Forcipomyia (Metaforcipomyia) rivalis, Spinelli, Gustavo R., Marino, Pablo I. & Borkent, Art, 2012

Spinelli, Gustavo R., Marino, Pablo I. & Borkent, Art, 2012, A revision of Biting Midges of the Subgenera Forcipomyia (Metaforcipomyia) and F. (Saliohelea) from Costa Rica (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae), Zootaxa 3419, pp. 1-52 : 3-4

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.215031

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6166102

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A7878C-E374-FFC5-53D2-BCCE87D8FD73

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Forcipomyia (Metaforcipomyia) rivalis
status

 

Key to the Adult Forcipomyia (Metaforcipomyia) View in CoL View at ENA of Costa Rica

Adults of the subgenus Forcipomyia (Metaforcipomyia) may be distinguished from those of other New World Forcipomyia by the absence of a row of slender spicules that comprise the comb at the apex of the hind tibia. In addition, the males of all species have antennal flagellomeres 5–8 fused, a condition not present in any other subgenus of Forcipomyia .

Females of the following species are unknown: F. (M.) rivalis n. sp., F. (M.) truncata n. sp., F. (M.) atenasensis n. sp., F. (M.) osaensis n. sp., F. (M.) grandiseta n. sp., F. (M.) longiflagellata n. sp., F. (M.) macroseta n. sp., F. (M.) germinata n. sp., and F. (M.) ronderosae n. sp.

1. Male............................................................................................... 2

- Female............................................................................................ 17

2. Parameres present ( Figs. 50 View FIGURES 46 – 51 , 55 View FIGURES 52 – 56 , 60 View FIGURES 57 – 61 , 65 View FIGURES 62 – 71 , 75 View FIGURES 72 – 81 , 85 View FIGURES 82 – 91 , 95 View FIGURES 92 – 96 , 100 View FIGURES 97 – 106 , 110 View FIGURES 107 – 111 ); hind tarsal ratio 1.75–2.50............................. 3

- Parameres absent ( Figs. 6 View FIGURES 1 – 10 , 15 View FIGURES 11 – 17 , 22 View FIGURES 18 – 23 , 29 View FIGURES 24 – 33 , 38 View FIGURES 34 – 39 , 44 View FIGURES 40 – 45 ); hind tarsal ratio 0.75–1.25........................................ 12

3. Foretarsomere 2 with 2–4 thick, basally reinforced setae, similar to those forming a row on tarsomere 1 ( Fig. 48 View FIGURES 46 – 51 )......... 4

- Foretarsomere 2 without thick, basally reinforced setae....................................................... 6

4. Flagellomere 10 proportionally short (1.10–1.35 X longer than flagellomere 11) ( Fig. 46 View FIGURES 46 – 51 )................ grandiseta View in CoL n sp.

- Flagellomere 10 proportionally elongate (2.07–2.80 X longer than flagellomere 11)................................. 5

5. Flagellomere 10 2.60–2.80 X longer than flagellomere 11 ( Fig. 52 View FIGURES 52 – 56 ); wing without pattern; aedeagus quadrate, truncate apically ( Fig. 56 View FIGURES 52 – 56 )............................................................................ longiflagellata View in CoL n. sp.

- Flagellomere 10 2.07 X longer than flagellomere 11 ( Fig. 57 View FIGURES 57 – 61 ); wing patterned ( Fig. 113 View FIGURES 112 – 115 ); aedeagus tapering apically to rounded apex ( Fig. 61 View FIGURES 57 – 61 )............................................................................ macroseta View in CoL n. sp.

6. Wing patterned, with a dark patch on anterior margin of wing distal to apex of the radial cells and the apices of at least each of M2, CuA1 and CuA2 ( Figs. 114–119 View FIGURES 112 – 115 View FIGURES 116 – 119 )...................................................................... 7

- Wing without pattern of spots on apices of veins, with at most a dark patch on anterior margin of wing, distal to apex of radial cells ( Figs. 5 View FIGURES 1 – 10 , 14 View FIGURES 11 – 17 , 21 View FIGURES 18 – 23 , 43 View FIGURES 40 – 45 ).............................................................................. 12

7. Tarsomere 1 of hind leg brown, contrasting with pale tarsomeres 2–5............................................ 8

- Tarsomeres of hind leg either unicolourous or with pattern of contrasting pigmentation.............................. 9

8. Flagellomeres 3–9 pale (plume arising from these is pale) ( Fig. 82 View FIGURES 82 – 91 ); aedeagus slender, with apical lobes short, separated by broad rounded gap ( Fig. 86 View FIGURES 82 – 91 )................................................................ albipluma View in CoL n. sp.

- Flagellomeres 3–9 light to dark brown (plume arising from these is brown) ( Fig. 72 View FIGURES 72 – 81 ); aedeagus stout, with apical lobes well developed, more elongate, separated by narrow gap ( Fig. 76 View FIGURES 72 – 81 )......................................... rursa View in CoL n. sp.

