Mesembrius morio (Bezzi, 1915) Figs 36, 74, 117, 138

Helophilus (Mesembrius) morio Bezzi, 1915: 98.

Mesembrius morio - Smith and Vockeroth (1980): 504.

Differential diagnosis.

Mesembrius morio females are entirely black and cannot be confused with any other Mesembrius species. The male is unknown.

Examined material.

Helophilus morio Bezzi: Holotype, female, “Holo-//type” "Hel. (Mes.)//Type// Helophilus morio //Bezzi" "Neguelo,//Usambara,// German E. Africa //Purchd. From// H.Rolle. //1904-117." " Mesembrius // Mesembrius morio n.sp.//Type ♀ "; " NHMUK 013428952" [NHMUK].

Paratype: Tanzania • 1♀; Usambara Mountains, Neguelo; date unknown; H. Rolle leg.; NHMUK .

Other material

Democratic Republic of the Congo • 1♀; Eala; 24 Aug 1935; J. Ghesquière leg.; KBIN . Malawi • 1♀; Mount Mulanje; 6 Nov 1913; S.A. Neave leg.; NHMUK . Tanzania • 2♀♀; Neguelo, Usambara Mountains; date unknown; H. Rolle leg.; NHMUK . Uganda • 2♀♀; Entebbe; 17 Jun 1972; H. Falke leg.; CNC .

Re-description female

(Fig. 36). Body length: 12.7-13.5 mm. Wing length: 11.6-12.5 mm.

Head (Fig. 74). Eyes bare; dichoptic. Face black; black and white pilose; white pollinose. Frons black; black pilose; lower half white pollinose. Vertex black; black pilose; grey pollinose. Distance between lateral ocellus and eye margin approx. the width of ocellus. Occiput black; yellow and black pilose dorsally, yellow pilose more ventrally; grey pollinose. Frontal prominence shiny brown-black; black pilose. Antenna black; arista reddish-brown.

Thorax. Scutum and scutellum black; without vitta; short white and black pilose.

Legs. Dark reddish-brown to black; short black and white pilose.

Wing (Fig. 138). Entire wing uniformly, very densely microtrichose; dark brown in anterior half.

Abdomen (Fig. 117). Entirely black; short yellow-white and black pilose.

Male. Unknown.

Distribution.

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda.

Comments.

Previously only known from the holo- and paratype. Curran (1927) considers M. morio to be a dark morphotype of M. cyanipennis . As the male of M. morio is unknown, we could not compare the male genitalia. However, since the differentiation between the two species with DNA barcodes (p -distance: 6.4%) is of the same magnitude as the differentiation between other closely related species (range p -distances: 4.3-14.7%; see Discussion and Fig. 229), we consider M. morio and M. cyanipennis as two different morphospecies.