Calodia neofusca sp. nov.

Figs.1 F–G, 4 F–G, 7 F–G, E, 10 A, 11 A–D, 19 A–H.

Male. Deep piceous throughout. Crown pale yellow. Eyes silvery white, ocelli transparent. Forewing piceous with narrow flavous band along costal margin, venation light brown. Apices of hind femur, tibiae and tarsomere black, macrosetae on hind tibiae dark brown to light brown (Figs. 1 F, 4 F, 7 F).

Female. Similar in coloration to male but paler (Figs. 1 G, 4 G, 7 G). Seventh sternite slightly convex medially (Fig. 10 A).

Male genitalia. Pygofer without caudoventral process, small lobe on caudodorsal margin (Fig. 19 H). Subgenital plate long, broad medially, with small hair-like setae on outer lateral margin (Fig. 19 E). Style short and broad at base, blunt at apex (Fig. 19 F). Connective as long as wide at base (Fig. 19 G). Aedeagus slightly curved dorsally at apex in lateral view, with two subapical spine-like processes, distal process arising from lateral margin and directed basad and without secondary spines, proximal one with numerous long secondary spines throughout; gonopore small, subapical, arising distad of proximal process (Figs. 19 A–D).

Female genitalia. Valvula I, in lateral view, with apex acute; dorsal sculptured area confined to distal 1/3 (Figs. 11 A–B). Valvula II, somewhat sinuate in lateral view, toothed area occupying apical 1/3 (11 C–D).

Measurements. Male 8.1–8.2 mm long, 2.1 mm wide across eyes and 2.4 mm wide across posterolateral angles of pronotum. Female 8.6 mm long, 2.1 mm wide across eyes and 2.3 mm wide across poserolateral angles of pronotum.

Material examined. HOLOTYPE ♂, INDIA: Karnataka: Chettalli, 5.v.2011, at Mercury vapour lamp, N. M. Meshram Coll. (NPC) . Paratypes: Kerala: 1♂, Nelliampathy, 11.v.2011, Piper nigrum, N. M. Meshram Coll. (NPC) ; Karnataka: 5♂, Makuta, iv.2005, Vateria indica canopy, Y.B. Srinivasa ; 3♀, Chikkamagalur, Malayamarutha, 12.v.2011, sweepnet, ex Ziziphus mauritiana, Yeshwanth, H.M .; 1♂, Jog Falls, 9.v.1976, B. Mallik (USAB) .

Etymology. The species name is descriptive for its superficial resemblance to C. fusca (Melichar) .

Remarks. This species closely resembles C. fusca in the structure of the male genitalia but can be easily distinguished by the presence of numerous long spines in the distal ¾ of the proximal process of the aedeagus (Fig.19 B) compared to only distal ½ in C. fusca (Fig. 14 F). The subgenital plate lacks an apical spine in C. neofusca (Fig. 19 E) but a spine is present in C. fusca .