Sarcophaga (Heteronychia) chiquita (Peris, González-Mora & Mingo, 1998)

(Figs 49–50)

Heteronychia (Heteronychia) chiquita Peris, González-Mora & Mingo, 1998: 176 .

Heteronychia (Heteronychia) morenita Peris, González-Mora & Mingo, 1998: 177, syn. nov.

Type material examined. Heteronychia (Heteronychia) chiquita: Paratype 3: Spain, Zaragoza / Pina de Ebro / 18.9.1990. / leg. J.B. Zumeta // Heteronychia (s. str.) / chiquita Peris, González-Mora & / Mingo, 1998 / Peris & González-Mora det. 1998 / Paratipo 3 (UCME) [terminalia dissected and placed in glycerin in a microvial pinned beneath the source specimen; rest of abdomen missing].

Heteronychia (Heteronychia) morenita: Holotype 3: [Spain] Moron / (Sevilla) / 11-V-68 // [blank red label] // Heteronychia (s. str.) / morenita Peris, González-Mora & / Mingo, 1998 / Peris & González-Mora det. 1998 / Holotipo 3 (UCME) [terminalia dissected and placed in glycerin in a microvial pinned beneath the source specimen]. Paratype 3: Spain, Maranchon, Guadalajara, S.V. Peris (NHRS).

Additional material examined. Spain: Catalunya, Barcelona, Pruit, 15 km S Olot, 30 km W Girona, 900m, 4.VII.1997, C. Lange & J. Ziegler leg., 1 3 (NHRS); Lerida, Tremp, 1–12.VII.1981, V. Michelsen leg., 1 3 (ZMUC); Malgrat de Mar, 2–24.VI.1996, D. Povolný leg., 4 3 (MMBC); Malaga, nr. botanical garden, 25.III.1997, Zelený leg., 1 3 (ZMUC); Zaragoza, Pina de Ebro, 18.IX.1990, J.B. Zumeta leg, 1 3 (NHRS) [possibly a paratype of Heteronychia chiquita (although not labelled as such); terminalia dissected and glued to a slip of card beneath specimen].

Remarks. The name of this species was already used in the above combination by Pape et al. (2002). Peris et al. (1998) based their description of Heteronychia chiquita upon the holotype male and four male paratypes, all deposited at UCME. Even though I did not examine the holotype of H. chiquita, comparison of type specimens of both taxa and evidence from the original descriptions and illustrations strongly support the above synonymy. Peris et al. (1998) did not directly compare the two species in their discussion but separated them, in their key to the ancilla -group, mainly because of the different colour of the epandrium (black in S. chiquita, red in S. morenita), a character showing some degree of intraspecific variability in Heteronychia . Comparing the original illustrations (Peris et al. 1998: figs 11–12), one can find differences in the shape of the cercus and distiphallus; however, the shape of the cercus (Fig. 49) is rather variable in the specimens examined and the main difference in the distiphallus, i.e. the absence of lateral juxtal appendages in H. morenita, was rejected by ESEM images (Fig. 50, holotype of H. morenita), where juxtal appendages are clearly visible.

Peris et al. (1998) provided two original spellings for Heteronychia morenita: “ morenita ” (in the abstract, the key to the ancilla -group and original combination) and “ moronita ” (in the caption to fig. 12). They also mentioned that the species was named after the type locality, “Morón” (= Morón de la Fronteira, confirmed also by the original label). However, “ morenita ” was selected by First Reviser action of González-Mora and Peris in Pape et al. (2002) (see Art. 24.2.4 of the Code, I.C.Z.N. 1999) and must be considered as the correct original spelling.