Sarcophaga socrus Rondani, 1861

Sforzi, Alessandra & Sommaggio, Daniele, 2021, Catalog of the Diptera types described by Camillo Rondani, Zootaxa 4989 (1), pp. 1-438 : 207-208

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4989.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:89C63841-3CF4-491D-8C73-BEF7DCB18FB5
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4981537
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/686387A0-FF03-FF64-5889-F99FFE0260D4
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Sarcophaga socrus Rondani, 1861
status

Treatment

Sarcophaga socrus Rondani, 1861 View in CoL View at ENA

ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION: 1861g: 380 (key), 387 (description).

TYPE LOCALITY: “ Parmae [ Parma (Italy) ]”.

TYPE MATERIAL: 2 ♂♂ ( MZUF) (one of them is surely the holotype but is not labeled as such) with the following labels: 1 ♂ (missing right hind-leg, terminalia glued to a cardboard stage pinned below specimen) ( MZUF: Box 19), Sarcophaga Mgn / socrus Rnd. , ♂ / 1014 / = pumillus Meig. Typ. Paris e Type Coll. Wied. Böttcher / lectotype [incorrectly designated] ♂, S. socrus Rond., T. Pape det., 1986 / Pierretia socrus (Rnd.) , T. Pape det., 1986; 1 ♂ ( MZUF: Box 19), Sarcophaga Mgn / socrus Rnd. , ♂ / 1014 / = pumillus Meig. Typ. Paris e Type Coll. Wied. Böttcher / = nigriventris gruppe sp. / paralectotype [incorrectly designated].

CURRENT STATUS: junior synonym of Pierretia nigriventris ( Meigen, 1826) ( Verves 1986: 143) ; valid species, as Sarcophaga (Pierretia) socrus View in CoL ( Pape 1988: 15, Pape et al. 1995: 15); valid species, as Pierretia socrus ( Povolný & Verves 1997: 198) ; valid species, as Sarcophaga (Myorhina) socrus View in CoL ( Pape 1996: 365; Krčmar et al. 2019: 140).

REMARKS: Rondani (1861g: 387) described Sarcophaga socrus from just the male sex, without specifying the exact number of specimens and not giving a range of lengths. In his redescription Rondani (1862d: 111) specified having a single specimen: “ Unicum exemplar legi speciei [I collected a single specimen of this species]”. Böttcher (1913: 181) mentioned two females but also labeled males. Pape (1988: 15) incorrectly designated a lectotype and two paralectotypes from three males in the MZUF (one from “Oropa” in Piedmont, which is not the type locality). There are two males in the MZUF without any label indicating their type status. We are unable to single out the male upon which Rondani based his description. We leave the recognition of the holotype to a future specialist.