Mortoniella (Nanotrichia) zamora, Blahnik & Holzenthal, 2017
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.5170203 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:AB1A57F0-7CB4-4830-920B-DF219740A596 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5186341 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F687A7-FF90-F86E-FF01-BDA64382FAAF |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Mortoniella (Nanotrichia) zamora |
status |
sp. nov. |
Mortoniella (Nanotrichia) zamora , new species
Fig. 89 View Figure 89
The genital morphology of this species is rather difficult to interpret and we are not exactly sure whether the prominent lateral spines with enlarged bases should be considered paramere appendages, with the basal segment of the paramere modified into short spines, or if the short basal spines are paramere appendages and the lateral spine-like processes are endophallic sclerites, homologous to those in M. aries (Flint) . The description follows the latter interpretation and, based on this interpretation, M. zamora is probably most similar to M. aries , differing in the structure of the lateral sclerites of the endothecal membrane and also in having the dorsal phallic spine more strongly reflexed, with its lateral wing-like processes posteriorly projected. Mortoniella zamora also has some (probably superficial) similarities to species in the velasquezi group, including rod-like appendages from the ventral margin of the phallobase that are inflated apically (although very short); relatively large mesal pockets on the inferior appendages; very elongate, curved, spine-like projections from the mesal pockets; and inferior appendages with short, upright dorsal lobes, fused apically to the lateral margin of the phallicata. The most diagnostic features of M. zamora are probably found in the form of the basal sclerites of the endophallic membrane and in the very elongate, curved, spine-like projections from the mesal pockets of the inferior appendages. The strongly recurved dorsal phallic spine and posteriorly projecting lateral wing-like projections from the same structure are also usefully diagnostic.
Adult —Length of forewing: male 2.3-2.5 mm; female 2.6 mm. Forewing with forks I, II, and III present, hind wing with fork II only; both wings narrow, acute apically. Spur formula 0:3:4. Overall color (in alcohol) yellowish-brown (specimen badly faded). Wing bar not evident. Males with at least some scale-like setae paralleling veins of forewing.
Male genitalia —Ventral process of segment VI posteriorly projecting, narrow basally, length about 3 times width at base. Segment IX with anterolateral margin rounded and distinctly produced in ventral ½, posterolateral margin nearly straight; segment deeply mesally excised dorsally and ventrally, forming lateral lobes, separated dorsomesally by about ½ width of segment. Tergum X moderate in length, lateral margins subparallel; apex of tergum with deep U-shaped emargination, extending nearly ½ length of tergum; apicolateral lobes not evident as such, formed by mesal invagination, apicolateral margin subtruncate; tergum, in lateral view, with broadly rounded ventrolateral lobes, more or less continuous with apicolateral margin. Inferior appendage with short setose, thumb-like, dorsal projection, evidently fused to phallicata posteriorly. Mesal pockets of inferior appendage large, with very elongate and strongly posterodorsally curved, spine-like, apicoventral projections. Paramere appendage very short, acute apically. Phallobase with short ventral rod-like projections, strongly flared apically. Dorsal phallic spine, as viewed laterally, short, strongly reflexed in about apical 1/3, apex acute; as viewed dorsally, with distinct lateral, posteriorly curved, wing-like appendages at about midlength. Phallicata short and membranous or weakly sclerotized, hardly evident as such, continuous with endophallic membrane. Endophallic membrane inflated, with pair of prominent lateral sclerites, enlarged basally and with apical spine-like projections from ventral margin; phallotremal spines absent.
Holotype male (alcohol)— ECUADOR: Zamora-Chinchipe: Zamora , 4.xii.1978, JJ Anderson ( UMSP000097035 View Materials ) ( NMNH).
Paratypes — COLOMBIA: Cauca: Municipio de Inzá, Quebrada San Andrés, ca 500 m W Restaurante “La Portada,” San Andrés de Pisimbalá, 2.58222° N, 76.04333° W, el 1750 m, 21.xii.1997, F Muñoz-Q, et al.– 1 male (pinned) ( UMSP) GoogleMaps ; ECUADOR: Zamora-Chinchipe: same data as holotype– 2 males, 1 female (alcohol) ( NMNH) .
Etymology —This species is names M. zamora , used as a noun in apposition, for the name of the collection locality where the type specimen was collected.
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |