Conosiphon Becker, 1923

van den Broek, Reinoud, Alvarez Fidalgo, Piluca & Smit, John, 2023, A new species of the genus Conosiphon Becker, 1923 and the first records of this genus for Europe (Diptera, Asilidae), ZooKeys 1181, pp. 59-79 : 59

Conosiphon Becker, 1923

Type species.

Dysmachus pauper Becker, 1907 (by original designation); type locality: Algeria.

This Palearctic genus was originally proposed by Becker (1923: 36) as a subgenus of Machimus Loew, 1849 sensu stricto based on the combination of the long macrosetae on the mesonotum in both the male and the female (similar to that of the genus Dysmachus Loew, 1860, and very different from typical Machimus , without macrosetae on the prescutum) and the shape of the ovipositor of the female (very different from that of Dysmachus , with cerci partly incorporated in the ovipositor in tergite IX, and closer to that of Machimus , with cerci sticking out at the apex). Lehr (1967) raised it to genus status but did not give a convincing justification as he only states 'It is essential to promote the subgenus to the rank of genus on the same grounds we had for taking Eutolmus out of Dysmachus ', which is confusing as the genus Eutolmus Loew, 1848 was never included in Dysmachus . However, considering the differences in the three taxa, in our opinion Conosiphon clearly deserves the status of genus.

Seven species have been assigned to the genus Conosiphon at some point in history but four of these are now considered to belong to other genera. Two of them were treated as such by Engel (1930), Asilus fuscus Macquart, 1839 and Tolmerus corsicus Schiner, 1867. Asilus fuscus was described from the western Canary Islands where it is considered endemic ( Izquierdo et al. 2001) and it is nowadays treated as a species of the genus Tolmerus ( Hradský and Bosák 2006). This species was erroneously mentioned from southern Russia by Engel (1930). Tolmerus corsicus was described from Corsica, was included in Engel 1930 's key in the subgenus Conosiphon Conosiphon , but was treated as Tolmerus in his text and it is now assigned to genus Machimus ( Evenhuis and Pape 2023). Machimus sagittarius (Villeneuve, 1930) from Algeria was originally described as a Conosiphon but Lehr (1988) assigned it to Machimus . The fourth species, Minicatus mirabilis (Lehr, 1967) from Kazakhstan and Soviet Middle Asia was also originally described as a Conosiphon but Lehr himself finally established the genus Minicatus (Lehr, 1992) for this species, without explaining the reasons. However, he does mention that the internal side of the gonocoxite has a rugose surface that forms more than 15 grooves and that the gonostylus is plate-shaped, both characters of which are very different from those of the species here presented. Therefore, we consider four species, including the one described in this paper, to belong to this genus which fits the conclusions by Lehr (1988):

Conosiphon alter Becker, 1923: (originally described in the genus Conosiphon ). Type material in the Collection Villeneuve (Becker, 1923), which is stored at KBIN. However, the collection was carefully checked by Reinoud van den Broek and Jonas Mortelmans and the specimens were not found. Type material might be lost.

Conosiphon ianus Álvarez Fidalgo & van den Broek sp. nov. Type material stored at MNCN, RMNH, ZMHB and USNM.

Conosiphon pauper (Becker, 1907): (originally described in the genus Dysmachus ). Type material stored at ZMHB.

Conosiphon similis Becker, 1923: (originally described in the genus Conosiphon ). Type material stored at ZMHB.

Diagnosis.

After the diagnosis based on Hull (1962), who in turn, based his diagnosis of the genus on the works by Becker (1923) and Engel (1930), Conosiphon can be separated from other genera of Asilinae by the following characters combined: a) facial protuberance strong and prominent, occupying most of the face, its upper margin well developed, b) dorsocentral macrosetae set all over the central area of the mesonotum, from the front to the back, and c) the paired cerci of ovipositor are partly incorporated in the ovipositor in tergite IX. In other words, external appearance of the male is similar to genus Dysmachus , but in the female, the cerci of ovipositor are not wedged in as in Dysmachus , but style-like in lateral view.