Chalarus holosericeus ( Meigen, 1824 )

Kehlmaier, Christian & Assmann, Thorsten, 2008, The European species of Chalarus Walker, 1834 revisited (Diptera: Pipunculidae), Zootaxa 1936, pp. 1-39 : 23

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.184950
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5622218
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/367D87D6-FFD4-8D62-FF78-FEB2FB49E786
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Chalarus holosericeus ( Meigen, 1824 )
status

Treatment

Chalarus holosericeus ( Meigen, 1824) View in CoL

Pipunculus holosericeus Meigen, 1824: 24 View in CoL .

Chalarus parmenteri Coe, 1966: 157 View in CoL . syn. nov. Chalarus perplexus Jervis, 1992: 305 View in CoL . syn. nov.

Diagnosis: Male with dark brown hairs on all femora. Phallus (as in Fig. 10 View FIGURES 7 – 11 ) with phs straight; tdp short and broad; Lmtdp:Ltdp~3.0; two php which are slightly shorter than mtdp; all ejaculatory ducts placed distally on mtdp; ejaculatory apodeme parasol-shaped (as in Fig. 19 View FIGURES 12 – 23 ); Female with frontal facets greatly enlarged (J92 Fig. 3 View FIGURES 1 – 6 D, as C. perplexus ); frons very narrow, at narrowest point 1.0 times diameter of largest frontal facet; flagellum dark brown; legs dark brown but base of femora and area around femoral-tibial joints may be somewhat paler; pulvilli of all legs of same size, shorter than distitarsus; hairs on femora dark brown but pvsr of mid femur may be mid brown; hairs on thorax and abdomen dark brown; hind femur with apical hairs of pdsr extending as far as apex; abdominal tergites dark brown; ovipositor as in Figs 49–50 & 57 View FIGURES 49 – 62 . The shallow dorsal groove of tergite 9 is often present but can also be absent. See Table 1 for coxI and ITS2 barcode sequence accession numbers.

Annotations: A male lectotype for C. holosericeus was selected by Jervis (1992). The decision to synonymise C. holosericeus with C. parmenteri / C. perplexus rather than apply the name to C. exiguus — what would have been possible as males of C. holosericeus and C. exiguus are indistinguable according to Jervis (1992) — was taken because no male C. exiguus could be identified and processed in this study. Hence, it is not clear wether Jervis (1992) is correct with his statement, i.e., his assignment of male and female C. exiguus . Chalarus parmenteri was known from females only. The holotype and all three remaining paratypes were studied. The ovipositor of the holotype is reproduced in Fig. 50 View FIGURES 49 – 62 . Its abdomen was macerated in the past and embedded in Canada balsam with the ovipositor separated. The structure of the latter is hard to assess due to the strong degree of maceration. Especially tergite 9 is very faint. Sternite 9 can be seen slightly better and exhibits the same degree of curving as C. parmenteri sensu Jervis (1992) nec Coe (1966). In Coe (1966), the piercer is also illustrated as straight, rather than strongly bent. The paratype from “Witherslack” also shows a long and rather straight embedded and macerated piercer. However, one paratype (collection number #239426 NHM) without locality label is in accordance with Jervis’ (1992) characterization of C. parmenteri which is regarded as the female of C. griseus (see above). Chalarus perplexus was described from females only. The holotype and two female paratypes were studied. De Meyer et al. (2000) briefly comment on a single species of Chalarus from the Canary Islands, referring to it as C. perplexus . For a brief discussion see below under Chalarus sp. near zyginae . The only secure host species known at present is Empoasca vitis ( Jervis 1992 as C. perplexus ), whereas the one provided for female C. holosericeus actually belongs to C. marki (see below) and the ones given for male C. holosericeus are treated as belonging to C. holosericeus agg.