Xalama, Bartlett & Kennedy, 2018
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4441.3.5 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D40D474F-A461-4F3C-967E-C833FFB342F3 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6485110 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038ACF05-B348-FF98-FF1D-6A8BFD508B05 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Xalama |
status |
gen. nov. |
Xalama View in CoL , new genus
( Figures 19–24 View FIGURES 19–24 , 27–29 View FIGURES 25–29 , 37 View FIGURES 35–37 , 39 View FIGURES 38–42 )
Type species. Malaxa microstyla Muir, 1930: 211
Description. Color. Brownish with distinctive paler markings, especially on head; wings clear with strong fuscous markings ( Figs. 19–21, 23–24 View FIGURES 19–24 ). Structure. Body slender and elongate; length males = 4.69 mm (n=5); females not available (only males examined). Head narrower than pronotum ( Figs. 19, 23 View FIGURES 19–24 ), carinae concolorous. Carinae of head distinct although median carina of vertex weaker. Frons elongate and parallel-sided, narrowed between eyes, widest near frontoclypeal suture ( Figs. 20, 24 View FIGURES 19–24 ; l:w = 2.5:1, n=5). Vertex narrowing distally, slightly projecting in front of eyes, vertex broader along hind margin than along midline; submedian carinae distinct, uniting before fastigium, basal compartments longer than wide. Rostrum reaching hind coxae. Antennae cylindrical, segment II long; nearly surpassing apex of clypeus; segment I about 1/3 length of II ( Figs. 20, 24 View FIGURES 19–24 ; ratio I:II 0.37:1), length antennal segment I = 0.13 mm (n=5), II = 0.34 (n=5). Pronotum subequal or just shorter than vertex along midline, lateral carinae usually not attaining hind margin. Mesonotum longer in middle line than vertex and pronotum together. Wings elongate ( = 3.8 mm, n=5), much longer than abdomen, predominately clear with distinctive dark markings, nodus at about 2/3 length, wing apex rounded. Spinal formula of hind leg usually 5- 6-4. Calcar thick, concave on inner surface, without teeth along the hind margin, bearing an apical tooth. Pygofer roughly triangular in lateral view ( Figs. 27 View FIGURES 25–29 , 39 View FIGURES 38–42 ), elongate ventrally and strongly narrowed dorsally; pygofer opening and lateral margins with projections (in microstyla , midventral projection is a broad, rounded scoop in caudal view, lateral projections just below midlength in form of rounded tooth in lateral view); diaphragm from lateral projections of pygofer broadly concave beneath gonostyli (weak or absent above gonostyli). Gonostyli ( Figs. 27, 28 View FIGURES 25–29 ) flattened and curled (apically scoop-like), irregularly parallel-sided, curved medially; bearing low, rounded tooth medially near midlength; apically broader and more flattened, somewhat angular, bearing find, irregular serrulations on inner apical margin fine, irregularly placed setae. Aedeagus ( Figs. 27 View FIGURES 25–29 , 39 View FIGURES 38–42 ) elongate and robust, strongly downcurved into long, sclerotized structure, slightly twisted, bearing an irregular row of teeth on left and right sides and long, downward projecting process at curve. Anal tube (anal segment) small and simple.
Etymology. The new genus name “ Xalama ” is an anagram of “ Malaxa ”, and is to be understood as feminine in gender.
Remarks. The new genus is similar to Malaxa acutipennis in having a simple anal tube and a strongly downcurved aedeagus; also, the gonostyli may be considered grossly similar in appearance. They differ in that Xalama has projections (lateral and midventral) on the opening of the pygofer (vs. simple), the proportions of the antennae, and the shape of the wings and details of the wing venation.
Xalama differs from the Chinese Malaxa in having a simple anal tube, and the projections on the opening of the pygofer is different; also, although it is not entirely clear from all the illustrations of Chinese Malaxa , it appears that the diaphragm is much more complete in Malaxa than in Xalama . Also, Xalama has much shorter antennae which are differently proportioned between the two segments.
Xalama differs most obviously from Lamaxa in the nature and proportions of the antennae (much shorter in Xalama ), and in the downcurved aedeagus (versus caudally-projecting with apical membranous flagella), and the nature of the processes on the opening of the pygofer.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.