Megaselia parhirticrus sp. n.

(Figs 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 and the proboscis from below as Fig. 93. Cheek with 5 bristles and jowl with 2 that are much longer and more robust. Postpedicels (Fig. 92) light brown and without SPS vesicles. Thorax brown with notopleuron and mesopleuron as Fig. 94. Scutellum with an anterior pair of small hairs and a posterior pair of bristles (Fig. 95). 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. Middle and hind legs light brown and front legs brownish yellow. Fore tarsus (Fig. 99) with posterodorsal hair palisade on segments 1–4 and 5 longer than 4. Mid tibia and basitarsus as Fig. 100. Hind femur as Fig. 101. Hind tibia with about 20 differentiated posterodorsal hairs, without anterodorsals, and spinules of apical combs simple. Wings (Fig. 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) and the darker hypopygium has the left hypandrial lobe forked (Fig. 103). 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