on distal third, 3 preapicals on anterodorsal surface.
Abdomen ( Fig. 10A, C View FIGURE 10 ). Syntergite 1+2 with a pair of lateral marginal setae. Tergite 3 with two pairs of discal setae increasing in size anteriorly, one median marginal seta and one lateral pairs of marginal setae. Tergite 4 with two discal setae and a marginal row of setae. Tergite 5 with one pair of discal setae and two rows of marginal setae. Tergite 5 slightly pointed apically. Terminalia. Not dissected.
Female. Unknown.
Biology. Unknown.
Distribution. Cuba, Dominican Republic (Santo Domingos, new record), Haiti (new record).
Remarks. Guimarães (1971) mistakenly referred to Aldrich (1929) as the source of the new combination of Z. picta . Thus, the new combination of R. picta as belonging to Zelia was due to Guimarães entry of genus Zelia in his catalogue.
NHMUK |
Natural History Museum, London |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Zelia picta ( Bigot, 1889 )
Santis, Marcelo Domingos De, O’Hara, James E. & Couri, Márcia Souto 2024 |
Zelia picta ( Bigot, 1889 )
Guimaraes, J. H. 1971: 103 |
Rhamphinina picta Bigot, 1889: 265
Austen, E. E. 1907: 343 |
Brauer, F. 1897: 359 |
Bigot, J. - M. - F. 1889: 265 |