Pityocera (Pseudelaphella) nana ( Walker, 1850 )

Krolow, Tiago Kütter, Henriques, Augusto Loureiro, Gorayeb, Inocêncio De Sousa, Limeira-De-Oliveira, Francisco & Buestán, Jaime, 2015, Taxonomic revision of the Neotropical genus Pityocera Giglio-Tos, 1896 (Diptera: Tabanidae: Scionini), Zootaxa 3904 (3), pp. 301-333 : 310

Pityocera (Pseudelaphella) nana ( Walker, 1850)

(figures 4A–F)

Type locality. “ Brazil.

Pangonia nana Walker, 1850: 11 ; Kertész, 1900: 22.

Pityocera (Pseudelaphella) nana, Fairchild, 1967b: 332 (types of Kröber); 1969: 204 (classification); 1971: 28 (catalog); Moucha, 1976: 41 (catalog); Chainey, 1990: 288 (types of BMNH); Fairchild & Burger, 1994: 52 (catalog); Coscarón & Papavero, 2009b: 46 (catalog); Lessard 2014: 231 (revision Scionini ).

Erephrosis nana, Ricardo 1900: 178 .

Pangonia (Erephopsis) nana, Kertész, 1908: 166 (catalog).

Erephopsis (Pangonia) nana, Lutz, 1909: 659 ; Surcouf, 1921: 120.

Fidena nana, Enderlein, 1925: 292 ; Mackerras, 1955: 488.

Pseudelaphella nana, Kröber, 1930: 306 , fig. 1 (misidentification for female); 1934: 235 (catalog, misidentification for female); Fairchild, 1956: 23.

Erephopsis (Pangonia) nana Walker of Lutz, 1911: 81 –83, 85; plate 4, Fig. 2 , misidentification.

Pseudelaphella nana Walker of Fairchild & León, 1986: 104, misidentification.

Pityocera (Pseudelaphella) nana Walker of Henriques & Gorayeb, 1993: 5, misidentification.

Pityocera (Pseudelaphella) nana Walker of Chainey et al., 1994: 32, misidentification.

Pityocera (Pseudelaphella) nana Walker of Henriques, 1997: 62, misidentification.

Pityocera (Pseudelaphella) nana Walker of Buestán et al., 2007: 36, misidentification.

Pityocera (Pseudelaphella) nana Walker of Cárdenas et al., 2009: 526, misidentification.

Holotype ♂: deposited at BMNH, examined by photos (fig. 4A–F).

Female: Here treated as unknown (see discussion).

Distribution. Brazil.

Discussion. Female described by Lutz (1911: 82–83) from a series of four specimens, which according to the author were poorly conserved. Collected in the margins of Guapor River, in the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil, near the border with Bolivia. The description of the female does not match well with several characters of the male holotype (figs. 4A–E), which has: upper half of the face pruinose; lower half of the face shiny; face strongly projected; beard white; antenna with first flagellomere modified, elongated with a small, sharp dorso-apical projection; six free flagellomeres (not fused) besides the first one. The antenna of the P. nana Holotype is very different from the other (Pseudelaphella) species, and does not match any female specimen examined in this study, nor other female specimens identified as P. nana in previous studies ( Lutz 1911; Henriques & Gorayeb 1993; Henriques 1997). Therefore, P. nana is known only from the holotype.

The combination Heteroscena nana (Walker) is assigned to Campos (1953) in a list of species from Ecuador. According to Fairchild (1961a), that happened because the identification of the species was done by Lutz, who probably annexed labels with this combination. Although H. nana has been found in Lutz’s material, this name was never published by Lutz ( Fairchild 1961a). Coincidently, the original drawing of H. nana (figs. 5A–B) was published in a recent book about Lutz’s work ( Benchimol & Sá 2005: 609–610) and treated as an unpublished illustration by the authors. This illustration matches Lutz’s illustration (1911: picture 4, fig. 2) for Erephopsis nana (Walker) . In light of this, it is possible that the material cited by Campos (1953) for Ecuador refers to an unknown species, in which Lutz’s females does not match the P. nana male. Furthermore, no other P. nana specimen has been collected in Ecuador since Campos’s original series (1953), which has probably been destroyed (Buestán, unpublished).

Figures

FIGURE 2. Pangonia comprehensa Holotype ♂ (A – C). A—habitus dorsal view; B—habitus lateral view; C—labels. Pityocera (Pseudelaphella) cervus (D – H ♂). D—head front-lateral view; E, F—hypandrium, gonostylus, gonocoxite and aedeagus ventral and dorsal views; G, H—epandrium, cercus and hypoproct ventral and dorsal views.