9. Tarsomeres of hind leg without contrasting pigmentation between any two tarsomeres, although the tarsomeres 1– 5 may be progressively lighter................................................................... pseudocerifera View in CoL n. sp.

- Tarsomere 1–2 of hind leg brown, contrasting with pale tarsomeres 3–5......................................... 10

10. Apex of aedeagus with short apicomedial prong ( Fig. 96 View FIGURES 92 – 96 )........................................ germinata View in CoL n. sp.

- Apex of aedeagus without apicomedial prong ( Figs. 101 View FIGURES 97 – 106 , 111 View FIGURES 107 – 111 )................................................. 11

11. Aedeagus triangular, tapering distally ( Fig. 101 View FIGURES 97 – 106 )................................................... heroni View in CoL n. sp.

- Aedeagus shield-shaped with lateral subapical, heavily sclerotized projections directed laterally, apex concave ( Fig. 111 View FIGURES 107 – 111 )........................................................................................... ronderosae View in CoL n. sp.

12. Aedeagus without elongate, posteriorly directed prong............................................. osaensis View in CoL n. sp.

- Aedeagus with elongate, slender posteriorly directed prong................................................... 13

13. Labrum truncate apically, with transverse row of elongate spicules ( Fig. 3 View FIGURES 1 – 10 ); scutum pale, contrasting with dark scutellum, or, with dark pigmentation, equal to that of scutellum.......................................................... 14

- Labrum tapering apically, without transverse row of elongate spicules ( Fig. 26 View FIGURES 24 – 33 ); scutum pale, contrasting with dark scutellum................................................................................................... 16

14. Hind femur with at least basal 0.3 darkly pigmented, apical portion pale ( Fig. 4 View FIGURES 1 – 10 ); pigmentation of scutum variable: pale, with patch of darker pigmentation anteriorly, more extensively partially pigmented or entirely darkly pigmented..................................................................................................... pluvialis Malloch View in CoL

- Hind femur uniformly pale or uniformly dark ( Figs. 13 View FIGURES 11 – 17 , 20 View FIGURES 18 – 23 ); scutum entirely pale or with uniformly dark pigmentation.... 15

15. Hind femur uniformly pale ( Fig. 13 View FIGURES 11 – 17 ); scutum pale, contrasting with dark scutellum; basal arch of aedeagus heavily sclerotized, extending 1/20 of total length.................................................................. rivalis View in CoL n. sp.

- Hind femur uniformly dark ( Fig. 20 View FIGURES 18 – 23 ); scutum and scutellum with uniformly dark pigmentation; basal arch of aedeagus poorly sclerotized, extending to 1/10 of total length..................................................... truncata View in CoL n. sp.

16. Hind femur with broad basal dark band, and all tibiae with subbasal and apical dark bands ( Fig. 27 View FIGURES 24 – 33 ).......... anniae View in CoL n. sp.

- Hind femur basally brown and at least ¼ apical pale, and all tibiae with base broadly paler than apical portion ( Fig. 36 View FIGURES 34 – 39 )........................................................................................... atenasensis View in CoL n. sp.

17. Hind tibia entirely dark brown.......................................................................... 18

- Hind tibia mostly pale, apex dark........................................................................ 21

18. Cercus pale or very light brown, contrasting with dark segments 8–9.................................. heroni View in CoL n. sp.

- Cercus brown, similar to dark segments 8–9............................................................... 19

19. Largest spermatheca more or less spherical ( Fig. 91 View FIGURES 82 – 91 ); flagellomeres 3–8 paler than others ( Fig. 87 View FIGURES 82 – 91 )....... albipluma View in CoL n. sp.

- Largest spermatheca elongate ( Figs. 71 View FIGURES 62 – 71 , 81 View FIGURES 72 – 81 ); flagellomeres uniformly brown ( Figs. 67 View FIGURES 62 – 71 , 77 View FIGURES 72 – 81 ).......................... 20

20. Spermathecae slightly unequal in size ( Fig. 71 View FIGURES 62 – 71 ); proximal flagellomeres flasked-shaped ( Fig. 67 View FIGURES 62 – 71 )..... pseudocerifera View in CoL n. sp.

- Spermathecae unequal in size ( Fig. 81 View FIGURES 72 – 81 ); proximal flagellomeres bottle-shaped ( Fig. 77 View FIGURES 72 – 81 ).................... rursa View in CoL n. sp.

21. Each tibia with subbasal and apical band of dark pigmentation....................................... anniae View in CoL n. sp.

- Each tibia with, at most, dark pigmentation at apex............................................ pluvialis Malloch View in CoL

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Diptera

Family

Ceratopogonidae

Genus

Forcipomyia

GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF