identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03B2FD6DFFA1FFF8191B7A5B5233FB51.text	03B2FD6DFFA1FFF8191B7A5B5233FB51.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sphyracephala bipunctipennis (Senior-White 1922)	<div><p>Sphyracephala bipunctipennis (Senior-White, 1922)</p><p>(Figs 2, 4)</p><p>Teleopsis bipunctipennis Senior-White, 1922: 165, pl. 13, fig. 1 (♂ holotype, 7♀ 4♂ paratypes from Sri Lanka, Suduganga River, Indiganga, on leaves of Liliacrans [sic!] plant, 10.viii.1919 (BMNH)); Descamps 1957: 19; Steyskal 1972: 11.</p><p>Pseudodiopsis bipunctipennis (Senior-White): Shillito 1940: 150; Steyskal 1977: 35.</p><p>Sphyracephala bipunctipennis (Senior-White): Feijen 1989: 67, 1998: 50.</p><p>Distribution: India (Tamil Nadu), Sri Lanka.</p><p>Remarks: Feijen (1989) placed this species in the Sphyracephala detrahens species-group. Three specimens were examined from Tamil Nadu, Burlier, 38 km S Ooty, 19.xi.2000, I. Yarom (SMNHTAU). This forms the first record for India. Recently, specimens were received from Bhutan that look conspecific, but study of the genitalia is still required for confirmation. Meier and Hilger (2000) reported S. bipunctipennis from Thailand, while Baker et al. (2001) reported S. bipunctipennis from Peninsular Malaysia. However, their specimens could well represent undescribed species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B2FD6DFFA1FFF8191B7A5B5233FB51	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Feijen, Hans R.;Feijen, Cobi;O., P.	Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi, O., P. (2019): An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani. Israel Journal of Entomology 49 (2): 35-72, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3349984, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3349984
03B2FD6DFFA0FFFB194F7B8255AFFD15.text	03B2FD6DFFA0FFFB194F7B8255AFFD15.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sphyracephala hearseiana (Westwood 1845)	<div><p>Sphyracephala hearseiana (Westwood, 1845)</p><p>(Figs 3, 5)</p><p>Diopsis hearseiana Westwood, 1845: 274 (Westwood examined a type series from various places in India, but these flies appear lost).</p><p>Sphryracephala hearseiana (Westwood) (error for Sphyracephala hearseiana): Westwood 1848: 37, pl. 18, fig. 3; Bigot 1892: 216; Sen 1921: 33.</p><p>Diopsis hoarseiana Westwood: Macquart 1851: 270, pl. 27, fig. 12.</p><p>Zygocephala hearsejana (Wiedemann) (error for Zygocephala hearseiana (Westwood)): Rondani 1875: 443, 1876: 184 (as Zygocephala hearseiana (Wiedemann)) .</p><p>Sphyracephala hearseiana (Westwood): Loew 1873: 102; Hennig 1941 a: 61; Mathur 1957: 183; Steyskal 1972: 13, 1977: 34; Kumar 1978 a: 63, 1978 b: 201, 1979 a: 95, 1979 b: 143; Feijen 1989: 67; Mitra et al. 2005: 151, 2011: 187; Parui et al. 2006: 101; Mitra &amp; Parui 2007: 70; Mitra &amp; Bhattacharya 2010: 394; Dutta Saha et al. 2012: 534; Dhamorikar 2016: 100, pl. 20c, 2017: fig. 17; Feijen et al. 2017: 85.</p><p>Sphyracephala hearseyana (Westwood): Osten Sacken 1882: 235; Van der Wulp 1896: 172; Brunetti</p><p>1907: 163, 1919: 369; Howlett 1909: 629; Hennig 1958: 567. Sphyracephala hearseyiana (Westwood) (also as hearseiyana): Hennig 1941 b: 5. Sphracephala hearseyana (Westwood): Nayar &amp; Tandon 1962 a: 113, 1962 b: 131, 1963: 1; Singh et al. 1962: 79. Not Sphyracephala hearseiana sensu Bezzi 1922: 69 . African records are misidentifications of</p><p>Sphyracephala beccarii (Rondani) .</p><p>Distribution: Bangladesh, India (Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, West Bengal), Pakistan (Islamabad, Punjab).</p><p>Remarks: Steyskal (1972) mentioned East Pakistan as distribution record, but he probably just interchanged Bengal with East Pakistan (like he did for D. indica, see below). Datta and Biswas (1985) definitely placed S. hearseiana on record for Bangladesh. The Pakistan records are based on 12 specimens in BMNH (Islamabad, Daman-e-Koh, 26.iii.1985, M.E. Irwin), on Koçak and Kemal (2015: 293) and on records in the BOLD Systems database. In Tamil Nadu (Burlier, 38 km south of Ooty), the two Indian Sphyracephala species were collected together.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B2FD6DFFA0FFFB194F7B8255AFFD15	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Feijen, Hans R.;Feijen, Cobi;O., P.	Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi, O., P. (2019): An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani. Israel Journal of Entomology 49 (2): 35-72, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3349984, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3349984
03B2FD6DFFA3FFF519BA7C165434FD90.text	03B2FD6DFFA3FFF519BA7C165434FD90.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cyrtodiopsis whitei (Curran 1936)	<div><p>Cyrtodiopsis whitei (Curran, 1936)</p><p>(Figs 6, 7)</p><p>Diopsis whitei Curran, 1936: 1 (♂ holotype, ♀ paratype from India, Jharkhand, Saranda forest, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=85.566666&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=22.033333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 85.566666/lat 22.033333)">Chota Nagpur</a> plateau, ca. 22°02'N 85°34'E, 2.v.1935 (AMNH)).</p><p>Cyrtodiopsis whitei (Curran): Shillito 1940: 159; Steyskal 1972: 4, 1977: 33.</p><p>Cyrtodiopsis? whitei (Curran): Shillito 1940: 159, fig. 1c; Burkhardt &amp; de la Motte 1983: 408; Datta &amp; Chakraborti 1985: 245; Wilkinson et al. 1998: 277; Baker et al. 2001: 90; Földvári et al. 2007: 40; Dutta Saha et al. 2012: 534; Jamalabad 2014: 22 (picture); Agarwala 2018: 12038. In many more non-taxonomic papers is referred to C. whitei sensu Burkhardt &amp; de la Motte from Peninsular Malaysia.</p><p>Distribution: India: Jharkhand. Cyrtodiopsis from Tripura (Agarwala 2018) and from Asom (Assam), Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya require detailed study of the genitalia and comparison with specimens from Jharkhand to be confirmed as C. whitei . Steyskal (1972) tentatively reports the species also from Maharashtra. Dutta Saha et al. (2012) mentioned the presence of Cyrtodiopsis in this state, but they probably based their opinion on Steyskal (1972); it also remains to be confirmed whether it refers to C. whitei .