Sepedon (Parasepedon) senegalensis, Macquart, 1843

Knutson, Lloyd V., Deeming, John C. & Ebejer, Martin J., 2018, The Snail-killing Flies (Diptera: Sciomyzidae) of West Africa, Zootaxa 4483 (1), pp. 67-100 : 84-85

Sepedon (Parasepedon) senegalensis, Macquart, 1843

Sepedon argyrostetha Speiser, 1910: 169 (Tanzania) . Synonymy by Hendel 1911: 275 (confirmed by Verbeke 1963: 55, who examined the type in Stockholm).

Original description: “ ♂ DU SENEGAL. Muséum et ma collection”.

Lectotype: Verbeke (1963) noted “Au Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle à Paris nous avons désigné comme type un spécimen étiqueté “ Sénégal (Guérin)”. De sexe mâle d’après la description originale, le type se trouve en mauvais état de conservation et manqué l’abdomen, les pattes postérieures, une patte intermédiaire et une antenne. Les caractères encore perceptibles correspondent nèamoins parfaitement avec la description originale de Macquart ”.… “La collection Macquart de Muséum de Paris renferme un deuxième spécimen dont les caractéristiques ne s’accordent guère avec la description de Macquart et que nous avons identifié comme S. (P.) ruficeps Becker. ”

Verbeke (1963) also noted “La collection Macquart du Musée d’Histoire Naturelle de la ville de Lille (France) ne contient plus de spécimen de S. (P.) senegalensis (teste Prof. R. Defretin)”. Knutson examined the collection in Lille in 1980 and did not see specimens of S. senegalensis . At the MNHNP, Macquart Diptera Collection, Box 27, No. 997, Knutson saw the two specimens referred to by Verbeke (1963). Both are labelled “ Sepedon senegalensis Macq. Guérin ”. The specimen without an abdomen bears a red label “Type” and the male (genitalia not examined) bears a label “ Sepedon ruficeps det. Verbeke, 1962”.

We have not identified any specimen as S. senegalensis . The original and “lectotype” material, as noted below, is questionable. Even if Verbeke (1950, 1963) correctly matched one of Macquart’s original specimens and description with his material, the male genitalia that he figured of his compared material from Democratic Republic of Congo appear very similar to S. ruficeps Becker, 1923 . It is likely that S. senegalensis Macquart will prove to be unrecognizable, with S. senegalensis Verbeke (nec Macquart) proving to be a misidentification for S. ruficeps Becker. Gbedjissi & Vala (2014) provided illustrations of the male genitalia of Verbeke’s concept of the species S. senegalensis and their concept of S. ruficeps . However, as S. senegalensis is not recognizable from the type material we are unable to determine if S. senegalensis and S. ruficeps constitute a single species.

References to figures: Macquart 1843 (adult habitus, lateral view of head); Verbeke 1950 (surstylus, aedeagus); Verbeke 1963 (photos. of surstyli, aedeagus).

Published records. (probably all are misidentifications of S. ruficeps Becker and/or other species): SENEGAL ( Macquart 1843); TANZANIA ( Speiser 1910; Hendel 1911); DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ( Verbeke 1950, 1961, 1962b); RWANDA ( Verbeke 1950); MOZAMBIQUE ( Verbeke 1961); SOUTH AFRICA: TRANSVAAL ( Steyskal & Verbeke 1956); ZAMBIA ( Verbeke 1962b).

Biology. Unknown.