Catostola Hull, 1958

Camargo, Alexssandro, Vieira, Rodrigo & Rafael, José Albertino, 2023, Taxonomic review of Ctenodontina Enderlein, 1914 with the revalidation of Catostola Hull, 1958 (Diptera: Asilidae: Asilinae) and description of a new species, Zootaxa 5276, pp. 1-71 : 17-18

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5276.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:92300500-BB24-45B0-8ADD-977C3220A069
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7907314
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A4878E-EE52-3859-BEE1-FDF7F2B3FAD3
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Catostola Hull, 1958
status	stat. nov.

Treatment

Catostola Hull, 1958 View in CoL stat. rev.

( Figs 9–45 View FIGURE 9 View FIGURE 10 View FIGURE 11 View FIGURE 12 View FIGURE 13 View FIGURE 14 View FIGURE 15 View FIGURE 16 View FIGURE 17 View FIGURE 18 View FIGURE 19 View FIGURE 20 View FIGURE 21 View FIGURE 22 View FIGURE 23 View FIGURE 24 View FIGURE 25 View FIGURE 26 View FIGURE 27 View FIGURE 28 View FIGURE 29 View FIGURE 30 View FIGURE 31 View FIGURE 32 View FIGURE 33 View FIGURE 34 View FIGURE 35 View FIGURE 36 View FIGURE 37 View FIGURE 38 View FIGURE 39 View FIGURE 40 View FIGURE 41 View FIGURE 42 View FIGURE 43 View FIGURE 44 View FIGURE 45 )

Catostola Hull, 1958: 320 View in CoL

Type species, Catostola carrerai Hull, 1958 View in CoL (original designation); Hull, 1962 (2): 481(synopsis of world fauna); Martin & Papavero, 1970: 70 (catalogue, as synonym of Ctenodontina Enderlein, 1914 View in CoL ); Artigas & Papavero, 1995: 36 ( Lecania View in CoL -group, catalogue); Papavero, 2009: 30 (catalogue).

Diagnosis. Face slightly pronounced at oral margin, white ( Fig. 16C–D View FIGURE 16 ), yellow ( Fig. 27C–D View FIGURE 27 ) or yellowish to brown pruinose ( Fig. 38C–D View FIGURE 38 ); mystacal macrosetae white or yellow ( Fig. 27C–D View FIGURE 27 ) with a few black macrosetae above ( Fig. 32C–D View FIGURE 32 ); postpedicel conical; first article of stylus minute ( Fig. 10A–B View FIGURE 10 ), second article weakly enlarged sub-apically ( Fig. 39A–B View FIGURE 39 ); ocellar tubercle with proclinate setae; thorax greyish or brownish pruinose with dark brown to black paramedian stripes, pre and postsutural and prescutellar spots ( Fig. 9B View FIGURE 9 ); wings yellowish translucent with bifurcation of veins R 4 and R 5 always beyond discal cell; cells m 3 and cua always closed and petiolate ( Fig. 10C View FIGURE 10 ); legs mostly yellow with dark brown stripes on anterior half or anterodorsally fading proximally or not on fore and mid femur ( Figs 9A View FIGURE 9 , 22A View FIGURE 22 , 27A View FIGURE 27 , 38A View FIGURE 38 ); hind femur usually entirely black ( Figs 27A View FIGURE 27 , 38A View FIGURE 38 ); hind femur of males with or without a ventral sub-apical swelling with short and stout macrosetae (if the swelling is present it is rounded and small) ( Figs 14C View FIGURE 14 , 26 View FIGURE 26 , 37 View FIGURE 37 ); hind tibia straight ( Figs 14C View FIGURE 14 , 26A–C View FIGURE 26 , 37A View FIGURE 37 ); male terminalia shining black ( Figs 10E–G View FIGURE 10 , 28E–G View FIGURE 28 , 33E–G View FIGURE 33 ); epandrium narrowing towards apex ending in a dorsal or ventral finger-like projection pointed posteriorly or ventrally; epandrial arms more or less laterally compressed since the base ( Figs 11E View FIGURE 11 , 20E View FIGURE 20 , 24E View FIGURE 24 , 29E View FIGURE 29 , 34E View FIGURE 34 , 40E View FIGURE 40 ); gonocoxite curving upwards apically; S8 always ending beyond the tip of epandrial arms (S8 mid-posterior projection longer than the remainder of terminalia) ( Figs 11C–D View FIGURE 11 , 20C–D View FIGURE 20 , 24C–D View FIGURE 24 , 29C–D View FIGURE 29 , 34C–D View FIGURE 34 , 40C–D View FIGURE 40 ); cercus and subepandrial sclerite usually short with apex rounded; ejaculatory apodeme fan-shaped, directed posteriorly; phallus with two thin and long prongs separated beyond the base ( Figs 12G View FIGURE 12 , 21G View FIGURE 21 , 25G View FIGURE 25 , 30G View FIGURE 30 , 35G View FIGURE 35 , 41G View FIGURE 41 ); female terminalia with T8 expanded laterally ( Figs 13A–F View FIGURE 13 , 31A–F View FIGURE 31 , 36A–F View FIGURE 36 , 42A–F View FIGURE 42 ) and S8 ventrally with a keel bearing short, stout macrosetae apically at the opening of the genital fork ( Figs 13D View FIGURE 13 , 31D View FIGURE 31 , 36D View FIGURE 36 , 42D View FIGURE 42 ).