</p><p>Remarks: Shillito (1940) presented a revision of Cyrtodiopsis . As far as C. whitei concerns, he correctly transferred this species from Diopsis to Cyrtodiopsis . Shillito stated that here is “nothing to add to the complete description given by Curran”. However, he presented a picture of a wing from a Cyrtodiopsis from Ganhati, Assam, which he had identified as C. whitei . Shillito had no access to the type specimens in AMNH and did not study the genitalia, so confirmation of his identification is pending. In his key, Shillito separated C. whitei from C. dalmanni by the “Dorsum brown pollinose; inner orbital bristle on a strong tubercle” for C. whitei and the “Dorsum glossy, not pollinose; inner orbital bristle on a weak tubercle” for C. dalmanni . However, the difference in size of the tubercle of the IVS is simply not there. Curran’s description of the pollinosity pattern is a bit confusing: “Thorax shining dark brown, the mesonotum with brownish pollen, leaving the sides very broadly shining behind the humeri.” All flies of the C. whitei complex examined by us have a characteristic pollinose scutum with a pair of glossy spots posteriorly (Fig. 6). In the C. dalmanni- like species a large section of the posterior scutum is glossy. Another characteristic of the C. whitei complex, as compared to the C. dalmanni complex, is the small apical wing spot (Fig. 7).</p><p>In the last 36 years the name C. whitei has, by a number of authors, been applied to flies from Peninsular Malaysia. However, this concerns, in all likelihood, a wrong use of the specific name whitei . The problem started with a publication by Burkhardt and de la Motte (1983), who studied behaviour and vision of a Malaysian Cyrtodiopsis . Shillito helped them with the identification by cursorily comparing their specimens with unconfirmed “ C. whitei ” in BMNH (Burkhardt in correspondence with Shillito, and pers. comm.). From that start, the Malaysian C. whitei sensu Burkhardt &amp; de la Motte entered a long range of important publications (e.g. Burkhardt &amp; de la Motte 1985; Wilkinson et al. 1998; Baker et al. 2001; Földvári et al. 2007). As indicated in the literature overview, the contribution by Agarwala (2018) also requires confirmation whether his material was really conspecific with specimens from the type locality. Feijen (2011) discussed the status of Cyrtodiopsis as a valid genus. From the above, it is also clear that a taxonomic revision of the genus is required. However, it should be pointed out that Cyrtodiopsis is one of the most difficult genera in the Diopsidae .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B2FD6DFFA3FFF519BA7C165434FD90	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Feijen, Hans R.;Feijen, Cobi;O., P.	Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi, O., P. (2019): An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani. Israel Journal of Entomology 49 (2): 35-72, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3349984, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3349984
03B2FD6DFFADFFF519AB7DE254ECF9C0.text	03B2FD6DFFADFFF519AB7DE254ECF9C0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Diopsis abdominalis , Westwood 1837	<div><p>Diopsis abdominalis Westwood, 1837</p><p>(Fig. 8) Diopsis abdominalis Westwood, 1837: 301 (holotype by monotypy, apparently lost, type locality unknown): Steyskal 1972: 7, 1977: 36 (as “dubious species”); Feijen 1978: 11, 1989:</p><p>61; Feijen &amp; Feijen 2009: 703.</p><p>Distribution: Most likely India.</p><p>Remarks: Westwood did not indicate the origin of his single specimen and doubted whether it was not conspecific with his D. assimilis . In the description, he mainly indicated a few differences from D. assimilis . Main differential characters were the glossy black abdomen [ejus nihilominus totum castaneo-nigrum est et nitidum], the almost glossy collar [collare et scutellum nigra subnitida], the black scutellar spines [spinae scutellares et metathoracicae piceo-nigrae] and (in the D. assimilis description) the pollinose scutum [niger, obscurus, haud nitidus, cinerascentisericeus]. Feijen and Feijen (2009) already indicated that from the combination of characters given by Westwood it appears quite certain that D. abdominalis belongs to the D. indica species-group. The combination of pollinose scutum, black scutellar spines and blackish abdomen confidently points in that direction. In 1907, Austen identified specimens in BMNH as belonging to D. abdominalis . They originated from India, Myanmar and Thailand.At least the Indian specimens (ex coll. Bowring) conform well with Westwood’s original description in, for example, glossy collar, pollinose scutum and scutellum, small apical wing spot and almost black abdomen. In India, several species of the D. indica species-group with blackish abdomens occur. Of the flies now examined, specimens from Karnataka with their black scutellar spines appear to conform best (Fig. 8) and will, at a later stage, be redescribed, with designation of a neotype. As far as the colour of the dorsal abdomen in Indian Diopsis is concerned, care has to be taken in its use as a differential character as some intraspecific variation does occur. Larger series have to be studied, while the study of genitalia and DNA analyses are paramount.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B2FD6DFFADFFF519AB7DE254ECF9C0	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Feijen, Hans R.;Feijen, Cobi;O., P.	Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi, O., P. (2019): An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani. Israel Journal of Entomology 49 (2): 35-72, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3349984, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3349984
03B2FD6DFFACFFF119817FBA5789FE91.text	03B2FD6DFFACFFF119817FBA5789FE91.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Diopsis indica Westwood 1837	<div><p>Diopsis indica Westwood, 1837</p><p>(Figs 1, 9)</p><p>Diopsis indica Westwood, 1837: 299 (no formal type series, Westwood only based himself on “figures and meagre description” by Donovan of specimens from Bengal): Donovan 1800–1804: pl. 58 and text on next 2 pages; Brunetti 1913: 185 (in part); Datta &amp; Biswas 1985: 220 (in part?).</p><p>Diopsis assimilis Westwood, 1837: 300, n. syn. (2 ♀ “ syntypes ” in poor condition, origin not given, identified as “cotypes” by E.E. Austen, 5.xi.1907 (BMNH). The specimen with the head is now designated as the lectotype and the other one as paralectotype): Steyskal 1972: 7; Feijen 1978: 11; Feijen &amp; Feijen 2009: 703.</p><p>Not Diopsis assimilis Lindner, 1962: 11 (this is a West African species): Steyskal 1972: 7; Feijen 1978: 11.</p><p>Diopsis? indica Westwood: Howlett 1909: pl. 67-7; Brunetti 1913: 184; Curran 1936: 2; Vazirani &amp; Rathore 1976: 67; Sharma 1988: 143; Datta &amp; Parui 1999: 30; Parui et al. 2006: 101; Mitra &amp; Bhattacharya 2010: 394.</p><p>Not Diopsis westwoodii Westwood, 1848: pl. 18, fig. 1 (no formal type series, origin from Java. Description on explanation to plate. Westwood referred to “ Diopsis westwoodii De Haan ” in a manuscript. This is a valid species, while Westwood as author’s name is the established procedure in this case.): Van der Wulp 1897: 187; Brunetti 1907: 165; Steyskal 1977: 33.</p><p>Not Diopsis graminicola Doleschall, 1857: 417 . Replacement name for Diopsis apicalis Doleschall, 1856: 413 (no surviving type specimens known, origin from Java; this is a valid species): Van der Wulp 1897: 187; Brunetti 1907: 165; Steyskal 1977: 33.</p><p>Not Diopsis indica auct.: Macquart 1848: 226 (Java species); Van der Wulp 1896: 171, 1897: 187 (Java species, incl. D. westwoodii and D. graminicola); Meijere 1916: 89, 1917: 328, 1919: 31 (all Sumatra); Frey 1934: 335 (Java record); Chen 1949: 2 (Chinese species, probably Diopsis chinica Yang &amp; Chen, 1998: 468, 477); Steyskal 1972: 9, 1977: 33.</p><p>Distribution: India, maybe Bangladesh. Records in other countries are based on misidentifications. Steyskal (1972) erroneously included in distribution “ East Pakistan to southern China, south to Java”. Vazirani and Rathore (1976) assumed that “ D. indica is confined to the hilly tracts.”</p><p>Remarks: Westwood (1837) based his description only on Donovan’s (1800–1804) illustration and remarks: “Black; head, anterior part of the abdomen, and legs ferruginous; two spines on the posterior extremity of the thorax.” The illustrations of Donovan and Westwood have now been combined (Fig. 1). Donovan also stated: “Our own specimens (and they are most assuredly the Diopsis Ichneumonea of Linnaeus) were brought from Bengal, where it was discovered by Mr. Fichtel”. Westwood referred to the type locality as “Habitat in Bengaliâ. D. Fichtel.” The collector was Leopold von Fichtel (1770–1810). Rögl (1982) stated that “von Fichtel … became famous for his collections of objects of nature and his worldwide travels bringing him even to India.” According to Kázmér and Vávra (2002), Fichtel “was a member of the .... Asiatic Society of Bengal in Calcutta.” Steyskal (1972) gave as origin of the type “Bengal (= East Pakistan)”, but Steyskal (1977) reverted to “Type-loc: Bengal.” Bengal is nowadays divided between Bangladesh and the Indian territories of West Bengal, Tripura and the Barak Valley of Assam. Given that Fichtel was a member of the Calcutta Society and collected and described Foraminifera of the east coast of India, it seems most likely that India is the origin of D. indica and not Bangladesh. A further indication is that D. indica and species nr D. indica are quite common in West Bengal, while we have not yet seen specimens from Bangladesh.</p><p>Like for D. abdominalis, Westwood gave no type origin for his D. assimilis . However, as it was argued for D. abdominalis the combination of characters places D. assimilis in the D. indica species-group with India as the most likely place of origin. Contrary to D. abdominalis, the type series of D. assimilis consists of two females housed in BMNH. The condition of these two syntypes is poor: one has no head and the other is a bit teneral. The following important character states can be mentioned: collar glossy brown, but pollinose laterally, scutum and scutellum dark brown, pollinose, round apical wing spot, incrassate front femur, strong facial teeth and brown abdomen with darker apex. Westwood’s description of D. assimilis is somewhat superficial, but he also illustrated (Westwood 1837, figs 7, 8) both specimens, while wondering whether they were ♀ and ♂. Both figures show the characteristic black tip of the abdomen as does Westwood’s description: illo rufescenti-fulvo, apicem versus saturatius fusco. This agrees well with the D. indica abdomen (Figs 1, 9). To all extent, there are no differences in the descriptions of D. indica and D. assimilis and the latter species is now considered as a junior synonym of D. indica . It should be pointed out that Westwood did not see D. indica specimens that he described. If he would have seen them, it is unlikely that he described D. assimilis . The same happened with other species described by Westwood for which he had no access to earlier described species: D. thoracica became a junior synonym of D. longicornis Macquart, while Diopsis tenuipes Westwood became a junior synonym of Diopsis apicalis Dalman.</p><p>In 1837, Westwood amended his description of D. indica, a brief description of a variety from Java: Var. Insectum Javanicum in musaeo Dom. Hope à cel. De Haanio communicatum (sub nomine D. apicalis, Wied.) staturâ et magnitudine D. indicae benè convenit. However, in 1848 Westwood described and illustrated this specimen as “ Diopsis westwoodii . De Haan.” with the following remark: “Inhabits the Island of Java. Communicated by M. De Haan, with the MS. name adopted above.” Westwood’s very nice illustration (pl. 18, fig. 1) shows an unmistakable Java species that is very different from D. indica . This large and elongate species with a vague almost preapical wing spot is quite common on Java and is, in fact, the most aberrant species in the D. indica species-group. A closely related species occurs in Sumatra. In 1856, Doleschall described and illustrated another species from Java and named it Diopsis apicalis . As this name was preoccupied by Dalman (1817), Doleschall (1857) gave the species as replacement name Diopsis graminicola . His description and illustration are rather poor, but sufficient to distinguish the species as very different from D. westwoodii . Next to D. westwoodii and D. graminicola at least one more species of the D. indica species-group is now known to occur in Java. Van der Wulp (1897), based on cursory inspection, placed both D. westwoodii and D. graminicola as junior synonyms of D. indica . Van der Wulp gave a nice illustration (pl. 8, fig. 2) of what he considered D. indica, but this is an unmistakable D. westwoodii with its elongate body shape and colour pattern. The synonymies proposed by Van der Wulp were accepted by Brunetti (1907) and Steyskal (1972, 1977). However, both synonymies are now rejected, and both species are considered as valid species from Java.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B2FD6DFFACFFF119817FBA5789FE91	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Feijen, Hans R.;Feijen, Cobi;O., P.	Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi, O., P. (2019): An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani. Israel Journal of Entomology 49 (2): 35-72, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3349984, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3349984
