Tipulamima flammipes (Hampson, 1910) (Macrotarsipus)

(Figs 15, 29)

Macrotarsipus flammipes Hampson, 1910: 153 .

Tipulamima flammipes: Hampson 1919: 56; Gaede 1929: 519; Heppner & Duckworth 1981: 41; Pühringer & Kallies 2004: 33.

Macrotarsipodes flammipes: Dalla Torre & Strand 1925: 6 .

Type material examined. Lectotype: ♂ (Figs 15, 29), Uganda, Entebbe, E.A. Minchin leg. (BM genitalia slide No. 3977), designated herein, with labels: “Uganda. / Entebbe. /..05. / E.A.Minchin. / 1906–19.”; “ Macrotarsipus / flammipes / type ♂. Hmpsn.”; “Type / H.T.”; “B.M. ♂ / Genitalia slide / No. 3977” (NHMUK) . Paralectotype: 1♀, with labels: “ Uganda. / Entebbe. /..05. / E.A.Minchin. / 1906–19.”; “ Macrotarsipus / flammipes / type ♀. Hmpsn.”; “Type / H.T.” (NHMUK) .

A close relationship of the two original types of Tipulamima flammipes can be excluded. Both specimens are indeed nearly of the same size with 28 mm (male) and 26 mm (female), but differ considerably in several characters. The male was dissected and its antennae are missing. It has the labial palpi broader than the female; the patagia black (red in the female); the inner margin of the tegulae red (cranially and caudally red in the female); the mesothorax dorsally black (red in the female); the wings, especially the hindwings, broader with much shorter discal cells; the wing bases black (red in the female); the discal spots smaller, that of the hindwing very short and narrow, reaching M2 (hindwing discal spot cuneiform, reaching M 3 in the female); the apical area absent (broad black in the female). The female has the antenna dorso-apically white (not so in any other species of Tipulamima); in the forewing the stalk of R4+R5 is shorter and the cubitus veins clearly separated; the abdomen proximally instead of basally red, slightly waisted and caudally tapered (all not so in the male). Considering these characters, we conclude that the female specimen does not belong to Tipulamima . It may well be closely related, if not conspecific with Synanthedon ferox (Meyrick, 1929), a species overlooked by Heppner & Duckworth (1981) and Pühringer & Kallies (2004). In order to stabilise nomenclature, we designate the male specimen, with the BM genitalia slide No. 3977 as the lectotype of T. flammipes . The second specimen, the female, is a paralectotype. The lectotype is the only known specimen of this species.

Diagnosis. Externally very similar to T. hesperia sp. nov. For differentiation see there. The structure of the male genitalia (Fig. 29) is very similar to other members of the genus. The setae of the curved, distal part of the crista sacculi are arranged somewhat denser.