Campylocera latigenis Hendel, 1914
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.1515/vzoo-2016-0024 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6453718 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D643EF61-FFD2-334D-FF2F-FF6D7669FC7E |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Campylocera latigenis Hendel, 1914 |
status |
|
Campylocera latigenis Hendel, 1914 View in CoL ( fig. 10–13 View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig )
Campylocera latigenis Hendel, 1914: 98 View in CoL ; Steyskal, 1980: 557. — Prohypotyphla obtusicornis Hendel, 1934: 152 View in CoL ; Steyskal, 1980: 560, syn. n. — Dicrostira partitigena Enderlein, 1942: 126 View in CoL ; Steyskal 1980: 558, syn. n.
Material. Type. Holotype Ơ Campylocera latigenis : Cameroon: “N.-Kamerun / Joh[ann]- Albrechtshöche / L. Conradt S. G. \\ 21.5. [18]96.”, “ Campylocera / latigenis, H. / det. Hendel ”, “Hendel / coll.” ( NHMW).
Holotype ♀ Campylocera obtusicornis : Cameroon: “N.-Kamerun / Joh. Albrechtshöhe / L. Conradt S.” [blue label], “Campyloc. / obtusicor- / nis H. / F. Hendel det.”, “ Coll. Hendel. ” ( NHMW).
Syntype ♀ Dicrostira partitigena : Cameroon: “N.-Kamerun / Johann-Albrechtshöhe / 21. [sic!] 5.1896 [handwritten] / L. Conradt S. G.” [blue label], “Typus” [red, printed, Enderlein’s style], “ Dicrostira / partitigena / Type Enderl. ♀ / Dr. Enderlein det. 1934” ( MNKB) .
D i a g n o s i s. C. latigenis belongs in a group of species represented by rusty-yellow, moderately large and robust flies having grayish wing with yellowish cells bc, c, r 1, and distal margin of cell cup, 3–6 pairs of ocellars, 1–2 pairs of postocellars, and outer verticals half as long as of inner vertical setae, parafacial moderately wide, as wide as flagellomere 1, shiny, gena 1/3 times as high as eye, with wide non-sclerotized genal groove as wide as parafacial in ventral half, subocular sclerite usually with shiny brownish spot, densely setulose thorax, presutural supra-alar and acrostichal prescutellar setae lacking, densely (but moderately long) setulose scutellum, with 4–6 scut twice as long as setulae, of them, basal scutellars are the thinnest.
It differs from related species ( C. oculata Hendel , C. latipennis Séguy , and a few undescribed ones) by the oviscape evenly narrowed posteriorly and moderately setose over whole ventral side, on ventral surface non-convex and bearing neither thickened nor long setae, without spinulose or setose swelling; fore femur (moderately swollen, with 5–6 thin and long setae of ventral row, but no long and dense ventral setulae — fig. 12 View Fig , 9 View Fig ) and proepisternum (3–4 setae vs. 6–15 setae in other species). Closely related C. oculata Hendel differs by slightly smaller size, and the oviscape swollen and black spinulose basiventrally, with narrow apical half. C. latipennis can be recognized from the oviscape medioventrally swollen and bearing moderately long but non-spinulose setae on the swelling and short apical narrow part.
R e m a r k. All the three nominal species were described based of the specimens from the same series collected in Cameroon and showing no essential differences in the body size, coloration and vestiture. I consider these specimens to be conspecific and synonymize the species names based on them as name-bearing types. Th e number of scutellar setae vary from four through five to six in this species and also in C. oculata , C. latipennis and related species and cannot serve ever for distinguishing species.
The nominal genera Dicrostira Enderlein, 1942 syn. n. and Hexamerinx Enderlein, 1942 syn. n. were based on the height of gena and number of scutellar setae, which are common for the whole group of species, related to C. latigenis and C. ferruginea , the type species of Campylocera , and have no value even for recognition of species. I therefore consider them congeneric and synonymize the generic names with Campylocera .
NHMW |
Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien |
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Campylocera latigenis Hendel, 1914
Korneyev, V. A. 2016 |
Campylocera latigenis
Steyskal, G. C. 1980: 557 |
Steyskal, G. C. 1980: 560 |
Steyskal, G. C. 1980: 558 |
Enderlein, G. 1942: 126 |
Hendel, F. 1934: 152 |
Hendel, F. 1914: 98 |