Fabricius, 1787 : 342 jejuna Fabricius, 1787 Galatea Fabricius (1794: 312) jejuna Fabricius, 1787 ieiuna Fabricius (1805: 283) ieiuna Fabricius jejuna ieiuna jeiuna jejuna jejuna jeiuna jejuna jejuna ieiuna jejuna jejuna ieiuna jeiuna jejuna jejuna jejuna Musca jejuna Musca jejuna : Wiedemann (1830: 386) Homodexia obscuripennis BigoT, 1885 lateralis Macq. Surcouf (1920: 39) Surcouf (1920: 39) jejuna Bengalia lateralis : Senior-White (1923a: 304; Plate I, fig. 7; Plate V) Macquart, 1844 : 277 Musca torosa Wiedemann Senior-White (1924: 104) Macquart, 1844 : 277 Musca torosa Wiedemann Senior-White (1926: 137) Macquart, 1844 : 277 Musca torosa Wiedemann Bengalia lateralis : Senior-White et al. (1940 : 91 Macquart, 1844 : 277 Musca torosa Wiedemann Bengalia jejuna : James (1966: 471) B. jejuna Bengalia kanoi Kurahashi & Magpayo, 2000 B. jejuna B. kanoi B. jejuna B. kanoi Bengalia jejuna : James (1977: 529; catalogue entry) Musca ieiuna : Thompson & Pont (1994: 84) Musca jeiuna : Thompson & Pont (1994: 86) Musca jejuna : Thompson & Pont (1994: 87) Kurahashi et al. (1997 : 42 Kurahashi & Magpayo (2000: 43) Bengalia jejuna : Kurahashi (2001: 243) Lehrer, 2005 : 115 Lehrer, 2005 : 128 Bengalia jejuna : Verves Gangelomyia evafonea Lehrer (2006a: 10) Gangelomyia evafoneae Lehrer, 2005 Bengalia evafoneae Lehrer O. obscuripennis Bengalia evafoneae Lehrer Bengalia lateralis, Macq. Revision of the Bengalia torosa Wiedemann, 1819 species-group (Diptera: Calliphoridae), with notes on the systematic position of B. robertsi Kurahashi, 1987 and B. subnitida James, 1964 Rognes, Knut Zootaxa 2018 2018-03-07 4391 1 1 71 LH5M (Fabricius, 1787) Fabricius 1787 [151,562,678,704] Insecta Calliphoridae Bengalia Animalia Diptera 26 27 Arthropoda species jejuna      Muscaieiuna  Fabricius, 1787: 342. Incorrect original spelling of  jejuna Fabricius, 1787, in accordance with Article 33.3.1 of the Code (ICZN 1999). 3 female syntypes(NHMD, recently given the labels “ zmuc/ 00027291–93”; examined). Typelocality: India( Tamil Naduprovince, Tarangambadi [as “Habitat Tranquebariae Dom. Lund”]) ( Fig. 126). [No index to species names in Fabricius (1787)]. Male to be proposed as  neotype(NHMD), labelled “Madras / Galatea/ Jejuna / F.” [handwritten] ( Figs 127–129) [see discussion under “ Typematerial examined”.]     Muscajeiuna:  Fabricius (1794: 312). Incorrect subsequent spelling of  jejuna Fabricius, 1787[as  ieiuna]. [No index to species names in Fabricius (1794)].     Muscajejuna:  Fabricius (1805: 283). Correct original spelling of  ieiunaFabricius, in accordance with Article 33.3.1 of the Code (ICZN 1999) [in the index to species names in Fabricius (1805), only the spelling  jejunais listed, not  ieiunaor  jeiuna, cf. http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/15663120]. Additional remarks. Thompson & Pont (1994) were the first to record the three spellings of the Fabrician name. But in all the relevant literature published after Fabricius’s works only the spelling  jejunahas been used. Surcouf (1920: 39)cited the year 1794 as the publication year for  jejuna, but never used the spelling in that work (  jeiuna). Townsend (1931b) saw the three syntypesin NHMD. He did not cite the year of Fabricius’s work(s), but only used the spelling  jejuna. Zimsen (1964), who reported on the collections of Fabricius in detail, used the spelling  jejunawhile referring both to “Mant. Ins. II p. 342 · 2” (= Fabricius 1787), where the spelling is  ieiuna, and to “Syst. Ant. 1805 p. 283 · 1” (= Fabricius 1805), where the spelling is  jejuna. To summarize, even though the spelling  jejunahas been in prevailing usage, it has either been attributed to Fabricius (1787), where the spelling is  ieiuna( James [1977: 529]; Rueda [1985: 349]; Kurahashi et al.