Stenimantia Enderlein

Fachin, Diego Aguilar, González, Christian R., Elgueta, Mario & Hauser, Martin, 2021, A catalog of Stratiomyidae (Diptera: Brachycera) from Chile, with a new synonym and notes on the species, Zootaxa 5004 (1), pp. 1-57 : 34

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5004.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F82E8A73-5257-4D28-AB0A-70047B37E8A3
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/052987E6-FFBF-FF9D-FEC8-FEAF0452FB39
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Stenimantia Enderlein
status

Treatment

Genus Stenimantia Enderlein View in CoL

Stenimantia Enderlein, 1932: 270 View in CoL . Type species: Xylophagus carbonarius Philippi, 1865 , by original designation.

Refs.: Hennig, 1955: 427 (transferred to Stratiomyidae View in CoL : Chiromyzinae View in CoL ); James, 1975c: 24.3 (cat., in Xylophagidae View in CoL , to be transferred to Stratiomyidae View in CoL : Chiromyzinae View in CoL ); Oliveira & Pujol-Luz, 2000a: 1–2 (com.); Woodley, 2001: 51 (cat.); Pujol-Luz & Pujol-Luz, 2014: 404 (list).

carbonaria ( Philippi, 1865) View in CoL

Xylophagus carbonarius Philippi, 1865: 727 .

Syntypes: 2 females (they should be deposited in MNNC, but were not found; Woodley, 2001: 51 considered them destroyed). Type locality: Chile, Valdivia Province: near Corral. Distr.: Biobío Region: Arauco Province (Contulmo); Los Ríos Region: Valdivia Province (Corral) .

Refs.: Reed, 1888: 283 (cat., as Xylophagus , in Xylophagidae ); Hunter, 1900: 132 (cat.); Kertész, 1908b: 135 (cat., as Erinna , in Erinnidae = Xylophagidae ); Enderlein, 1932: 270 (as Stenimantia , in Xylophagidae : Xylophaginae ); James, 1975c: 24.3 (cat., in Xylophagidae ); Woodley, 2001: 51 (cat., in Stratiomyidae : Chiromyzinae ).

Comments. A single additional female of this species from Contulmo, Chile is reported by Enderlein (1932: 271). From the original description of the genus, Enderlein (1932) mentioned that it has ten antennomeres (i.e., scape, pedicel, and eight flagellomeres) and a short M 3. However, it is not clear if his description of the genus was based on Philippi’s syntypes examination, on Philippi’s original description, which is very simplified, on his own specimen on hand alone, or on a combination of these three. Hylorops and specimens referred to Mapuchemyia krausei (see Oliveira & Pujol, 2000a) were also stated to have eight flagellomeres, however, due to the lack of Philippi’s type specimens, the identity of these specimens remains obscure.