Helina subpubescens, Macquart, 1847

Pont, Adrian C., 2012, Muscoidea (Fanniidae, Anthomyiidae, Muscidae) described by P. J. M. Macquart (Insecta, Diptera), Zoosystema 34 (1), pp. 39-111 : 91

subpubescens Macquart, 1847 , Aricia

Aricia subpubescens Macquart, 1847a: 86 ( 1847b: 102) , pl. 5, fig. 11. Lectotype ♂, “de la Tasmanie. M. Bigot.”( Australia, Tasmania), by present designation, in OUMNH.

MATERIAL. — Described from the ♂ sex from Tasmania, in Bigot’s collection. The ♂ in OUMNH is therefore the only syntype extant. It was lent by Verrall to Stein in 1907, according to a note in Verrall’s MS list of the Diptera of the Bigot collection. It is rather mouldy, especially around the head ; left antenna and right hind leg missing, and right wing fractured. The labels include a purple label in G. Enderlein’s hand “ Tasmanien / (Coll. Bigot)”, and Macquart’s label “ Aricia / subpubescens. ♂ ♀. / n. sp. Macq. Tasm.”. I have labelled it and designate it herewith as lectotype .

There is a ♀ with the lectotype in OUMNH. It is very damaged and dirty, and has no type-status.

In MNHN, under no. 2398 of the Macquart collection, there is a ♂ standing over the name Aricia subpubescens that Albuquerque (1950a: 245) designated as lectotype. This lectotype designation is invalid because the species was described from Bigot’s collection, not from MNHN material, and this ♂ cannot have been part of the type-series. Although Albuquerque gives “ Tasmânia (M. Bigot)” as the data for this ♂, it has an accession no. 4.46 which refers to a collection from Tasmania sent by Jules Verreaux and received at MNHN on 19 November 1846: it is therefore extremely improbable that Macquart even saw this specimen before the publication of his description of Aricia subpubescens in 1847. Furthermore, the MNHN ♂ does not have any label in Macquart’s hand.

CURRENT IDENTITY. — The lectotype is a species of Helina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 , and Helina subpubescens is an older name for the species previously known as Helina antartica (Bigot, 1885) ( Pont 1989b: 686; 2000: 4).

The OUMNH ♀ is probably conspecific, and the MNHN ♂ (redescribed by Albuquerque 1950a: 244, 245), which lacks both mid and hind legs, is also conspecific. Stein (1907b: 288) also studied the lectotype and concluded that it was conspecific with Ophyra rufipes Macquart, 1847 (see above). Both Aricia subpubescens and Ophyra rufipes were described on the same page by Macquart (1847a: 86; 1847b: 102). As first reviser ( Pont 1989b: 686), I chose A. subpubescens as the valid name for this species, partly because it is described earlier on the page and partly because it is based on a ♂ lectotype in moderate condition, whereas O. rufipes is based on a ♀ lectotype in very poor condition.