Chagasia rozeboomi Causey, Deane & Deane, 1944

Harbach, Ralph E. & Howard, Theresa M., 2009, Review of the genus Chagasia (Diptera: Culicidae: Anophelinae), Zootaxa 2210, pp. 1-25 : 17-18

Chagasia rozeboomi Causey, Deane & Deane, 1944

rozeboomi Causey, Deane & Deane, 1944: 3 (E*), syntypes E (non-existent): Loando, near Crato, Ceará, Brazil (see Causey et al., 1945: 341; invalid restriction to vicinity of São Benedito by Belkin et al., 1971: 2, 31).

Diagnosis. The adults of Ch. rozeboomi are distinguished from those of other species of Chagasia as follows: front of anterior promontory with white or yellowish scales contiguous with white dorsocentral scales (distinction from Ch. ablusa , Ch. bathana and Ch. bonneae ); acrostichal scales pale anteriorly, dark posteriorly (as in Fig. 3 B) (distinction from Ch. bathana and Ch. bonneae ); without pale scales on mesal margin of supraalar scales; wing entirely dark-scaled (unique); hindtibia without semi-erect clusters of dark scales (as in Fig. 4 B) (distinction from Ch. ablusa , Ch. bathana and Ch. bonneae ); hindtarsomeres 2–5 without postbasal dark band (distinction from Ch. bathana ), basal pale band of hindtarsomere 2 moderately long, 2.50–2.63 length of apical dark band (mean = 2.57), hindtarsomere 5 with apical dark band ( Fig. 5 E) (distinction from Ch. bonneae ). Males have two stout specialised seta on the dorsomesal prominence of the gonocoxite (distinction from Ch. ablusa ) and fine setae on the claspette (distinctions from Ch. bathana and Ch. bonneae ). The development of setae 5-, 7- and 11-C and seta 2-P readily distinguish larvae of Ch. rozeboomi from larvae of the other Chagasia species. These setae are noticeably shorter, seta 5-C is shorter than half the distance between its insertion and the insertion of seta 4-C, seta 2-P has uniquely thickened and truncated secondary branches that arise from the ends of the primary branches and seta 11-C is less than half as long as seta 13-C and the antenna. Pupae have no diagnostic features but they differ from pupae of Ch. bonneae in lacking a ligulate process on the rim of the trumpet.

Etymology. The derivation of the specific name is not mentioned in the publication in which this species was originally described based on eggs ( Causey et al., 1944), but the authors clearly state in a second paper ( Causey et al., 1945) that the species was named in honour of Lloyd E. Rozeboom. The late Prof. Rozeboom was a renowned medical entomologist at Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Discussion. The affinity of this species with Ch. ablusa and Ch. fajardi is indicated by the ornamentation of the adults and the structure of male genitalia. It is immediately distinguished from the other species of Chagasia by the reduced cranial setae of the larva.

Distribution. Brazil. The occurrence of Ch. rozeboomi in Bolivia indicated on the map reproduced as figure 8I in Gabaldon & Cova-Garcia (1952) is unsubstantiated.

Material examined. Fourteen specimens: BRAZIL, Bahia, Bomfim (23); Ceará, Crato (2Ƥ, 13, 2Le, 1Pe, 1L), unknown locality (1Ƥ); Minas Gerais, Rio Doce (2Ƥ, 23).

Literature. Causey et al., 1945: 341–349 ( Brazil, 3* Ƥ* E* L* P*); Causey et al., 1946: 25, Fig. 3 ( Brazil, 3*); Deane, L.M. et al., 1946: 9, 16, Figs 58, 60, 63, 63a ( Brazil, Ƥ*); Deane, M.P. et al., 1946a: 40, 44, Figs 18, 20, 23 ( Brazil, L*); Deane, M.P. et al., 1946b: 360, 366, Figs 18, 20, 23 ( Brazil, L*, identification); Deane, L.M. et al., 1948: 831, 832, 931–932, 933, 937, 945, 946, 947, 949, 951, 953 ( Brazil, bionomics); Rachou, 1948: 715–717 ( Brazil, distribution, L identification); Levi-Castillo, 1951: 79 (list); Gabaldon & Cova-Garcia, 1952: 179, 198, 199, Fig. 8I ( Brazil, not Bolivia); Lane, 1953: 140, 143–144 ( Brazil, 3 Ƥ E* L* P); Horsfall, 1955: 41 (distribution, L, bionomics); Senevet, 1958: 9 (catalogue); Stone et al., 1959: 10 (catalogue); Villanueva Rodriguez, 1961: 217, 218 (distribution); Forattini, 1962: 306, 468 (distribution, A,L keys); Forattini et al., 1970: 20 ( Brazil, collection); Belkin et al., 1971: 2 31 (type data); Knight & Stone, 1977: 68 (catalogue); Neves & Pedersoli, 1976: 551 ( Brazil, Ƥ, bionomics); Peyton, 1993 (mention); Guimarães, 1997: 30 (catalogue); Forattini, 2002: 194, 195, 241 (A, L, distribution).

Figures

FIGURE 3. Scutum (dorsal view) of (A) Chagasia bonneae and (B) Ch. fajardi. The acrostichal scales (red arrows) are entirely pale in Ch. bonneae and dark posteriorly in Ch. fajardi (some scales have been lost in specimen shown); pale para-supraalar scales (yellow arrows), absent in the former species, are often present in the latter species. Note that the dorsocentral scales on the anterior promontory are distinctly yellow in Ch. bonneae but more or less unicolorous with the other dorsocentral scales in Ch. fajardi.

FIGURE 4. Hindtibia (anterior view) of (A) Chagasia ablusa and (B) Ch. fajardi showing the presence and absence of semi-erect clusters of dark scales, respectively.

FIGURE 5. Hindtarsus (anterior view) of (A) Chagasia bathana, (B) Ch. bonneae, (C) Ch. fajardi, (D) Ch. ablusa and (E) Ch. rozeboomi.