[1997: 42]; Kurahashi & Magpayo [2000: 43]; Verves [2005: 239]), or to Fabricius (1794), where the spelling is  jeiuna(Wiedemann [1830: 386; citing “Ent.syst IV.312.1” from 1794]; Surcouf [1920: 39]; James [1966: 471]; Senior-White [1930: 69]; Senior-White et al. [1940: 88]; Kurahashi [2001: 243]; Lehrer [2005: 143]). I have not found any author giving the source of the name  jejunaas Fabricius (1805), where the spelling  jejunawas first introduced in a published work. On all labels I have seen, including old ones from 1809 (Westermann), only the spelling  jejunaoccurs. Even the original Fabricius label on the “ zmuc/ 00027291” specimen reads “  Musca/ jejuna” ( Fig. 126).  Article 33.3.1 of the Code (ICZN 1999) sets two conditions for an incorrect subsequent spelling to be conserved. The first is that the “incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage”. This condition is fully satisfied in the  jejunacase. The second is that the “incorrect subsequent spelling … is attributed to the publication of the original spelling”. This condition is only partly satisfied in the  jejunacase, since the name is attributed to the publication of the original spelling (i.e., Fabricius 1787) only in about half of the investigated papers. One should keep in mind, however, that it is likely that many authors do not check the original publication when a species name is attributed to its author, but tend to follow the attribution given in some main reference works at hand, e.g., James (1977)and Senior-White et al. (1940). Therefore, I would not give too much weight to the fact that not all authors attribute the name  jejuna(the subsequent spelling) to the publication of the original spelling ( Fabricius 1787). With this in mind, I will interpret the Code to the effect that the subsequent spelling (  jejuna) and the attribution (to Fabricius’s 1787 work) are to be preserved, and that this subsequent spelling is deemed to be the correct original spelling. This is also the spelling used by Fabricius in his own handwriting on the only preserved label ( Fig. 126) on any of the three syntypesin NHMD.    Musca jejuna: Wiedemann (1830: 386).   Homodexia obscuripennisBigoT, 1885a: xxvi [1885b: xxvi]. HoloType ♂[noT female as sTaTed in The original publicaTion; apparenTly a lapsus, since The label gives The sex as “ ♂”; see also Senior-WhiTe (1924: 104, under “  lateralisMacq.”)] (NHMUK; examined), by monotypy. Typelocality:  SriLanka(as “ Ceylan”).    Musca jejuna:  Surcouf (1920: 39).     Muscatorosa:  Surcouf (1920: 39). As synonym under  jejuna.    Bengalia lateralis: Senior-White (1923a: 304; Plate I, fig. 7; Plate V). Misidentification, not  lateralis  Macquart, 1844: 277(=  Musca torosaWiedemann) (India [various localities]; fore leg and terminalia figured).    Bengalia lateralis:  Senior-White (1924: 104). Misidentification, not  lateralis  Macquart, 1844: 277(=  Musca torosaWiedemann) (India [various localities]).    Bengalia lateralis:  Senior-White (1926: 137). Misidentification, not  lateralis  Macquart, 1844: 277(=  Musca torosaWiedemann) (India [various localities]).     Bengalia lateralis: Senior-White et al.(1940: 91, fig. 43). Misidentification, not  lateralis  Macquart, 1844: 277(=   MuscatorosaWiedemann) (terminalia figured). [?  Bengalia jejuna: James (1966: 471)( Philippines[“ Amale and female from Brooke’s Point, Uring Uring, and a headless female … Manatlingajan Range, Pinigisan.” (…) “The male genitalia are not significantly different[my emphasis] from those of specimens from South Indiawhich I have used for comparison”]). [Both females have been recovered in NHMD and examined, but are unidentifiable. The male has not been recovered, it is not present in NHMD, nor has it been found in WSU. There are four males under  B. jejunain WSU from South India(“Coimbatore”) that James possibly used for comparison. Three of them are specimens of  Bengalia kanoi Kurahashi & Magpayo, 2000, only the fourth is  B. jejuna. This male (see Fig. 125) and one of the  B. kanoimales had their terminalia exposed with the distiphallus clearly visible, but all four had the ST5 flap exposed. This casts doubt on James’s ability to correctly distinguish a male  B. jejunafrom a male  B. kanoifrom the Philippines. Note that the second species was undescribed at James’s time. This record is not accepted but is listed with a question mark for the sake of completeness.]   