Distribution ( Fig. 43 View FIGURE 43 ). Mexico (Chiapas and Yucatán); Guatemala (Escuintla and Suchitepéquez); Honduras (Atlántida); Costa Rica (Puntarenas, Limón and San Jose); Colombia (La Guajira, Magdalena, Cesar and Tolima); Venezuela (Vargas, Aragua, Miranda, Carabobo and Guárico); Ecuador (Sucumbíos, Napo, Morona Santiago and Zamora-Chinchipe ); Brazil (Amazonas); Peru (Cuzco, Huánuco, Junín, Loreto, Madre de Dios and Ucayali); Bolivia (La Paz, Sara, Ichilo and Chuquisaca) and Argentina (Jujuy, Salta and Tucumán).

There is only a single species of Catostola stat. rev. which occurs in sympatry with Ctenodontina . Catostola baleta comb. nov. occurring in the same valley in Colombia where the type species of Ctenodontina , Ctenodontina pectinatipes is also recorded ( Figs 8 View FIGURE 8 , 44 View FIGURE 44 ).

Taxonomic discussion. The genus can be distinguished from other genera of the Lecania -group, mainly Ctenodontina , by characters of the male and female terminalia. In Catostola stat. rev., the epandrial arms usually taper towards the tip in finger-like projections, and the epandrial arms are more or less laterally compressed beyond the base ( Figs 11E View FIGURE 11 , 20E View FIGURE 20 , 24E View FIGURE 24 , 29E View FIGURE 29 , 34E View FIGURE 34 , 40E View FIGURE 40 ) contrasting with the shape of the epandrial arms in the Ctenodontina that are slender and more or less parallel up to the rounded apex ( Figs 1D–E View FIGURE 1 , 2A–C View FIGURE 2 , 6A–E View FIGURE 6 ). However, the main difference between both genera is the construction of S8. In Catostola stat. rev., the mid-posterior projection of the S8 always ends beyond the end of the epandrial arms ( Figs 11C View FIGURE 11 , 20C View FIGURE 20 , 24C View FIGURE 24 , 29C View FIGURE 29 , 34C View FIGURE 34 , 40C View FIGURE 40 ) while in Ctenodontina S8 ends almost at the same level with the apex of the hypandrium, long before the apex of the epandrium ( Figs 1D View FIGURE 1 , 2A, C View FIGURE 2 , 6D–F View FIGURE 6 ).

The females of Catostola stat. rev., have T8 enlarged laterally giving to it a cupped aspect ( Figs 13A–F View FIGURE 13 , 31A–F View FIGURE 31 , 36A–F View FIGURE 36 , 42A–F View FIGURE 42 ) while in the females of Ctenodontina the terminalia is compressed laterally ( Fig. 3A–D View FIGURE 3 ) and Catostola stat. rev. has a feature on the female S8 that Ctenodontina does not have which is the presence of a keel with short and stout macrosetae on the apex being this keel where the genital fork opens ( Figs 13D View FIGURE 13 , 31D View FIGURE 31 , 36D View FIGURE 36 , 42D View FIGURE 42 ), a structure that is absent in Ctenodontina .

In Catostola stat. rev., there are three species that also have a ventral swelling with short stout macrosetae sub-apically on the hind femur of males ventrally ( Figs 14C View FIGURE 14 , 26 View FIGURE 26 , 27 View FIGURE 27 ). However, these swellings are much smaller with a different shape and placed in a different position when compared with those of Ctenodontina ( Figs 1B–C View FIGURE 1 , 4A View FIGURE 4 , 7 View FIGURE 7 ), besides, in Catostola stat. rev., the hind tibia of males is straight without curved or sigmoid shape ( Figs 14C View FIGURE 14 , 26A–C View FIGURE 26 , 37A View FIGURE 37 ).

All these listed differences above led us to conclude that Catostola stat. rev. should have its status revalidated encompassing those species where the male S8 ends beyond the epandrium, the female T8 is expanded laterally, cupped, and S8 has a ventral keel. We think these characters are strong enough to support the revalidation of Catostola stat. rev., as a distinct genus.

Our findings corroborate the observations of Fisher (1985) who also pointed out that the male terminalia of Ctenodontina mochica does not follow the same aspect as for the other species now moved to Catostola stat. rev. He also added that the only link between C. mochica and the other species would be the presence of a spinous femoral swelling in the hind femora of males, although he considered this as an unreliable character since it is not present in all species of the present Catostola stat. rev.

In addition, Hull (1958, 1962) erected Catostola stat. rev., to include Catostola carrerai stat. rev. and Catostola maya stat. rev., which he considered as quite different from Ctenodontina , mentioning the curious, oval, depressed, laterally expanded female T8 as a distinctive character to support Catostola stat. rev. Hull (1962) also suggested that Ctenodontina could have a relationship near Lecania based on wing venation and antennal style. However, he probably based his observations on the original description and drawings provided by Enderlein (1914), probably without examining the type material.

Recently Sánchez & Camargo (2021) described the female of Ctenodontina mochica reinforcing the suspicion that it is more similar to females of Lecania than females of the now Catostola stat. rev. These authors also argued that the description of the female of Ctenodontina mochica would bring some instability to the idea that Catostola stat. rev. should remain as a junior synonym of Ctenodontina .

Now, with the redescription and illustration of the male terminalia of Ctenodontina pectinatipes the suspicions of previous authors have been corroborated, and Catostola stat. rev., has herein its status revalidated as a distinct genus.