Poecilosomella borborus, Papp, 2002

Papp, L., 2002, Eighteen New Oriental Species Of Poecilosomella Duda (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae), Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 48 (2), pp. 107-156 : 119-120

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.12587600

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12587750

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/5B5787B6-5F78-FFE1-4028-78D0FEF8354B

treatment provided by

Felipe

scientific name

Poecilosomella borborus
status

sp. nov.

Poecilosomella borborus View in CoL sp. n.

( Figs 6–9 View Figs 6–9 )

Holotype male ( ROM): PHILIPPINES, Negros , Oriental: Cuernos de Negros, 7 km W. Valencia, 8–15 JUL 1987. DC Darling,E. Mayordo. ROM 873062 – 1 About ROM ° rainforest edge, 700 m, Malaise w/pans.

Paratypes: 1 female ( ROM): same as for holotype ; 1 male ( HNHM): ibid., 29 JUN – 8 JUL 1987. ROM 873061 About ROM .

Measurements in mm: body length 2.08 (holotype), 2.10, 1.90 (paratype male/female), wing length 2.13 (holotype), 2.15, 2.05 (paratypes), wing width 1.02 (holotype), 1.07, 0.92 (paratypes).

Body features, incl. wing and armature of mid tibia, are the same as in P. borboroides ( WALKER, 1860) .

Male abdominal sternite 5 ( Fig. 9 View Figs 6–9 ) asymmetrical, medial hairs similar as in P. borboroides but thick black spinules seem more evenly set. Subepandrial sclerite ( Fig. 6 View Figs 6–9 ) with longer and less broad ventral process than in P. borboroides . Apical part of surstylus ( Fig. 7 View Figs 6–9 ) caudally with 4 thick black teeth, whose size and position are different from those of P. borboroides . Postgonite ( Fig. 8 View Figs 6–9 ) very broad, strongly narrowing and curved apically but apex not definitely demarcated.

Etymology: The specific epithet of this species is borborus , for its very close relation to borboroides .

Distribution: Philippines.

This species is not distinguishable from P. borboroides except on the characteristics of the male postabdomen and genitalia. That is, I cannot differentiate between females. However, males are different in all four morphological parts depicted on Figs 6–9 View Figs 6–9 vs 1–5, i.e. there is no doubt about their identity as different species.

ROM

Royal Ontario Museum

HNHM

Hungarian Natural History Museum (Termeszettudomanyi Muzeum)

Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF