Dohrniphora papuana (Brues)

Disney, R. Henry L., 2003, Revision of the Afrotropical species of Dohrniphora DAHL (Diptera: Phoridae), Zootaxa 196, pp. 1-24 : 16

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.156866

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6276845

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F187DC-FF80-277D-B510-DE16217FFBA7

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Dohrniphora papuana (Brues)
status

 

Dohrniphora papuana (Brues) View in CoL

( Fig. 22 View FIGURES 22 ­ 23 )

Phora papuana Brues, 1905: 541 View in CoL .

Dohrniphora papuana ( Brues) Brues, 1915: 96 View in CoL . Dohrniphora schmitzi Kohl, 1914: 121 View in CoL . (Female only). Male, Disney & Kistner, 1989: 80. Syn. nov.

This species is included in the key to Oriental species ( Disney, 1990). I have a series of males and females from the Seychelles which clearly belong to the problem species, Dohrniphora View in CoL sp.?, for which Collin (1912) had only a single female. He rightly compared it with D. papuana ( Brues, 1905) View in CoL , but dismissed this species from further consideration because his specimen had “a long proboscis” but the female of D. papuana View in CoL had, according to Collin, a proboscis “of normal length”. In his original description of both sexes Brues makes no reference to the proboscis. However, Brues (1907) commented on the “elongated proboscis” of the female D. papuana View in CoL . Furthermore, Collin (1912) refers to the “elongated proboscis” of “D. cleghorni’ (= D. cornuta View in CoL ) females. In fact the females of both species covered by Collin have the lengths of the proboscis subequal. However, the males of Collin’s species has now been compared with males from the Oriental Region (referred to by Disney, 1990) and have proven to be a different species, which is described above (see D. confusa View in CoL ). However, the good series of males of this complex from Yemen are indistinguishable from the Oriental specimens of D. papuana View in CoL . Furthermore, a comparison of these males with those of D. schmitzi ( Kohl, 1914) View in CoL , a species from mainland Africa described from females only but whose male was subsequently described by Disney & Kistner (1989), again indicates that they are indistinguishable from D. papuana View in CoL apart from the fact that these D. schmitzi View in CoL males have no posterodorsal hair palisade on segment 5 of the front tarsus, whereas in the available Oriental specimens of D. papuana View in CoL there is typically (but not invariably) an incomplete palisade on this segment. A comparison of the females from Yemen with those from mainland Africa show that the number of anteroventral spinules above the apical spurs of the hind tibia ranges from 0­3 in the Arabian specimens but 4­7 in the West African specimens. Otherwise these females are indistinguishable. With the identical male hypopygia and spinule complexes at the base of the male hind femora I conclude that D. schmitzi View in CoL is a synonym of D. papuana View in CoL , but it is either a distinct subspecies (recognizable in the female sex only) or, more likely, that there is an East­West cline in the number of spinules on the female hind tibia and the likelihood of an incomplete hair palisade on the fifth segment of the front tarsus.

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Diptera

Family

Phoridae

Genus

Dohrniphora

Loc

Dohrniphora papuana (Brues)

Disney, R. Henry L. 2003
2003
Loc

Dohrniphora papuana ( Brues) Brues, 1915 : 96

Disney 1989: 80
Brues 1915: 96
Kohl 1914: 121
1915
Loc

Phora papuana

Brues 1905: 541
1905
GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF