Periscelis (Periscelis) winnertzii Egger, 1862

Roháček, Jindřich & Andrade, Rui, 2017, Periscelis fugax sp. nov., an overlooked European species of Periscelididae (Diptera), with notes on the morphology and terminology of terminalia, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 57 (1), pp. 229-251: 244-248

publication ID

http://doi.org/ 10.1515/aemnp-2017-0071

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:AAEF44BB-F7B0-48B7-9175-7B10C26CFC1E

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/501B87AA-FFFD-FFE5-094C-5EB9FC0D9DD8

treatment provided by

Marcus

scientific name

Periscelis (Periscelis) winnertzii Egger, 1862
status

 

Periscelis (Periscelis) winnertzii Egger, 1862  

( Figs 5 View Figs 3–5 , 22–34 View Figs 22–27 View Figs 28–32 View Figs 33–34 )

Periscelis Winertzii Egger, 1862: 780   (description, typographical error);

Periscelis winertzii: MATHIS & RUNG (2011: 358)   (catalogue, misspelling).

Periscelis Winnertzii: SCHINER (1863: 272)   (revision, key, emendation of name).

Periscelis winnertzii: PAPP & WITHERS (2011: 354)   (revision, illustr.)

Periscelis Winnertzi: BECKER (1905: 217)   (catalog, misspelling).

Microperiscelis Winnertzi: OLDENBERG (1914: 37)   (generic combination, misspelling); SÉGUY (1934: 394) (key, misspelling).

Periscelis (Microperiscelis) Winnertzi: DUDA (1934: 11)   (revision, misspelling)

Periscelis Winnertzi: PAPP (1973: 79)   (key, misspelling).

Periscelis (Microperiscelis) winnertzi: PAPP (1984: 234)   (catalog; misspelling).

Periscelis (Myodris) winnertzi: TSCHIRNHAUS (1999: 170)   (subgeneric combination, misspelling).

Parclioscena Winnertzii: ENDERLEIN (1936: 177)   (generic combination).

Material examined: PORTUGAL: Porto: Vila Nova de Gaia, Avintes, Parque Biológico de Gaia , 41°06′00.0″N, 8°33′35.3″W, 50 m, 29.vi.2011, sweeping over bark of Quercus   trees with sap runs, 1 J, R. Andrade leg. (dried from ethanol, genit. prep., SMOC) GoogleMaps   ; Porto: Braga, Vila Nova de Famalicão, Novais , 41°23′26.34ʺN, 8°26′06.06ʺW, 150 m, 28.vi.2013, sweeping over bark of Quercus   trees with sap runs, 1 ♀, R. Andrade leg. (in ethanol, genit. prep., RAP) GoogleMaps   . HUNGARY: Szokolya, Vasfazék-v., Magas Tax alatt, 450 m, fekete tölgyfaseb, kifolyó nedvéről, 13.ix.1997, 1 J 1 ♀ (caught in copula), L. & J. Papp leg. (both genit prep., HNHM)   . SLOVAKIA: Muránska Dlhá Lúka 2 km SE, 48°42′12ʺN, 20°05′51ʺE, 360 m, beer trap in hornbeam forest, 3.ix.-27.x.2012, 1 ♀, J. Roháček & J. Ševčík leg. (dried from ethanol, SMOC) GoogleMaps   ; Muránska planina NP: Muránska Lehota 3.7 km E, above Javorníčková dolina, 48°43′15ʺN, 19°59′56ʺE, 780 m, sweeping undergrowth of oak-linden forest, 13.viii.2015, 1 ♀, J. Roháček leg. (genit. prep., SMOC) GoogleMaps   .

Diagnosis. A slightly larger on average (3.7–4.2 mm) and more robust species than P. fugax   sp. nov. with very similar colouration and chaetotaxy but differing from the latter mainly as follows: pedicel with black spot larger, extended laterally to its ventral margin ( Figs 5 View Figs 3–5 , 33 View Figs 33–34 ); mesonotum more uniformly grey microtomentose, with brown medial vittae reduced or absent ( Figs 5 View Figs 3–5 , 34 View Figs 33–34 ); scutellum darker, with yellow colour reduced ( Fig. 34 View Figs 33–34 ) to entirely brown ( Fig. 5 View Figs 3–5 ); male pregenital sternum (S6) widened posteriorly, with brownish pattern along margins but without posteromedial depression ( Fig. 22 View Figs 22–27 ); sustylus distally thinner and more acute ( Fig. 24 View Figs 22–27 ); gonostylus with apex curved anteriorly ( Fig. 26 View Figs 22–27 ); postgonite with basal part not expanded ventrally and with distal part more robust ( Fig. 25 View Figs 22–27 ); female T8 wider, posteromedially pale pigmented ( Fig. 29 View Figs 28–32 ); female S8 also wider, less densely setose and dark-pigmented only laterally ( Fig. 30 View Figs 28–32 ).