03B2FD6DFFA9FFF019AA7A4F57B7FE50.text	03B2FD6DFFA9FFF019AA7A4F57B7FE50.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eurydiopsis argentifera (Bigot 1874)	<div><p>Eurydiopsis argentifera (Bigot, 1874)</p><p>Diopsis argentifera Bigot, 1874: 112 (two ‘cotypes’ (1♂, 1?), Indonesia, Sulawesi (OXUM)).</p><p>Diopsis argentifera Bigot (as junior synonym of Diopsis subnotata Westwood, 1848): Bigot 1881: 373; Osten Sacken 1882: 237; Van der Wulp 1896: 171, 1897: 192; Kertész 1899: 183; Brunetti 1907: 164; Frey 1928: 70 (as subgenus Eurydiopsis).</p><p>Eurydiopsis argentifera (Bigot) (as junior synonym of Eurydiopsis subnotata (Westwood)): Steyskal 1972: 11.</p><p>Eurydiopsis argentifera (Bigot) (as valid species, not synonymous with E. subnotata): Feijen 1999: 227.</p><p>Distribution: Indonesia, India (Nicobar Islands, Nancowry), Peninsular Malaya.</p><p>Remarks: This species has not earlier been recorded from India. In BMNH, 1♀ Eurydiopsis from India, Nicobars Nankaurie (= Nancowry), iv.1904, was cursorily examined. The external characters agreed with the diagnosis of E. argentifera . Given also the proximity of the location to both Peninsular Malaya and Sumatra, where E. argentifera is known to occur, it seems most likely that the specimen represents this species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B2FD6DFFA9FFF019AA7A4F57B7FE50	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Feijen, Hans R.;Feijen, Cobi;O., P.	Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi, O., P. (2019): An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani. Israel Journal of Entomology 49 (2): 35-72, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3349984, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3349984
03B2FD6DFFA8FFF019BE7E835470FC33.text	03B2FD6DFFA8FFF019BE7E835470FC33.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eurydiopsis brevispinus Feijen 1999	<div><p>Eurydiopsis brevispinus Feijen, 1999</p><p>(Fig. 10)</p><p>Eurydiopsis brevispinus Feijen, 1999: 229 (♂ holotype, 1♀ paratype from Myanmar, Mt Victoria, Chin Hills (so quite close to Mizoram), iii.1938 (BMNH), 1♀ paratype from Myanmar, 1♀, 1♂ paratypes from Laos (UZMH)): Datta &amp; Parui 1999: 31 (a Meghalaya specimen misidentified as E. subnotata, H.R. Feijen identified the same specimen as E. brevispinus during his visit to NZSI in 1999); Mitra et al. 2015: 60 (again the same Meghalaya specimen, now as E. brevispinus).</p><p>Distribution: India (Meghalaya), Myanmar, Laos.</p><p>Remarks: Indian Eurydiopsis have several times been referred to E. subnotata (Westwood, 1848), but Feijen (1999) questioned these identifications and indicated E. subnotata as a species from the south-eastern islands of the Philippines. Brunetti (1907: 164) recorded “ E. subnotata ” from Asom. Datta and Biswas (1985: 220) recorded the same Asom specimens to E. subnotata . During the present study, a pair of E. brevispinus (Fig. 10) was examined from Meghalaya, Nongpoh Forest, 7.xi.2002, A. Freidberg (SMNHTAU).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B2FD6DFFA8FFF019BE7E835470FC33	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Feijen, Hans R.;Feijen, Cobi;O., P.	Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi, O., P. (2019): An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani. Israel Journal of Entomology 49 (2): 35-72, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3349984, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3349984
03B2FD6DFFA8FFF019987B45552FFB8B.text	03B2FD6DFFA8FFF019987B45552FFB8B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megalabops dharaensis Feijen & Feijen & O. 2019	<div><p>Megalabops dharaensis n. sp.</p><p>(Figs 11–25, 27)</p><p>Refer to a full species account below under Taxonomy.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B2FD6DFFA8FFF019987B45552FFB8B	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Feijen, Hans R.;Feijen, Cobi;O., P.	Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi, O., P. (2019): An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani. Israel Journal of Entomology 49 (2): 35-72, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3349984, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3349984
03B2FD6DFFABFFF319FA7B9B555FFAC0.text	03B2FD6DFFABFFF319FA7B9B555FFAC0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Teleopsis amnoni Feijen & Feijen & O. 2019	<div><p>Teleopsis amnoni n. sp.</p><p>(Figs 30, 31, 33–38, 41–51)</p><p>Refer to a full account for this species below under Taxonomy.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B2FD6DFFABFFF319FA7B9B555FFAC0	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Feijen, Hans R.;Feijen, Cobi;O., P.	Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi, O., P. (2019): An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani. Israel Journal of Entomology 49 (2): 35-72, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3349984, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3349984
03B2FD6DFFABFFF219BD7A335427FC4D.text	03B2FD6DFFABFFF219BD7A335427FC4D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Teleopsis sykesii (Westwood 1835)	<div><p>Teleopsis sykesii (Westwood, 1837)</p><p>(Figs 32, 39, 40, 51)</p><p>Diopsis sykesii Westwood, 1837: 310 (♀ lectotype, ♂ paralectotype, hill <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=73.666664&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=19.383333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 73.666664/lat 19.383333)">fort Hurreechunderghur</a>, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=73.666664&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=19.383333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 73.666664/lat 19.383333)">western Ghauts</a> (Ghats) of the Deccan, 19°23'N 73°40'E (OXUM), Westwood named G.R. Gray as author)</p><p>Teleopsis sykesii (Westwood): Rondani 1875: 442 (type species of Teleopsis); Brunetti 1907: 165, 1928: 270; Bainbrigge Fletcher 1914: 6; Datta &amp; Biswas 1985: 221; Feijen 1998: 52; Nair et al. 2007: 125, fig. 3.4.5c; Feijen &amp; Feijen 2011: 14 (redescription, designation of lectotype); Dutta Saha et al. 2012: 534; Dhamorikar 2016: 93, pl. 20b, 2017: fig. 16 (right); Kotrba et al. 2013: 190, fig. 3i; Jamalabad 2014: 21 (picture).</p><p>Teleopsis fulviventris Bigot, 1880: 94 (♀ [not ♂ as stated by Bigot] holotype by monotypy, India (OXUM): Feijen 1998: 52 (junior synonym of T. sykesii); Mitra et al. 2015: 59 (overlooked status as junior synonym).</p><p>Teleopsis onopyxus SÉguy, 1949: 67 (♀ lectotype, 2♀ paralectotypes, “ Madagascar ”, 1877, A. Sallé, (MNHNP), Feijen &amp; Feijen (2011) showed that the type series must originate from India, where Sallé also collected T. sykesii): Feijen &amp; Feijen 2011: 144 (junior synonym of T. sykesii) .</p><p>Not Teleopsis sykesii auct.: Van der Wulp 1896: 171, 1897: 193 (specimens from Nias and Java (Sukabumi) represent different undescribed species, the suggestion of synonymy with Teleopsis motatrix rejected by Feijen 2011); Meijere 1911: 366, 1916: 89, 1917: 328, 1919: 32 (representing in total three undescribed Teleopsis spp. from Java and Sumatra); Feijen &amp; Feijen 2011: 145.