Cryptocladocera prodigiosa Bezzi, 1923

Santis, Marcelo Domingos De, Alvarez-Garcia, Deivys M. & Pereira, Thalles Platiny Lavin- Scky, 2020, Taxonomic update of the Neotropical genus Cryptocladocera Bezzi, 1923 (Diptera: Tachinidae), with remarks on tachinids with fissicorn antennae, Zootaxa 4755 (3), pp. 531-544 : 533-535

Cryptocladocera prodigiosa Bezzi, 1923

( Figs 1–2 )

Cryptocladocera prodigiosa Bezzi, 1923: 655 (description of male). Holotype male (MSNM), examined from photographs. Type locality: Suriname.

Cryptocladocera bezzii Arnaud, 1963: 9 (description of male). Holotype male (AMNH). Type locality: Barro Colorado Island , Canal Zone, Panama. Syn. nov.

Cryptocladocera mojingensis Arnaud, 1963: 13 (description of male). Holotype male (USNM). Type locality: Mojinga Swamp , Fort Sherman, Canal Zone, Panama. Syn. nov.

Distribution. Brazil (new record): states of Pará, Rondônia and Bahia; French Guiana (new record): Roura city; Panama: provinces of Colón and Panamá; Suriname (unknown locality) ( Fig. 2 ).

Type material examined. HOLOTYPE ♂: “ Surinam [ Republic of Suriname] / Standinger [collector]” [hand- written white label]; “ Cryptocladocera / prodigiosa / Type, m. [male]” [handwritten white label] ( MSNM).

Additional material examined. French Guiana: 1 ♂ [dissected], “ Guyane [ French Guiana]: Roura , Kaw road, / PK 37 (km 37), Relais Patawa . / N 4°32’42” W 52°9’9” / Col.: Odette Morvan / July 2008 ( Malaise Trap )” [printed white label]; “553” [printed white label] ( MZSP); 1 ♂ [dissected], same data as previous except “Col.: Jean A. Cerda / Nov [ November ] 2008” [printed white label]; “534” [printed white label] ( MZSP). Brazil: 1 ♂ [dissected], “ Brasil [ Brazil], RO [Rondônia state]: Monte Negro / Reserva Legal, Loteamento— 187m [m asl] / S 10°16’35” W 63°20’40” / Malaise trap / 03–15.xii.2011 / Amorim , Ament & Riccardi col.” [printed white label] ( MZSP); 1 ♂ [dissected], “ Brasil [Brazil], PA [ Para state], [ Municipality of] Óbidos / Praia de [ Beach of] Curumu / 1°52’20.7”S 55°31’03.6”W / 19 a 24.ix.2010 —malaise [trap] / Almeida et al. col.” [printed white label]; “ZOO IB-USP / T 2014” [printed white label] ( MZSP); 1 ♂ [dissected], same data as previous except “ ZOO IB-USP / T 2011” [printed white label] ( MZSP); 1 ♂ [dissected]: same data as previous except “ ZOO IB-USP / T 2013” [printed white label] ( MZSP); 1 ♂, “ Brasil [Brazil], PA [ Para state], [ Municipality of] Óbidos / Faz [ Farm ] Abelha / 1°48’37.7”S 55°29’11”W / 20 a 24.ix.2010 —malaise [trap] / Almeida et al. col.” [printed white label]; “ZOO IB-USP / T 2021” [printed white label] ( MZSP); 1 ♂ [dissected], “ Brasil [ Brazil], BA [Bahia state], [Municipality of] Igrapiúna / Reserva de Michelin / Pacangê interna / 07–09.iii.2008 —luz de queiroz [trap] / Monteiro et al. col.” [printed white label] ( MZFS); 1 ♂ [dissected], “ Brasil [ Brazil], BA [Bahia state], [Municipality of] Igrapiúna / RESEC [ Ecological Reserve ] Michelin / Pancada Grande—Malaise [trap] / 18.xi–16.xii.2012 — Aragão , / Menezes , Mota & Andrena col.” [printed white label] ( MZFS); 1 ♂ [dissected], “ Brasil [ Brazil], BA [Bahia state], [Municipality of] Igrapiúna / RESEC [ Ecological Reserve ] Michelin / Pancada Grande—Malaise [trap] / 28.x–18.xi.2012 — Aragão , / Menezes , Mota & Andrena col.” [printed white label] ( MZSP).

