Macrogynoplax duida, Stark, 2011
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.4760447 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4763429 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D8EA76-FF88-EF4D-FC27-9DE6A795F9A9 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Macrogynoplax duida |
status |
sp. nov. |
Macrogynoplax duida View in CoL sp. n.
( Figs. 1-4 View Figs )
Material examined. Holotype ♂, Venezuela, Mt. Duida , November 1928, Ac. 29500, Tate No.? ( AMNH) . Paratype, same site, 29 November 1928, Ac. 29500, Tate No. 406, 1♀ ( AMNH) .
Adult habitus. Biocellate, ocelli small and widely separated. General color pale, pattern obscured by specimen condition. Unpigmented ommatidia on inner margins of eyes absent or obscured by specimen condition.
Male. Forewing length 14 mm. Abdominal apex damaged, paraprocts apparently lacking anteroapical spine; tergum 10 without sensilla basiconica patch, hammer small, circular in outline and apparently oriented horizontally on surface of sternum 9. Apical section of aedeagal tube narrow at base in dorsal aspect and gradually widened to base of subterminal hooks ( Fig. 1 View Figs ); lateral margins of tube strongly sclerotized but mesal strip membranous; hooks asymmetrical, curved ventrad; left hook directed dextrally across venter of tube and right hook extending apically toward aedeagal tip ( Fig. 3 View Figs ). Aedeagal section beyond bases of hooks bearing a pair of weakly sclerotized, dorsally curved fingerlike lobes and a dorsomesal sclerotized process consisting of a pair of longitudinally oriented blades and a terminal membranous lobe ( Figs. 1-2 View Figs ).
Female. Forewing length 15 mm. Abdominal segments 9 and 10 missing. Subgenital plate with subparallel sides and a curved, mesally notched apical margin ( Fig. 4 View Figs ); plate covers an estimated 2/3 of sternum 9 (missing) and is almost as wide as sternum 8. Lateral bars not observed due to specimen condition.
Larva. Unknown.
Etymology. The species name, used as a noun in apposition, is based on the type locality.
Diagnosis. The male aedeagus of this species is most similar to that of M. geijskesii Zwick ( Stark & Zwick 1989) among known species, but in that species the aedeagal hooks are symmetrical and the section of the aedeagus distal to the hooks lacks dorsally curved finger-like lobes and a dorsomesal pair of longitudinally oriented blade-like structures. Males key to M. poranga Ribeiro-Ferreira & Froehlich (if the hammer orientation is on the horizontal surface of sternum 9) in the Froehlich (2003) key. However, that orientation is not certain due to specimen condition. The female subgenital plate appears indistinguishable from that of M. pulchra Ribeiro & Froehlich ( Ribeiro & Rafael 2007).
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 |