Peltopsilopa anisotomoides (Karsch) Savaris & Marinoni & Mathis, 2016

Savaris, Marcoandre, Marinoni, Luciane & Mathis, Wayne N., 2016, Revision of the shore-fly genus Peltopsilopa Hendel (Diptera: Ephydridae), Zootaxa 4083 (1), pp. 83-98 : 92-95

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4083.1.4
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A7615718-CB71-4572-BEED-09048FCDBBA9
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6069478
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2E14879D-7A31-FFFD-FF76-FF2EFBBCF85A
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Peltopsilopa anisotomoides (Karsch)
status	comb. nov.

Treatment

Peltopsilopa anisotomoides (Karsch) View in CoL NEW COMBINATION

( Figs. 4‒6 View FIGURES 1 ‒ 6 , 11, 14 View FIGURES 10 ‒ 14 , 30‒44 View FIGURES 30 ‒ 33 View FIGURES 34 ‒ 44 , 46 View FIGURES 45 ‒ 46 , 48, 51 View FIGURES 47 ‒ 51 , 52 View FIGURE 52 )

Celyphus anisotomoides Karsch 1884: 173 View in CoL [“Bengal” (see below); HT ♀, ZMHU].─ Tenorio 1972: 378 [identified as an Ephydridae View in CoL , not a Celyphidae View in CoL ].

Peltopsilopa aspistes Hendel 1914: 158 View in CoL [Colombia. Magdalena: Aracataca (10°46.3'N, 74°09.2'W); HT ♂, HNHM].─ Malloch 1941: 126 [review].─ Cresson 1946: 158 [list, Trinidad].─ Wirth 1968: 12 [Neotropical catalog].─ Mathis & Zatwarnicki 1995: 37 [world catalog]. NEW SYNONYM