Remarks on C. prodigiosa and its synonyms. Cryptocladocera prodigiosa was described based on a male from Suriname ( Bezzi 1923). Later, Arnaud (1963) described three species in the genus: C. bezzii , C. mojingensis (both from Panama), and C. pichilinguensis (from Ecuador), all of which are virtually identical to C. prodigiosa . Arnaud (1963) did not examine the holotype of C. prodigiosa , but only used the description and the drawings of the antenna and head presented by Bezzi (1923). After analyzing photographs of the holotype of C. prodigiosa and the descriptions and figures presented by Bezzi (1923) and Arnaud (1963), as well as several specimens from French Guiana and Brazil, we consider the characters used by Arnaud as intraspecific variation, and consequently we propose C. bezzii and C. mojingensis as junior synonyms of C. prodigiosa . It is likely that C. pichilinguensis is also synonymous with C. prodigiosa ; however, in Arnaud’s figure (1963: 14, fig. 10) the shape and position of the distiphallus are different. Therefore, we prefer not to include C. pichilinguensis in the synonyms as we believe it is necessary to examine the terminalia of the holotype or topotypes to assess whether Arnaud’s figure is realistic and determine the validity of that species.

One of the characters that Arnaud (1963) used to differentiate his three species from C. prodigiosa was the number of dorsocentral setae (3+ 3 in C. bezzii and C. mojingensis , 2+ 3 in C. prodigiosa ). However, Bezzi’s (1923) description of this character is inaccurate, since the holotype of C. prodigiosa has 3+3 dorsocentrals ( Fig. 1B ). Another character that Arnaud (1963) referred to was the size of the postpedicellar branches, which he based on figure 5 of Bezzi (1923). According to Arnaud, the inner branches were shorter than the outer branches in C. bezzii and C. mojingensis , whereas the inner and outer branches were approximately of equal length in C. prodigiosa . Here, we highlight that Bezzi’s figure ( Bezzi 1923: fig. 5) is unrealistic, since the holotype of C. prodigiosa has branches much more upcurved and bifurcated ( Fig. 1C ), and the size of the branches of C. prodigiosa is very similar to that described by Arnaud for his species.

On the other hand, C. bezzii was distinguished from C. mojingensis by having, in lateral view, cercus with apical third slender, nearly parallel-sided, and surstylus weakly angulate apically, while C. mojingensis had cercus in lateral view with apical third broader, not parallel-sided, and surstylus rounded apically ( Arnaud 1963). However, different combinations of these character states were found in the additional material examined; for instance, cercus with apical third slender, nearly parallel-sided, and surstylus rounded apically; and cercus with apical third broader, not parallel-sided, and surstylus weakly angulate apically.

Another aspect that we noticed is the variation in the color of the antennae of C. prodigiosa . The holotypes of C. prodigiosa , C. bezzii and C. mojingensis , and some specimens examined herein have postpedicel with stem yellowish and branches yellowish with the apical part or distal two-thirds blackish. However, some specimens from Brazil (Bahia state) and French Guiana have postpedicel entirely blackish or with the stem and basal part of the branches yellowish-brown.

Regarding the male terminalia, the additional C. prodigiosa specimens examined herein have a long, tubeshaped acrophallus, while Arnaud (1963) presented drawings of the distiphallus without the acrophallus. It is very likely that Arnaud was unable to observe this structure, since maceration agents such as KOH can easily digest it.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Cryptocladocera prodigiosa Bezzi (♂, holotype). A. Lateral habitus. B. Dorsal habitus. C. Head, frontal view. D. Head, lateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm.

FIGURE 2. Known distribution of Cryptocladocera species.