</p><p>Not Teleopsis sykesi auct.: Frey 1928: 72; Tenorio 1969: 483 (= Teleopsis cobiae Feijen, 2011); Feijen &amp; Feijen 2011: 145.</p><p>Distribution: Western India, especially the Sahyadri (Western Ghats): Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu. The record from Kanha Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh (Dhamorikar 2016) is well outside the known range of the Western Ghats. Two rather doubtful records are known for Myanmar (Feijen &amp; Feijen 2011).</p><p>Remarks: T. sykesii is the type species of its genus. Together with its sister species T. amnoni n. sp. it forms an isolated T. sykesii species-group. The main differential characters of the two species are presented in Table 1. The difference in the wing pattern forms an especially easy way to separate them (cf. Figs 30, 31 with Fig. 32, and Figs 37, 38 with Figs 39, 40).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B2FD6DFFABFFF219BD7A335427FC4D	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Feijen, Hans R.;Feijen, Cobi;O., P.	Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi, O., P. (2019): An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani. Israel Journal of Entomology 49 (2): 35-72, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3349984, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3349984
03B2FD6DFFAAFFED18B87ADB57E9FD90.text	03B2FD6DFFAAFFED18B87ADB57E9FD90.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Indian	<div><p>Indian Diopsidae records based on misidentifications</p><p>A substantial number of Diopsidae were erroneously reported from India. Bigot (1892: 215) recorded two purely Afrotropical species D. circularis and D. ichneumonea and also D. westwoodii from Java. Van der Wulp (1897: 171) reported the Afrotropical Diopsis trentepohlii Westwood, but later (Van der Wulp 1899: 53) withdrew this record. Brunetti (1907: 165) recorded Teleopsis longiscopium Rondani from “ India ”, but this was a location in present-day Myanmar. It was anyway a misidentification. Curran (1936: 2) reported Diopsis ferruginea Röder from Mergui, India, but this is now in southern Myanmar. Shillito (1940: 156) stated that this was a misidentification and that it concerned Cyrtodiopsis currani Shillito. Teleopsis ferruginea (Röder) is anyway a species only occurring in Sri Lanka. Several papers (Datta &amp; Biswas 1985: 219; Mitra et al. 2015: 59) reported the Java species C. dalmanni for India. Datta &amp; Biswas (1985: 220) and Datta &amp; Parui (1999: 31) reported the Philippines species E. subnotata from India. M. quadriguttata (as Teleopsis) was recorded by Datta &amp; Biswas (1985: 221) and Mitra et al. (2015: 59). Sharma (1988: 143) reported the Afrotropical rice stem-borer D. longicornis (as D. thoracica).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B2FD6DFFAAFFED18B87ADB57E9FD90	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Feijen, Hans R.;Feijen, Cobi;O., P.	Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi, O., P. (2019): An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani. Israel Journal of Entomology 49 (2): 35-72, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3349984, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3349984
03B2FD6DFFB5FFEB19807D865562FC5E.text	03B2FD6DFFB5FFEB19807D865562FC5E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megalabops dharaensis Feijen & Feijen & O. 2019	<div><p>Megalabops dharaensis n. sp.</p><p>(Figs 11–25, 27)</p><p>Diopsis quadriguttata auct.: Brunetti 1907: 165 (in part, specimens from Kurseong are most likely to be conspecific with M. dharaensis n. sp., the distance from the type locality is about 25 km).</p><p>Megalabops spec. “A”: Kotrba et al. 2013: 190.</p><p>LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 714C07DD-2F71-4EB1-905D-636E51088F 5F.</p><p>Etymology: The species originates from the tea estate Gopaldhara near Darjeeling. Gopal was the name of a person, while dhara in Hindi means “stream of clear water”. Given the link of Diopsidae to the presence of water, it is considered appropriate to name this species Megalabops dharaensis .</p><p>Diagnosis: Megalabops dharaensis n. sp. can be recognised by its wing pattern (3 complete crossbands, straight distal edge of preapical crossband, 4 hyaline spots), distribution of microtrichia on the wing (glabrous base and glabrous areas in proximal anterior spot), very long IVS, long OVS, small base of IVS, absence of facial teeth, incrassate front femora with ratio length/width ~3.5, undivided, rectangular female sternum 6, somewhat curved female sternum 7, spiracle 7 in membrane in both sexes, rectangular to pentagonal subanal plate, rather elongate female cerci, convoluted sections of spermathecal ducts near spermathecae, elongate spermathecae with 20–24 protuberances, articulated, apically bilobed, surstyli with large areas of microtrichia and apically some long setulae, convex male cerci, winged and dorsally strongly curved phallapodeme, broadly fan-shaped ejaculatory apodeme and sexual homomorphy with regards to the eye span.</p><p>Megalabops dharaensis n. sp. with its two anterior and two posterior hyaline wing spots belongs to the M. quadriguttata species-group, one of the two species-groups in Megalabops .</p><p>Description: Body length ♀ 6.3 mm, ♂ 4.9 mm ± SE 0.5 (range 4.4–5.3, n=2); eye span ♀ 3.9 mm, ♂ 3.3 mm ± 0.3 (3.0–3.5, n=2); wing length ♀ 4.6 mm, ♂ 3.8 mm ± 0.4 (3.4–4.2, n=2); length of scutellar spine ♀ 0.99 mm, ♂ 0.78 mm ± 0.05 (0.74–0.84, n=2).</p><p>Head. Central part brown, thinly pollinose, on frons and posteriorly more glossy; frons (Figs 11, 15) with U-shaped depression in front of ocellar tubercle, lateral areas roughened, a ridge around frons; arcuate groove dark brown; upper half of face protruding, centrally two vague protuberances, a few pale setulae, facial corners rounded (Figs 11–15); eye span very small in ♀ and ♂ (respectively 38 % and 33 % smaller than body length); stalks brown, broad apical parts blackish, pollinose; IVS very long, 6× diameter of eye stalk, base of IVS small, just more than half the stalk diameter; OVS long, 4× stalk diameter (Figs 11, 15). [Given that only 1♀ and 2♂ were available for measurements, the rate of dimorphy D could not be calculated. Four Megalabops species for which large data sets were available were sexually homomorphic with regard to eye span with D varying from -0.01 to -0.05. Given that the three data points (span/body length) for M. dharaensis n. sp. are collinear and that Megalabops appears to be a uniformly homomorphic genus, it is safe to state that also M. dharaensis n. sp. is homomorphic with regard to the eye span.]