Cyanonedys chalybaea ( Röder, 1881 ) Camargo & Vieira & Rafael, 2024

Camargo, Alexssandro, Vieira, Rodrigo & Rafael, José Albertino, 2024, Taxonomic review of Aphestia Schiner, 1866 (Diptera: Asilidae: Laphriinae) with description of seven new species, Zootaxa 5436 (1), pp. 1-80 : 74-76

Cyanonedys chalybaea ( Röder, 1881) comb. nov.

( Fig. 50 )

Aphestia chalybaea Röder, 1881: 386 ; Kertész, 1909: 167 (catalogue); Ricardo, 1913: 149 (revision of Australasian Asilidae ); Hull, 1962 (1): 383 (synopsis of world fauna); Daniels, 1989: 344 (catalogue); Stark, 1995: 140 (list of references)

Cyanonedys leucura Hermann, 1912: 130 ; Ricardo, 1913: 147 (revision of Australasian Asilidae ); Hull, 1962 (1): 383, 384, figs. 1312, 1321, 2108 (synopsis of world fauna); Daniels, 1989: 344 (catalogue) syn. nov.

Clariola nigrescens Ricardo, 1912: 359 ; Ricardo, 1913: 147 (synonymization with Cyanonedys leucura Hermann, 1912 ) syn. nov.

Taxonomic discussion ( Fig. 50 ). Röder (1881) provided a brief description of a male specimen from the type locality of Peak Downs (Queensland, Australia). After the description, this material was never studied again or compared with the Neotropical species .

According to Schiner (1866), in Aphestia , the most “posterior transverse vein” (apical portion of vein M 3 that closes cell m 3) is never running in the same line with the base of the M 2 vein (“transverse vein” that closes the discal cell), but only with both veins running in the same direction, in this case disjoint, with this disjunction occasioned by the short m-m transverse vein ( Fig. 7H ).

Röder (1881) associated his new species with Aphestia based on the postpedicel length and the position of the “most posterior transverse veins” on the wing. He also mentioned that his new species possessed both “most posterior transverse veins” running in a single line without a disjunction ( Fig. 50F ). This can be interpreted as a misunderstanding of the generic description of Aphestia , which says that these veins can run in the same direction but without form a single line (see Fig. 7H ).

The same misinterpretation was observed regarding the postpedicel, which is only about 2.5 times the length of the scape and pedicel combined in Aphestia , instead of three times, as described by Röder (1881). It seems that he never saw any type material and that his association was based solely on the interpretation of Schiner’s written description. Back in that time, illustrations of specimens were uncommon in descriptive works. Thus, it is easy to understand the misinterpretations that led him to describe his new species within Aphestia . It also shows us the importance of analysing type material before proposing and describing new species or producing revisionary works.

Hermann (1912) proposed Adelodus Hermann, 1912 as a Laphriinae genus from Australia (which he considered related to Aphestia ), whose main feature is the abdomen with seven visible abdominal tergites dorsally, adding that Aphestia chalybaea could belong to this genus. However, in the paragraphs that precede the description of Aphestia chalybaea, Röder (1881) stated that his new species was a “truly” Aphestia , possessing seven visible tergites dorsally ( Fig. 50G–H ) (an Adelodus feature) and the postpedicel about three times the length of scape and pedicel combined (an Aphestia feature). This statement (including other features mentioned by Röder (1881)) did not enable Hermann (1912) to allocate Aphestia chalybaea within Adelodus or Aphestia . Additionally, he had not seen the type material of this species and for this reason, an assertive decision about its position would be impossible to determine.

Curiously, in the same work, Hermann (1912) described Cyanonedys Hermann, 1912 , another Laphriinae genus for Australia, designating Cyanonedys leucura Hermann, 1912 as its type species. In this genus, the main features are the presence of seven visible abdominal tergites dorsally and the postpedicel only about two times the length of scape and pedicel combined ( Fig. 50E ). Probably, if Hermann had seen the type material of Aphestia chalybaea he would have recognized Röder’s misinterpretations and noted the similarities of this species with Cyanonedys .

According to Röder (1881), the type material of Aphestia chalybaea was deposited in the Museum Godeffroy and his private collection. The Godeffroy Museum was located in Hamburg, Germany and was dissolved in 1885. The collections were dispersed to many other museums with most of the zoological collections sent to the Hamburger Naturhistorisches Museum, which was later burned in air-raids by allied bombing during World War II ( Bieler & Petit 2012).

There was almost no hope of locating the type material of Aphestia chalybaea based on this information; it probably could have been destroyed or lost (or forgotten in any museum’s drawer if it was not sent to the Hamburger Naturhistorisches Museum). Luckily the paper of Stark (1995) informs us that the private collection of Victor von Röder was handed over to the Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg ( MLU), Halle (Saale), Germany. Thus, the type material of this species could be located and examined .

The new combination and synonymization were possible thanks to Fritz Geller-Grimm ( Curator at Museum Wiesbaden Natural History ( MWNH), Wiesbaden, Germany) who located the type specimens of Aphestia chalybaea among specimens that were lent from the Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg to MWNH in Wiesbaden, during the preparation of this study (Geller-Grimm, in litt., 2015). The type specimens have already been returned to MLU (Geller-Grimm, in litt., 2019) .

The type material of Aphestia chalybaea was compared with previously determined specimens of Cyanonedys leucura by Fritz Geller-Grimm (in litt., 2015), who recognized their similarity. Thus, Cyanonedys chalybaea ( Röder, 1881) comb. nov. is proposed herein as a new combination with Cyanonedys Hermann, 1912 . As a consequence, Cyanonedys leucura Hermann, 1912 syn. nov. and Clariola nigrescens Ricardo, 1912 syn. nov. are proposed herein as new synonyms of Cyanonedys chalybaea ( Röder, 1881) comb. nov.

Distribution. Australia (Queensland).

Material examined. Syntypes. [ AUSTRALIA, Queensland] G. / 180 / Peak Downs / v. Röder / Aphestia chalybaea von Roeder, 1881 TYPUS des. GELLER-GRIMM, 2015 (♂ MLU); 80 / Peak Downs / Aphestia chalybaea n. sp. / v. Röder / Aphestia chalybaea von Roeder, 1881 TYPUS des. GELLER-GRIMM, 2015 [abdomen missing] (1 MLU); F D. / 116 / Peak Downs / v. Röder / Aphestia chalybaea von Roeder, 1881 TYPUS des. GELLER-GRIMM, 2015 (1♀ MLU).

Figures

FIGURE 7. Aphestia brasiliensis Schiner, 1866 stat. rev. holotype male. A. Dorsal habitus (insert: labels, not to scale); B. Lateral habitus; C. Head, frontal; D. Head, lateral; E. Postpedicel, lateral; F. Postpedicel, lateral (identified specimen, female); G. Scutellum, dorsal (yellow arrows indicate insertion of macrosetae); H. Right wing, dorsal (identified specimen, male). Abbreviations: r: radial cells; r-m: radial-medial crossvein. Scale bar 1 mm.

FIGURE 50. Cyanonedys chalybaea (Röder, 1881) comb. nov. syntypes. A. Dorsal habitus (insert: labels, not to scale); B. Lateral habitus; C. Head, frontal; D. Same, lateral; E. Antennae, dorsal; F. Right wing, dorsal; G. Abdomen, lateral; H. Same, dorsal. Abbreviations: r: radial cells; r-m: radial-medial crossvein. Courtesy of Fritz Geller-Grimm, Wiesbaden Museum, Wiesbaden.