Thecophora melanopa Rondani, 1857

Sforzi, Alessandra & Sommaggio, Daniele, 2021, Catalog of the Diptera types described by Camillo Rondani, Zootaxa 4989 (1), pp. 1-438 : 98

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.5117150
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/686387A0-FFAC-FFCA-5889-FEABFDAD654C
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Thecophora melanopa Rondani, 1857
status

Treatment

Thecophora melanopa Rondani, 1857 View in CoL

ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION: 1857: 236 (key), 238 (description).

TYPE LOCALITY: “ in ditionis parmensis collibus [Parmese hills]”.

TYPE MATERIAL: 4 ♀♀, 1 specimen (only four of them are syntypes but they are not labeled as such) with the following labels: 2 ♀♀ ( MZUF: Box 8), Thecophora Rnd. / melanopa Rnd ♀ / 412; 1 specimen (sex not determinable, missing abdomen, left median- and right hind-legs) ( MZUF: Box 8), Thecophora Rnd. / melanopa Rnd. / 412; 1 ♀ (missing left fore-leg) ( MSNC: Box DIPTERA Ex collezione Rondani - I), Thecophora melanopa Rdn. Parma / Coll. Rondani, scatola n° 4, posiz. F-5 / Museo di Storia Naturale Università di Pisa, Calci ( PI) ex collezione Rondani; 1 ♀ (missing abdomen and fore-legs) ( OUMNH Verrall-Collin Coll.: Box. 1), Type / Th. melanops Coll. Big. /? syntype / O. melanopa ♂ [sic!] G. Thecophora id. Rond. Parma = distructa Rond. / G. Occemyia G. Thecophora Rondani Rob. Des.

CURRENT STATUS: valid species ( Chvála & Smith 1988: 269, Rivosecchi & Scaramozzino 1995: 3); junior synonym of Thecophora distincta View in CoL ( Stuke 2016: 532, 2017: 191).

REMARKS: Rondani (1857: 238) described Thecophora melanopa from four females: “ Marem speciei numquam inveni, sed foeminae exemplaria quatuor … legi [I never found the male, but I collected four female specimens]”. There are two females and one specimen (sex not determinable) in the MZUF, one female in the MSNC and one female in the OUMNH: these specimens did not have any label indicating their type status. We are unable to single out the four upon which Rondani based his description. We leave the recognition of the four female syntypes to a future specialist. A MZUF male numbered “412” is not included in the type series because of its sex and a MZUF specimen (Box D) labeled Bononia [= Bologna], which is not the published type locality. Stuke (2017: 532) incorrectly reported the syntype series of four specimens in the MZUF as being comprised of two males and two females .