</p><p>Thorax. Collar glossy brown, posterodorsally and laterally pollinose (Figs 12, 14); scutum uniformly greyish brown pollinose, scutellum brown pollinose, scutellar spines glossy dark brown, but base of spines pollinose; upper half of pleura pollinose, lower half glossy brown except for pollinose posterior area; sterna glossy brown; supra-alar spines (Figs 12–14) medium-sized, about twice as long as pleurotergal spines, laterally and upward directed; scutellar spines long, curved upward and outward, diverging under angle of 125°, ratio scutellar spine/scutellum length in ♀ 3.42 (n=1) and in ♂ 3.45 (range 3.41–3.49, n=2), ratio scutellar spine/body length in ♀ and ♂ 0.16; pleurotergal spines short, blunt, posterolaterally directed; apical seta long, 47 % of length of scutellar spine, posteriorly directed; some setulae on scutum, scutellar spines with setulae on small warts.</p><p>Wing. Three crossbands (Fig. 13), preapical and central band equal in width and forming an H-configuration; wing apex (apical sixth) slightly infuscated (Figs 12, 13), a bit paler near preapical crossband; preapical band with darker anterior half and straight apical edge; central band including crossveins r–m and dm–m; basal band narrow and irregular, broadening posteriorly; preapical band and central band linked around vein M 1, central band and basal band linked around vein M 4; between the three bands four almost hyaline spots (from which the name Diopsis quadriguttata originated, and thus characteristic for the whole M. quadriguttata species-group), one spot in cells r1 and r2+3 just extending in cell r4+5, one spot basally in cell m1, one spot in cells r1, br and bm+dm and one spot centrally in cell m4; slightly darker smudge from tip of cell cua; glabrous basal areas include cell c, basal quarter of cell r1, parts of the anterior, proximal hyaline spot, basal half of cell br, basal third of cell bm+dm and most of cell cua.</p><p>Legs. Front leg brown (Fig. 12), tibia and metatarsus darker, pollinose anteriorly and basally on coxa and inner side of femur; mid and hind leg brown with darker apex of femora and slightly darker tibiae; femur 1 (Figs 12, 16) incrassate in both sexes, ratio of length/width in ♀ 3.4 and in ♂ 3.5 (range 3.3–3.6, n=2), tubercles on distal five-sixth, inner row in ♀ with 26.5 tubercles ± SE 0.5 (range 26–27, n=2) and in ♂ with 23.7 tubercles ± 0.3 (range 23–24, n=3), outer row in ♀ with 23.5 tubercles ± 0.5 (range 23–24, n=2) and in ♂ with 20.0 tubercles ±1.0 (range 18–21, n=3), outer row with small gap.</p><p>Preabdomen. Dorsally dark brown, thinly pollinose, almost glossy, around border area of terga 1 and 2 denser pollinosity, tergum 3 anterolaterally with densely pollinose spots (Fig. 14); seam between terga 2 and 3 visible; sternum 1 dark brown, glossy; other sterna brown pollinose; sternum 1 basally linked to syntergum (Fig. 19); spiracle 1 in tergum; intersternite well defined (Fig. 19), laterally vaguely connected to sternum 2.</p><p>Female postabdomen. Strongly deflexed, terga 6 and 7 single rectangular sclerites (Figs 19, 24); tergum 8 represented by two sclerites (Figs 17, 19), covered by microtrichia except for anterolateral corners; tergum 10 with one pair of strong setulae; cerci rather elongate, ratio of length/width 3.5, covered with microtrichia and a number of setulae; sterna 5 and 6 single rectangular sclerites, slightly constricted posteriorly on the meson (Fig. 19); sternum 7 single curved sclerite, slightly broadening laterally; sternum 8 represented by two rounded sclerites; spiracle 7 in membrane; subanal plate (Fig. 18) rectangular to pentagonal with somewhat pronounced medial apex, posteriorly two pairs of long setulae and two pairs of short setulae; spermathecae (Figs 20, 24) rather elongate with a large number (24 on single theca, 20 and 22 on the pair) of evenly distributed protuberances, strongly sclerotised, spermathecal ducts with the typical Megalabops convolutions just before they enter the base of the spermathecal capsules; sclerotised ring of ventral vagina wall (Figs 24, 25) long, anteriorly acute.</p><p>Male postabdomen. Sternum 5 a single plate, posteriorly with rounded gap on meson, sternum 6 lost in preparation; synsternum 7+8 without sclerotised connection to epandrial sclerites; left and right spiracles 7 well in membrane, right spiracle 7 at greater distance from synsternum 7+8; epandrium (Fig. 21) rounded, with about 21 pairs of setulae, covered with microtrichia; surstyli articulated, somewhat constricted sub-basally (Figs 21, 27), in lateral view (Fig. 27) concave apically, in posterior view (Fig. 21) with very typical, bilobed appearance apically, large sections of lateral, inner and posterior sides covered with microtrichia, on distal half a number of setulae and apically some rather long setulae (Figs 21, 27); surstyli connected to lateral side of cerci, not interconnected via processus longi; cerci (Fig. 21) rather small and strongly convex, ratio length/width (in posterior view, not flattened) 1.6, covered with microtrichia and setulae; phallapodeme (Fig. 23) basically very typical for Megalabops, very solidly built, anterior arm with small ventral wings and strongly curved dorsal edge, apodeme centrally very “high”, posterior arm almost twice as long as anterior arm, vane basally constricted; aedeagus (Fig. 23) shown in extended ‘in copula’ position, rather long genital process (for terminology see Kotrba et al. 2013) sticking out from apex; connections between phallapodeme, hypandrium and aedeagus as in Fig. 23; ejaculatory apodeme broadly fan-shaped (Fig. 22).</p><p>Holotype: ♂ India: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=88.16195&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.928055" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 88.16195/lat 26.928055)">Gopaldhara</a>, Darjeeling, 3440–4720 ft (1050–1450 m), 2.ix.1916, 26°55'41"N 88°09'43"E, H. Steevens (RMNH).</p><p>Paratypes: 1♀ 1♂ (in copula), same data as holotype, except for date: 15.viii.1916. Note: The pair of paratypes was pinned in ‘in copula’ position. It was possible to separate the pair, while the genitalia remained in extended position .</p><p>Distribution: M. dharaensis n. sp. is only known from the Darjeeling district in West Bengal, India. Most Megalabops species have a relatively small distribution range. M. quadriguttata appears to form the exception with its distribution ranging from West Malaysia to Vietnam.