Diagnosis. ─This species is distinguished from congeners by the following combination of characters: Body generally shiny, polished, navy blue to dark brown; small to moderately small shore flies, body length 1.95–2.80 mm ( Figs. 5‒6 View FIGURES 1 ‒ 6 ). Head: Frons shiny, polished with metallic luster; ocelli arranged in isosceles triangle, distance between posterior ocelli greater than between either posterior ocellus and anteromedial ocellus; vertex acutely angled, creased. Antenna yellow to brownish yellow; arista with 7‒9 dorsal rays. Face shallowly arched, shiny, polished, similar to frons, bearing an inclinate seta at lateral margin at midheight; facial ratio 0.61; ventral facial emargination conspicuously arched ( Fig. 4 View FIGURES 1 ‒ 6 ). Gena-to-eye ratio 0.16. Maxillary irregularly spatulate, blackish brown. Thorax: Almost entirely blackish blue, shiny, microsculptured. Mesonotal length 1.55 mm; acrostichal setae in 2 regular rows on each side, presutural pair slightly enlarged, displaced laterally; scutellum greatly enlarged, longer than scutum, shiny, microsculptured, appearing wrinkled, scutellar length 1.20 mm, almost as wide as long, scutellar length-to-width ratio 0.87, shape in lateral view shallowly dome-like, posterior margin bluntly rounded with corners broadly rounded, with basal and apical setae, these small, with a few addition setulae laterally and on dorsal surface, but these not conspicuous, ventral scutellar surface shallowly concave; scutellar base lacking a dentate, sharp, short projection laterally; anepisternum with few small light setulae, except for 2 thicker black setae on posterior margin; katepisternum with a strong dorsal seta. Wing ( Fig. 46 View FIGURES 45 ‒ 46 ) mostly hyaline, whitish, basal fourth, including crossvein r-m, darkened; length 1.45 mm; costal vein ratio 0.94‒1.00; M vein ratio 0.73‒0.88. Femora blackish brown except for yellowish apices; tibiae yellow; basitarsomere of foreleg brownish medially, apices yellow, tarsi of mid- and hindlegs yellow to whitish yellow. Abdomen: Tergites blackish brown, shiny; tergites much wider than long; length of tergites 3 and 4 subequal; tergite 5 of male partially telescoped into tergite 4, length slightly more than half of tergite 4; sternite 1 greatly reduced, a narrow, transverse, partial band; sternite 2 transversely elongate, oblong, slender, width over 3X length; sternites 3 and 4 similar shaped, trapezoidal, narrower anteriorly, width about twice length, both anterior and posterior margin truncate; sternite 5 robustly U-shaped with anterior margin truncate, anterior 1/4 robust, thick, slightly tapered arms extended posteriorly, posterior margin deeply emarginate ( Fig. 14 View FIGURES 10 ‒ 14 ). Male terminalia: Epandrium in posterior view ( Fig. 30 View FIGURES 30 ‒ 33 ) as an inverted U, dorsal arch thinner than extended, lateral arms, arms straight, parallel, widest subventrally, in lateral view ( Fig. 31 View FIGURES 30 ‒ 33 ) pointed dorsally, thereafter ventrally tapered, ventral 1/3 subquadrate; cercus in posterior view ( Fig. 30 View FIGURES 30 ‒ 33 ) elongate, narrowly hemispherical, almost rod-like, pointed dorsomedially, medial margin shallowly sinuous to nearly straight, setulose along lateral margin, in lateral view ( Fig. 31 View FIGURES 30 ‒ 33 ) half of an ellipse; presurstylus in posterior view ( Fig. 30 View FIGURES 30 ‒ 33 ) elongate, narrow, wider at base, thereafter nearly parallel sided, very shallowly arched, base incised, base bearing 3 setulae medially, apex with pointed, oriented medially, in lateral view ( Fig. 31 View FIGURES 30 ‒ 33 ) elongate, narrow, rod-like, apex drawn to anteroventral point; postsurstylus in lateral view ( Fig. 40 View FIGURES 34 ‒ 44 ) more or less Lshaped with narrow, shallowly excavate base, extended process much wider than base, parallel sided, apex very shallowly arched, in ventral view ( Fig. 39 View FIGURES 34 ‒ 44 ) L-shaped with short, digitiform process at base, thereafter with basal half wide, then narrowed before equally wide, spatulate apical half, apex rounded, bearing 2 basolateral setulae and several setulae on apical half; pregonite in ventral view ( Fig. 42 View FIGURES 34 ‒ 44 ) almost as wide as long, bearing 3 apical setulae, in lateral view ( Fig. 44 View FIGURES 34 ‒ 44 ) wider basally, short, broadly rounded; aedeagus in ventral view ( Fig. 34 View FIGURES 34 ‒ 44 ) with basal 1/3 roundly subquadrate, thereafter apically gradually tapered to digitiform process, parallel sided, apex pointedly rounded and with slight, subapical lateral expansions, these shallowly angulate, in lateral view ( Fig. 36 View FIGURES 34 ‒ 44 ) elongate, slightly wider basally, shallowly pedunculate, apex rounded; phallapodeme in lateral view ( Fig. 36 View FIGURES 34 ‒ 44 ) with base rectangular, keel somewhat triangular, in ventral view ( Fig. 35 View FIGURES 34 ‒ 44 ) hour-glass shaped, more robustly developed basally, apical, crossbar pointed laterally; subepandrial plate in lateral view ( Fig. 43 View FIGURES 34 ‒ 44 ) comma-like, in ventral view ( Fig. 41 View FIGURES 34 ‒ 44 ) transversely band-like, shallowly arched, slightly enlarged laterally, more deeply emarginate posteriorly; hypandrium in lateral view ( Fig. 38 View FIGURES 34 ‒ 44 ) elongate, moderately narrow, pocket-like, in ventral view ( Fig. 37 View FIGURES 34 ‒ 44 ) U-shaped, anterior margin bluntly arched with thin, lateral extension, posterior extended arms somewhat parallel to each other, posterior margin deeply emarginate, emargination V-shaped.

Type material. The lectotype female of Celyphus anisotomoides Karsch , designated herein, is labeled “ Ceylon [,] Nietner S./2742/ Type [red]/ anisotomoides J. Karsch * [yellow; handwritten]/Zool. Mus. Berlin / LECTOTYPE ♀ Celyphus anisotomoides Karsch , des. by Savaris, et al. 2016 [red].” The lectotype is double mounted (glued to a paper triangle), is in poor condition (wings missing), and is deposited in ZMHU.

The holotype male of Peltopsilopa aspistes Hendel is labeled “Aracataca 1912.II.[Feb 1912]/Columbia Ujhelyi/ Peltopsilopa aspistes H. typus [red ink] Det. Hendel [“ Peltopsilopa aspistes H. typus” handwritten]/typus [red border, letters red].” The holotype is double mounted (minuten pin), is in moderately good condition (head and left wing missing), and is deposited in HNHM.

Type locality. Several problems are apparent concerning the provenance and type locality of this species. In Karsch’s original publication (1884: 173), he listed “Bengal” as the country of origin. The only available specimen ( ZMHU), however, bears the label “ Ceylon.” Moreover, both “Bengal” and “ Ceylon ” are almost certainly errors, probably from mislabeling, as there is no species of Peltopsilopa known from the Old World.

The collector, according to Karsch’s publication, was Johannes [John] Werner Theodor Nietner, a farmer/ naturalist living in “Bengal.” He was born on 19 May 1828 in Potsdam, near Berlin, and died in 1874 in Bengal or Sri Lanka (Colombo). The provenance of this specimen, thus, remains a complete mystery, although we suggest that it is undoubtedly from the New World tropics and was mislabeled. Karsch (1884: 173), without further elaboration, wrote a summary sentence on species included in Celyphus toward the end of his brief treatment of this genus and noted “Amerika” as a locality. We suggest that perhaps Karsch had a specimen from the New World, probably the Neotropics, and that someone inadvertently mislabeled it. Thus, the lectotype has “ Ceylon ” on its label, Karsch listed “Bengal” for this specimen in his publication, and as here suggested, the specimen is undoubtedly from the New World tropics!

Other specimens examined. Neotropical. BRAZIL. Maranhão: Mirador, Parque Estadual do Mirador , Base da Geraldina (06°37.4'S, 45°52.1'W; sweep net and Malaise trap; 120 m), 15 May‒18 Aug 2006, 2012, 2014, F. Limeira-de-Oliveira, J. S. Pinto Júnior, D. W. A. Marques, L. L. M. Santos, L. S. Santos (1♂ 3♀; CZMA) GoogleMaps . Pernambuco: Camaragibe , Condomínio dos Cedros (07°58.6'S, 35°0.3'W; 120 m), 8 May 2014, P. Grossi (2♂; CERPE) GoogleMaps .

ECUADOR. Guayas: Isla Puná (02°51.3'S, 80°08.6'W), 22 Mar 1988, M. Huybensz (1♂; USNM) GoogleMaps . Sucumbios: Santa Cecilia (00°03'S, 76°57.9'W), 25-31 Mar 1969, P. and P. Spangler (1♀; USNM) GoogleMaps .

VENEZUELA. Carabobo: San Estaban (10°25.5'N, 68°0.8'W), 1‒6 Jan-27 Dec, 1939 1940, P. Anduze (4♀; USNM) GoogleMaps ; Valle Seco (10°26.9'N, 68°0.3'W), Jan 1940, P. Anduze (1♂; USNM) GoogleMaps .

Distribution. Neotropical: Brazil (Maranhão, Pernambuco), Colombia (Magdalena), Ecuador (Guayas, Sucumbiois), Venezuela (Carabobo) ( Fig. 52 View FIGURE 52 ).

Remarks. Only a few males of this species were available for dissection. Structures of the male terminalia of those dissected were essentially identical and are the primary bases for our determination that these specimens represent a single species.

Initially, we had the impression that there was variation in scutellar setation ( Figs. 5 View FIGURES 1 ‒ 6 , 11 View FIGURES 10 ‒ 14 , 48 View FIGURES 47 ‒ 51 ). Close and detailed observations, however, including use of scanning electron micrographs, revealed that specimens that appeared to have a mostly bare scutellum actually represent a scutellum with broken and missing setulae. The setal sockets, often without a setula, were quite evident in the micrographs ( Fig. 51 View FIGURES 47 ‒ 51 ).