Bengalia jejuna: James (1977: 529; catalogue entry).   Musca ieiuna: Thompson & Pont (1994: 84).   Musca jeiuna: Thompson & Pont (1994: 86).   Musca jejuna: Thompson & Pont (1994: 87).    Bengalia jejuna:  Kurahashi et al.(1997: 42)(no own material from Malaysiaand Singapore, only a citation of the catalogue entry of James [1977]) for “Malaya”).    Bengalia jejuna:  Kurahashi & Magpayo (2000: 43)(no own material from the Philippines, only a citation of the dubious record of James [1966]from that country, see above).   Bengalia jejuna: Kurahashi (2001: 243)(Sri Lanka).     Gangelomyia evafoneae  Lehrer, 2005: 115. HoloType ♂( NHMUK; examined), by original designaTion. TypelocaliTy: India( Dhimbam, Biligirirangan Hills). Syn. nov.    Gangelomyia senausmarta  Lehrer, 2005: 128. HoloType ♂(NHMUK; noT examined, buT Terminalia well illusTraTed), by original designation. Typelocality: Peradeniya,  SriLanka(as “ Ceylan”). Unavailable name, published in synonymy, cf. Rognes (2005: 456, 468). Syn. nov.   Bengalia jejuna: Verves(2005: 239; catalogue entry).    Gangelomyia evafoneae:  Lehrer (2006a: 10)(Sri Lanka [as “Ceylan”], Suduganga [a record repeated from Lehrer (2005)]; all material examined).   Diagnosis. Male. Length: 13.0–16.0mm (n=4). Frons at vertex / head width ratio 0.29–0.31 (mean 0.30, n=5). Head in profile ( Fig. 106) without a concavity along the posterior eye margin. Anepimeron with a bundle of 9–12 black setulae in upper part, otherwise with only pale setulae ( Fig. 108). Fore tibia with 3–4 spinous setae in proximal fourth ( Fig. 113). T3 and T4 with dark marginal bands varying from 1/6 to almost 1/2 of tergite length. T5 varying from mostly pale to entirely dark ( Fig. 127). ST5 flap ( Figs 107, 116, 121) broad, with hind margin straight or very slightly concave, and with rounded lateral angles; dorsal side concave ( Fig. 121). Cercus broad throughout in posterior view, narrowing abruptly near tip to form a short pointed process ( Figs 100, 114). Surstylus narrow in posterior view ( Figs 100, 114), broadly oval in its broadest aspect, broadest below middle ( Fig. 102, 115). Bacilliform sclerite process simple, with an oblique distal margin ( Figs 101, 115). Distiphallus with dorsal wall constricted at middle ( Fig. 103). Distal lip process ( dlp) of complex structure, broader than long and with broad wing-like projecting membranes in dorsal view ( Figs 103–105, 109, 117, 123, 125). Both ventral and lateral winglike membranes denticulate along margin ( Fig. 123). Semidomes with characteristic outline in apical view ( Figs 109, 123–124). Pre- and postgonites as in Figs 110, 122.   Female. Unknown.   Discussion.This is a rare species from the Indian subcontinent. Malloch (1927)saw four specimens of  B. jejunacompared to 51 of  B. torosa(as  lateralis). In the present study I examined 11 specimensof  B. jejunaand 97 of  B. torosa. Lehrer’s nominal species  Gangelomyia evafoneae( Figs 114–124) is obviously the same as  B. jejuna. See Rognes (2006)on Lehrer’s (2005: 145) view of   MuscajejunaFabriciusand   MuscatorosaWiedemannas “ nomina dubia, qui ne peuvent être utilisés dans la taxonomie moderne”. Lehrer (2005)created his nominal species  Gangelomyia senausmartaon the basis of a male, believing he could thus avoid the problem of deciding on the identity of these old names based on alleged females. He keyed  G. evafoneaeas separate from  G. senausmartaon the basis of the shape of the cerci in profile ( Lehrer 2005: 112). The cerci of  G. evafoneaewere described in the first half of couplet 5 of the key, as: “Partie distale des cerques large[my emphasis], ayant la marge ventrale ondulée et un sommet mince [distal part of cerci broad, with the ventral margin undulating and tip pointed]”. The second half of couplet 5, which reads “Partie distale des cerques étroite[my emphasis] [distal part of cerci narrow]”, leads, via various choices, to  G. senausmartain the first part of key couplet 8, which reads “Partie distale des cerques large[my emphasis]”, the exact opposite. In short, the key is useless as an explanation of why the two nominal species were considered different taxa.   