Trichopsychodina Ježek, 1985

Ježek, Jan, Pont, François Le, Martinez, Eddy, Mollinedo, Sergio, Insad & Ibba, n Edificio, 2011, Three new species of non-biting moth flies (Diptera: Psychodidae: Psychodinae) from Bolivia, with notes on higher taxa of the subfamily, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 51 (1), pp. 183-210 : 185-186

Status of Trichopsychodina Ježek, 1985 and Threticina Vaillant, 1991

The genesis of the above mentioned classification is as follows: The tribe Telmatoscopini Vaillant, 1971 was synonymized by JEŽEK (1984b) with the tribe Paramormiini Enderlein, 1937 (subtr. Paramormiina of ENDERLEIN 1937), and later, the same action was proposed by DUCKHOUSE (1987). Moreover, we synonymize here the subtribe Threticina Vaillant, 1991 (syn. nov.) erected by VAILLANT (1991: 207) with Trichopsychodina Ježek, 1985 with almost the same included genera (see Table 1).

Differential diagnosis. The genus Eurygarka Quate, 1959 can be keyed by flagellomeres with pair of broad three-branched leaf-like ascoids, with multiple longitudinal vein-like lines ( Fig. 4 ), remainders of 10 th segment inside of epandrium distinctly developed, conspicuously hairy ( Figs. 17 , 23 ).

These characters contrast with the genus Philosepedon Eaton, 1904 with pair of narrow needle-shaped ascoids composed from three arms, remainders of 10 th segment inside of epandrium almost missing.

Discussion. Genus Eurygarka Quate, 1959 belongs safely to the subtribe Trichopsychodina Ježek, 1985 of Paramormiini Enderlein, 1937 , which is supported by the triangular pteropleurite ( Fig. 19 ) in contrast to the trapezoidal pteropleurite of Psychodini Enderlein, 1937 (see JEŽEK & VAN HARTEN 2005: Figs. 13 , 23 , 46 , 63 , 79 ).

The genus-group name Eurygarka was used at first by QUATE (1959) and then by QUATE & VOCKEROTH (1981) for a single species Psychoda helicis Dyar, 1929 (type species) reared originally from a dead terrestrial snail in Cuba, and known also from Maryland (DEL ROSARIO 1936), Florida and Alabama ( QUATE 1955). DUCKHOUSE (1973) downgraded Eurygarka and included it in the genus Philosepedon Eaton, 1904 as a subgenus. However, WAGNER & HRIBAR (2004) reported the species as Philosepedon helicis from Florida Keys Islands and IBÁÑEZ- BERNAL & CÁCERES (2005) used the genus-group name Philosepedon for a new species from Peru with characteristic foliated ascoids formed as in E. helicis . Recently, CURLER & MOULTON (2008) discussed in detail the systematic position of Eurygarka species group and described two new Nearctic species of the genus Eurygarka from the United States. The concept of Eurygarka according to CURLER & MOULTON (2008) corresponds with a restricted conception of the genus Philosepedon Eaton, 1904 of JEŽEK (1985, 1999b) and JEŽEK & VAN HARTEN (2007) in contrast to Philosepedon sensu lato of QUATE (1962) and DUCKHOUSE (1973). With a respect to the papers of WAGNER & HRIBAR (2004), IBÁÑEZ- BERNAL & CÁCERES (2005) and CURLER & MOULTON (2008), altogether five species belong to the genus Eurygarka Quate, 1959 .

Figures

Figs. 1–9. Eurygarka freyrei sp. nov., J. 1 – head; 2 – back of the head (caudal view of fold of eye); 3 – apical antennomeres; 4 – antennal ascoid (sensory filament); 5 – cibarium, labrum and epipharynx; 6 – lateral view of gonocoxite, gonostyle and aedeagal complex; 7 – lateral view of epandrium and surstylus; 8 – surstylus (inner side, retinaculi omitted); 9 – caudal view of gonocoxite, gonostyle and aedeagal complex. Scale bars: 0.1 mm.

Figs. 10–17. Eurygarka freyrei sp. nov., J. 10 – facets; 11 – basal antennomeres; 12 – terminal lobes of labium; 13 – maxilla and palpus maxillaris; 14 – haltere; 15 – claw of P1; 16 – dorsal view of aedeagal complex and gonopods; 17 – dorsal view of epandrium and surstyli (retinaculi omitted). Scale bars: 0.1 mm, except 0.03 in Fig. 15.

Figs. 18–25. Eurygarka freyrei sp. nov., J. 18 – frontoclypeus and facets; 19 – lateral view of thoracic sclerites; 20 – thoracal spiracle; 21 – wing; 22 – basal costal wing node in detail; 23 – patch of ventral epandrial brush spines; 24 – apical part of retinaculum in dorsal view; 25 – same in lateral view. Scale bars: 0.05 mm, except 0.01 in Figs. 24–25, 0.1 mm and 0.5 mm in Figs. 19 and 21.

Figs. 40–48. Tinearia boliviensis sp. nov.,J and♀. 40 – apical antennomeres (♀); 41 – same (J); 42 – terminal lobe of labium and epipharynx (♀); 43 – maxilla and palpus maxillaris (♀); 44 – haltere (J); 45 – lateral view of gonostyle; 46 – lateral view of epandrium and surstylus; 47 – dorsal view of aedeagal complex and gonopods (a little deflected); 48 – dorsal view of epandrium and surstyli. Scale bars: 0.1 mm, except 0.05 in Figs. 41–42 and 45.

Figs. 59–66. Alepia santacruz sp. nov., J. 59 – head; 60 – the same, inner structures of vertex in detail; 61 – basal antennomeres; 62 – apical antennomeres; 63 – claw of P1; 64 – lateral view of gonocoxite and gonostyle; 65 – lateral view of aedeagal complex; 66 – dorsal view of epandrium and surstyli. Scale bars: 0.1 mm, except 0.3 in Figs. 59 and 65–66, 0.05 in Fig. 63.

Figs. 79. Landscape types of Bolivia with position of sampled localities (A – Circuata: Yungas, humid, montane forest; B – Cieneguillas: remnants of interandean dry tropical forest, nearby Yungas humid forest; C – Organo: Chiquitano semi-deciduous dry forest).