</p><p>Remarks: Megalabops can be divided into two species-groups. The most common one is the M. quadriguttata group characterised by the two anterior and two posterior hyaline wing spots. The other species-group consists of yet to be described species characterised by absence of the H-configuration on the wing, an irregular central cross band and an incomplete basal band. For separating species, genitalia provide, by far, the most reliable characters, like, for example, the differences in surstyli between M. bigotii, M. dharaensis n. sp. and M. quadriguttata (Figs 26–29).</p><p>More species will eventually have to be described from India. Except for paramount differences in genitalia, these species can be distinguished by small differences in wing pattern and pollinosity patterns on the scutum.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B2FD6DFFB5FFEB19807D865562FC5E	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Feijen, Hans R.;Feijen, Cobi;O., P.	Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi, O., P. (2019): An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani. Israel Journal of Entomology 49 (2): 35-72, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3349984, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3349984
03B2FD6DFFB3FFE319FC7CAD577BFE71.text	03B2FD6DFFB3FFE319FC7CAD577BFE71.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Teleopsis amnoni Feijen & Feijen & O. 2019	<div><p>Teleopsis amnoni n. sp.</p><p>(Figs 30, 31, 33–38, 41–51)</p><p>Teleopsis sykesii: Feijen &amp; Feijen 2011: in part, only p. 145, fig. 3.</p><p>LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 6C132E9F-8438-4418-9F1C-67E17142333B.</p><p>Etymology: It is a pleasure to name this species after Dr Amnon Freidberg. He made an important collection of Diopsidae and made the SMNHTAU Diopsidae holdings available for our studies.</p><p>Diagnosis: Teleopsis amnoni n. sp. can be recognised by its size, robust habitus, lack of hairiness, wing pattern (no apical spot, uniform infuscation from preapical crossband to apex, broad preapical crossband with much darker anterior half, irregular central band with darker patches along veins, irregular narrow basal crossband, two vague paler spots between basal and central crossbands, three vague paler spots between central and subapical crossbands), wing mostly covered by microtrichia, IVS 4× stalk diameter, OVS 2–3× stalk diameter, base of IVS less than half the stalk diameter, strong facial teeth, mainly glossy collar, blackish brown pollinose scutum and scutellum, ratio scutellar spine/scutellum length ~3.0, incrassate front femora with around 45 (♀) or 50 (♂) tubercles, large glossy spot laterally on terga 1 and 2, pair of pollinose spots on tergum 3, female sternum 5 split on meson but anteriorly still connected, female sternum 6 consisting of two plates, female sternum 7 basally not connected to tergum, female spiracle 7 well into membrane, round spermathecae with around four small pustules, left male spiracle 7 in synsternum, surstyli articulated, long and straight, mesally directed and almost touching on the meson, surstyli only with microtrichia on posterior inner side, bulging and apically broadest male cerci, ratio eye span/body length 0.84 in ♀ and 1.34 in ♂, and assumed sexual dimorphism (D) with regard to eye span of ~1.6–2.0.</p><p>T. amnoni n. sp. can be considered as the sister species of T. sykesii (Table 1) and, as such, forms the second representative of the T. sykesii species-group.</p><p>Description: Body length ♀ 6.6 mm, ♂ 6.8 mm; eye span ♀ 5.6 mm, ♂ 9.1 mm; wing length ♀ 4.8 mm, ♂ 5.3 mm; length of scutellar spine ♀ 1.40 mm, ♂ 1.42 mm.</p><p>Head. Central part dark brown (Figs 33, 34), dorsally glossy, laterally and on face pollinose, central knob on face glossy; frons (Figs 33, 34) with smooth trapezoid section centrally in front of tubercle, slightly elevated anteriorly near groove, surrounded by roughened lateral areas; arcuate groove concolorous; face with ridge parallel to and just below arcuate groove, face with central knob, strong facial teeth, a few pale setulae; eye span small in female (16 % smaller than body length) and very large in male (34 % longer than body length); probably moderate rate of dimorphism in eye span (if D is slightly higher than in D. sykesii, D could well be between 1.6–2.0, see Fig. 51); stalks dark brown, broad apical parts blackish, pollinose; IVS large, 4× diameter of eye stalk (Fig. 33), base of IVS small, less than half the stalk diameter; OVS 2–3× stalk diameter.</p><p>Thorax. Collar glossy blackish brown, except for pollinose ventral and posterior edges; scutum and scutellum blackish brown pollinose (Figs 30, 31), more densely pollinose on humeral calli; scutellar spines glossy except for pollinose base; pleura blackish brown, dorsal ⅔ pollinose, ventral ⅓ glossy except for pollinose posterior edge; supra-alar spines (Fig. 30) glossy, 3.5× as long as pleurotergal spines, dorsolaterally directed; scutellar spines almost straight, diverging under an angle of 70° (Figs 30, 31), ratio scutellar spine/scutellum length in ♀ 3.05 (n=1) and in ♂ 2.95 (n=1), ratio scutellar spine/body length in ♀ and ♂ 0.21; pleurotergal spines pollinose, short and blunt, posterolaterally directed; in pinned specimens apical seta broken off, but in one fly on photographs it could be discerned; some setulae on thorax, scutellar spines with a number of setulae on very indistinct warts.</p><p>Wing. Irrorated with three irregular crossbands (Figs 37, 38); apex (apical ⅐) uniformly infuscated, no apical dark spot (Figs 30, 31); preapical band broad and well defined, anteriorly half much darker, posterior half just darker than apex, extending basally in cell r4+5, vaguely connected to central crossband in cell r1 and along veins R 4+5 and M 1; three pale spots in between the central and preapical bands, one in cell r2+3, very minor one in cell r4+5 and large one basally in cell m1; irregular central crossband including crossveins r–m and dm–m, reaching from edge to edge, darker around crossvein r–m and veins R 2+3,R 4+5 and M 4; irregular basal band narrow, running from apex of cell c via tip of cell cua to wing edge, vaguely connected to central band in cell r1, cell bm+dm, around vein M 4 and along wing edge, giving two indistinct paler spots in cell br and cell m4, a distinct vein-like dark stripe running from cell cua to more than halfway the wing edge; cell r4+5 narrow basally, broad centrally and narrowing towards the apex; vein M 4 from crossvein dm–m onward turning downward and reaching till three-quarters of the distance to the wing edge; glabrous basal areas including basal ⅔ of cell c, posterior basal tip of cell r1, basal half of cell br, basal quarter of cell bm+dm and cell cua except for apex.