Further differences against P. fugax   sp. nov.: Male head with gena lighter, brownish only at ventral margin. Antenna with apex of 1st flagellomere more rounded, with little prominent anterodorsal corner ( Fig. 5 View Figs 3–5 ). Arista with 5 long dorsal and 3–4 long ventral rays. Cephalic chaetotaxy with some setae (vte, oc) slightly longer and thicker, also peristomal setae distinctly more robust. Thorax darker than in P. fugax   not only as regards microtomentose pattern on mesonutum and darker scutellum but also pleural part of thorax darker, with longitudinal pale band narrower. On mesonotum ac setulae more numerous, in up to 10 rows on suture; macrosetae more robust, particularly anterior dc longer. Wing with fumose spots definitely smaller, less distinct: that in the middle restricted to close surrounding of r-m and those in wing apex (at ends of R 2+3 and R 4+5) small, often poorly visible. Knob of haltere partly yellow on tip. Legs not different from those of P. fugax   . Male preabdomen with the same blackish brown bands on T3–T5 but S3–S5 distinctly darker, entirely uniformly brown. Postabdomen of similar construction but S6 markedly dissimilar in shape and pigmentation (see diagnosis). Male genitalia different not only in form of surstylus, gonostylus and postgonite (see above) but also cercus ( Fig. 27 View Figs 22–27 ) differently setose (densely proximally, sparsely distally) and ejacapodeme ( Fig. 23 View Figs 22–27 ) of different shape, particularly proximally.

Female with sexually different coloration of face as in P. fugax   but with gena lighter, all yellowish white, not brownish at vibrissal angle. Abdomen with T3–T5 dorsomedially paler brown than laterally. Sterna S3–S5 uniformly ochreous (thus lighter than in male), see S 5 in Fig. 28 View Figs 28–32 . Postabdomen broader anteriorly, with S6 distinctly longer and less transverse than that of P. fugax   and 6th spiracle in margin of T6 which is more bent ventrally ( Fig. 28 View Figs 28–32 ). Differences in pigmentation and setosity of T8 ( Fig. 29 View Figs 28–32 ) and S8 ( Fig. 30 View Figs 28–32 ) are stressed in the above diagnosis. Ventral receptacle ( Fig. 31 View Figs 28–32 ) digitiform but not widened distally, with similarly finely striated proximal part but distal part also striated, not tuberculate and terminal small projection different, distally thicker. Spermathecae ( Fig. 32 View Figs 28–32 ) very similar to those of P. fugax   but larger compared to ducts. Setae on cercus shorter, the apical in particular ( Fig. 28 View Figs 28–32 ).

Remarks: Periscelis winnertzii   had formerly been classified in several genera and/or subgenera and its name has been variously misspelled (see review of synonymies above). In EGGER’ S (1862) original description it is named “ winertzii   “ but this is an evident typographical or typing error because the species was named according to Johann Winnertz whose name is written correctly in the derivatio nominis in EGGER’ S (1862) paper, see also PAPP & WITHERS (2011: 356). Consequently, SCHINER (1863: 272) emended the species’ name correctly.

P. winnertzii   and its sister species P. fugax   surely do not belong to a separate supraspecific taxon inasmuch as their genitalia are of the same construction as those of the type species of Periscelis   , viz. P. annulipes Loew, 1858   . Classification of P. winnertzii   within subgenus or genus Myodris   (and its synonyms, see above) was also incorrect because based on the (plesiomorphic) presence of posterior cross-vein (dm-cu). In reality, dm-cu is distinctly attenuated or interrupted by a spurious vein in both these species, indicating a first step to reduction of the cross-vein being so characteristic of other Periscelis   (s. str.) species.

Biology. The biology of P. winnertzii   was studied by PAPP (1998) in Hungary. Adults emerge in mid July to beginning of September. They lay eggs in September. The larvae live in sap runs in black oozing wounds on old oak trees, and during autumn develop to third instar which is the overwintering stage. Mature (third instar) larvae were found as late as in May. Pupariation occurs on wet bark in June or July. Adults occur from June to September (most commonly in September) but the two specimens examined from Portugal were found already towards the end of June.

Distribution. Also P. winnertzii   is probably widely distributed in Europe. Because formerly mixed with P. fugax   , the reliable records are only those revised by PAPP & WITHERS (2011) from Poland (Breslau = Wrocław), Austria and Hungary and those recorded here from Portugal (new) and Slovakia. A record by ROHÁČEK (2013b) from the latter country also is correct (revised). Previous records of P. winnertzii   from other countries, summarized by MATHIS & RUNG (2011), viz. from Great Britain, France, The Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany are to be checked as they can partly deal with P. fugax   . The same can be true for the finding of the species in Spain (CARLES- TOLRÁ & PAGOLA- CARTE 2013). On the other hand the species is to be (for the time being) deleted from the fauna of the Czech Republic ( MÁCA 2009) because all specimens recorded by MÁCA et al. (2005) proved to belong to P. fugax   .

SMOC

Slezske Muzeum Opava

HNHM

Hungarian Natural History Museum (Termeszettudomanyi Muzeum)

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Diptera

Family

Periscelididae

Genus

Periscelis

Loc

Periscelis (Periscelis) winnertzii Egger, 1862

Roháček, Jindřich & Andrade, Rui 2017
2017
Loc

Periscelis winertzii: MATHIS & RUNG (2011: 358)

MATHIS W. N. & RUNG A. 2011: )
2011
Loc

Periscelis winnertzii:

PAPP L. & WITHERS P. 2011: )
2011
Loc

Periscelis (Myodris) winnertzi:

TSCHIRNHAUS M. VON 1999: )
1999
Loc

Periscelis (Microperiscelis) winnertzi:

PAPP L. 1984: )
1984
Loc

Parclioscena Winnertzii:

ENDERLEIN G. 1936: )
1936
Loc

Periscelis (Microperiscelis) Winnertzi:

DUDA O. 1934: )
1934
Loc

Microperiscelis Winnertzi:

OLDENBERG L. 1914: )
1914
Loc

Periscelis Winnertzi: BECKER (1905: 217)

BECKER T. 1905: )
1905
Loc

Periscelis Winertzii Egger, 1862: 780

EGGER J. 1862: 780
1862