Megaselia parhirticrus, Henry & Bøggild, 2019
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.1.4 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:861455F3-7254-486C-9B14-DF55D024537E |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5929324 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D27187E8-7524-A07D-1EAF-FD34FCD4682F |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Megaselia parhirticrus |
status |
sp. nov. |
Megaselia parhirticrus View in CoL sp. n.
( Figs 92–102 View FIGURES 92–102 )
Material examined. Holotype male, DENMARk, SJ, Draved Skov , Højmose, 21.vi–13.vii.2014, E. Bøggild (CUMZ-8-59).
Description. Male. Head as Fig. 92 View FIGURES 92–102 and the proboscis from below as Fig. 93 View FIGURES 92–102 . Cheek with 5 bristles and jowl with 2 that are much longer and more robust. Postpedicels ( Fig. 92 View FIGURES 92–102 ) light brown and without SPS vesicles. Thorax brown with notopleuron and mesopleuron as Fig. 94 View FIGURES 92–102 . Scutellum with an anterior pair of small hairs and a posterior pair of bristles ( Fig. 95 View FIGURES 92–102 ). Abdominal tergites brown with many hairs which are moderately longer at rear of T6. Venter brownish gray with hairs on segments 3–6. Hypopygium as Figs 96–98 View FIGURES 92–102 . Middle and hind legs light brown and front legs brownish yellow. Fore tarsus ( Fig. 99 View FIGURES 92–102 ) with posterodorsal hair palisade on segments 1–4 and 5 longer than 4. Mid tibia and basitarsus as Fig. 100 View FIGURES 92–102 . Hind femur as Fig. 101 View FIGURES 92–102 . Hind tibia with about 20 differentiated posterodorsal hairs, without anterodorsals, and spinules of apical combs simple. Wings ( Fig. 102 View FIGURES 92–102 ) with exceptionally pale membranes, 2.8 mm long. Costal index at least 0.3. Costal ratios 7.6: 4.0: 1. Costal cilia (of section 3) 0.14 mm long. Hair at base of vein 3 small. With 5 axillary bristles, the outer being 0.14 mm long. Sc not reaching R1. Haltere knob grayish brown.
Recognition. In the key of Lundbeck (1922) to Group V it runs to couplet 10 lead 2 or couplet 12 lead 2, but the very short costal index and pale wing membrane immediately rules out both species. In the key to the males of the British Isles ( Disney, 1989) it runs to couplet 95, lead 2 to M. hiticrus (Schmitz) . The latter has darker legs, with the crowded hairs at the base of the hind femur only gradually increasing in size towards the base ( Fig. 104 View FIGURES 103–104 ) and the darker hypopygium has the left hypandrial lobe forked ( Fig. 103 View FIGURES 103–104 ). In Schmitz & Delage’s (1974) key for Abteilung V it runs to couplets 27 and 36. With the first option it runs to couplets 69 and 97 where the hairs at the base of the hind femur immediately distinguish it. With the second option it runs to couplets 27 and 36. At couplet 27 the hypopygiuym and very pale wings distinguish it. As with M. thomseni (see below) at couplet 36 it runs to M. paupera (Lundbeck) , which is only known in the female. The hind femur distinguishes it from M. thomseni . The costal ratios and more numerous posterodorsal hairs of the hind tibia distinguish it from M. paupera .
Etymology. Named after its similarity to M. hirticrus
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.