</p><p>Legs. Front leg with brown coxa, trochanter and femur, tibia blackish brown, tarsus dark brown with distal segment blackish, coxa 1 pollinose anteriorly, femur 1 largely pollinose on inner side and with pollinose stripe on outer side; mid leg and hind leg brown, apical ⅕ of femora 2 and 3 and tibiae 2 and 3 dark brown; femur 1 (Figs 30, 31) incrassate in both sexes, ratio of length/width in ♀ 3.6 and in ♂ 3.8, tubercles on distal three-quarters, inner row in ♀ with 26.5 (range 26–27, n=2) and in ♂ with 28.0 tubercles (range 28, n=2), outer row in ♀ with 19.5 tubercles (range 19–20, n=2) and in ♂ with 22 tubercles (range 22, n=2), outer row with small gap.</p><p>Preabdomen. Dorsally blackish brown, tergum 3 more chestnut brown, pollinose; on terga 1 and 2 large glossy spot laterally (Fig. 36); tergum 3 anterolaterally with densely pollinose spots; seam between terga 2 and 3 distinct; sterna dark brown, pollinose, sternum 1 less pollinose; sternum 1 basally just touching syntergum (Fig. 41); spiracle 1 in tergum; intersclerite laterally connected to sternum 2 (Fig. 41), sternum 2 very narrow anteriorly and strongly broadening posteriorly; sterna 3 and 4 broad rectangular plates.</p><p>Female postabdomen. Deflexed; terga 6 and 7 single rectangular sclerites (Fig. 42); tergum 8 represented by two rounded sclerites (Fig. 43), sclerites covered by microtrichia; tergum 10 with laterally small, delineated, more sclerotised sections and with one pair of long setulae (Fig. 43); cerci rather elongate, ratio of length/width 3.4, covered with microtrichia and a number of setulae; sternum 5 split on meson but anteriorly still connected, sternum 6 mesally narrowly divided in two plates; sternum 7 constricted posteriorly on meson and basally not connected to tergum (Fig. 42); sternum 8 represented by two rectangular sclerites, posteriorly rounded; spiracle 7 clearly in membrane; subanal plate (Fig. 44) pentagonal, posteriorly two pairs of long setulae and four pairs of short setulae; spermathecae (Fig. 46) round, strongly sclerotised, with about four small pustule-like tubercles, duct with no constriction near spermathecae; sclerotised ring of ventral vagina wall ellipsoid, with sharp double bend at one-quarter from posterior end (Fig. 45).</p><p>Male postabdomen. Sterna 5 and 6 short, broad rectangular plates, synsternum 7+8 (Fig. 49) a short broad sclerite, tapering laterally; left spiracle 7 in synsternum, right spiracle 7 probably in membrane (lost during preparation); epandrium (Fig. 47) broad, rounded, covered with microtrichia and about 21 pairs of setulae; surstyli articulate, slender, straight, ratio length/width 3.5, mesally directed almost touching on meson (Figs 35, 47), on inner posterior side with microtrichia, anterior side, apex and outer posterior side glabrous, short setulae present; surstyli connected to lateral side of cerci, not interconnected via processus longi; cerci large, broad, bulging outward in middle, apical ⅓ strongly sclerotised (Fig. 47), ratio length/ width 1.5, widest near apex, covered with microtrichia and along edges quite long setulae; phallapodeme (Fig. 48) quite straight, anterior arm hardly curving downward anteriorly, anterior arm ⅓ longer than posterior arm, posterior arm strongly bifurcated, vane broad and strongly sclerotised; aedeagus open structure of long, narrow sclerites, intermittent organ sticking well out from apex; ejaculatory apodeme broadly wedge-shaped (Fig. 50).</p><p>Holotype: ♂ India: Karnataka, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=74.72017&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=14.278334" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 74.72017/lat 14.278334)">Hwy</a> [= Highway] 206, 45 km E Honavar, 14°16.70'N 74°43.21'E, 550 m, 4.xii.2003, I. Yarom (SMNHTAU).</p><p>Paratype: 1♀, same data as holotype .</p><p>Additional material: Three sets of photographs are known that clearly show representatives of T. amnoni n. sp. One (Feijen &amp; Feijen 2011, fig. 3) was taken by Mr Shyamal Lakshminarayanan in India, North Wayanad, Kerala (11°49'17"N 75°50'42"E) in x.2006. This photograph is now reproduced (Fig. 31) with the corrected species name. Photographs by Stephen Marshall (Fig. 30) were made in India, Fringe Ford, Wayanad, Kerala, 11°52'42.72"N 75°57'57.07"E, 1130 m, on 30.iv.2017. The first photograph by Aniruddha Dhamorikar was taken on vii. 2011 in Tung, Maharashtra, India (Dhamorikar 2012, slide 96), while the second one (Dhamorikar 2017, fig. 16) from Maharashtra probably shows T. amnoni n. sp. on the left side and a definite T. sykesii on the right.</p><p>Distribution: T. amnoni n. sp. is known from Maharashtra, Karnataka and northern Kerala.</p><p>Biology: More is known about the habitat of T. sykesii, but T. amnoni n. sp. appears to have similar preferences as both species can be found together. As such, their environment can be described as follows: natural or slightly disturbed forest, not far from a stream and in the Sahyadri (Western Ghats). In the dry season, both Teleopsis can be found in or near cave-like structures. Given their distribution in western India, the two species of the T. sykesii species-group are geographically strongly isolated from other Teleopsis . The two T. sykesii records for Myanmar are very doubtful (Feijen &amp; Feijen 2011). The closest other Teleopsis can be found in Sri Lanka: the equally isolated T. ferruginea species-group (Feijen 2011: 81). Otherwise the nearest Teleopsis members are found in Thailand and Peninsular Malaysia.</p><p>The sister species T. sykesii shows moderate sexual dimorphy with regard to the eye span, D=1.51 (Feijen &amp; Feijen 2011). The rate of dimorphy D is calculated as the difference in allometric slope for males and females. Allometric slope is the least-squares regression slope of eye span on body length. For T. sykesii, these slopes are for males 2.65 ± SE 0.10 (n=58) and for females 1.14 ± 0.03 (n=97). Of course, D cannot be determined from two data points available for T. amnoni, but their position in relation to the allometric lines for T. sykesii (Fig. 51), gives an indication that D for T. amnoni could be slightly higher than for T. sykesii . The difference in ratio eye span/body length is also larger in T. amnoni with 0.84 in ♀ (n=1) and 1.34 (n=1) in ♂. For T. sykesii these ratios are respectively 0.93 (n=97) and 1.23 (n=58).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B2FD6DFFB3FFE319FC7CAD577BFE71	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Feijen, Hans R.;Feijen, Cobi;O., P.	Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi, O., P. (2019): An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani. Israel Journal of Entomology 49 (2): 35-72, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3349984, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3349984