Biology. Maschwitz & Schönegge (1980)observed  B. jejuna(and other  Bengaliaspecies) to lurk in the territories of different ants, robbing prey and brood from moving workers by using their forelegs and sometimes also the proboscis (Sri Lanka). Of decisive importance was that the ant prey was of a pale colour (like insect larvae or termites) and that it was being carried along, thus moving. The identity of Maschwitz & Schönegge’s  B. jejunawas confirmed by B. Herting (SMNS) and myself (see list of records below). Bequaert (1922: 278–279) cites  B. jejunaas capturing termites in India and Sri Lanka, but this was most likely based on misidentifications. I treat his account, below, under  B. torosa.   Distribution. India*,  SriLanka*.    Typematerial examined.   Muscajejuna Fabricius, 1787. Three female SYNTYPES( NHMD) ( Fig. 126). The first syntypeis labelled (1)  TYPE[black print on red label]; (2)  Muscajejuna[old label in Fabricius’s handwriting]; (3) zmuc/ 0 0 0 27291 [black print on white label]. The second syntypeis labelled (1)  TYPE[black print on red label]; (2) zmuc/ 0 0 0 27292 [black print on white label]. The third syntypeis labelled (1)  TYPE[black print on red label]; (2) zmuc/ 0 0 0 27293 [black print on white label]. Remarks on the syntypesof   Muscajejuna. When I received the specimens, the second syntype(… 27292) was the rightmost specimen in the box, and it still is. This specimen is a female  Bengalia torosaWiedemannand it is also the smallest of the three syntypes. The other females are not identifiable at present. All specimens are from “ Tranquebar” [= Tarangambadi] in the Tamil Naduprovince of India. Surcouf (1920: 359)examined one of these syntypes. He wrote: “De plus le P r LUNDBECK a bien voulu nous communiquer le typeen parfait état de FABRICIUS; … ”. However, it is not known which of the three syntypeshe examined, although Townsend (1931b: 371) was of the opinion that Surcouf saw one of the two larger specimens “as proved by his giving length of 14 mm.”.  Zimsen (1964: 486) listed the syntypesas follows: “  Muscajejuna Mant. Ins.II p. 342 · 2 [1787] »Tranquebariae Dom. Lund«. (Syst. Ant. 1805 p. 283 · 1) – Copenhagen 3 specimenssine loc.”. Theword “ Tranquebariae” refers to the modern city of Tarangambadi, from  1620 to 1845a small Danishcolony on the South Eastcoast of India. The expression “Dom. Lund” refers to the collection of Ove Sehestedand Niels Tønder Lund( Zimsen1964: 11). Townsend (1931b: 371) also examined the material in NHMD. He correctly stated that there were three specimens in “Copenhagen Fab. Coll.”. He also said they were labelled “   Muscajejuna”, but failed to state that only one specimen had such a label. It is also of interest to note that he gave the spelling as “  jejuna”, as on the Fabricius label, and not as “  ieiuna” as given by Fabricius (1787). Further, Townsend (1931b: 371) stated that one of the three specimens was the “Female Ht.” and that the others were “ 2 femalePts.”. I do not think it is justified to treat the statement “Female Ht.” as a valid (indirect) lectotypefixation since none of the specimens is (was) recognizable or labelled as such, or labelled in a manner making it distinguishable or recognizable from the others. Note that this conclusion is different from the one reached by Rognes et al.(2015) regarding the implicit lectotypefixation by Townsend (1931b: 375) of a male specimen of  Tachina westermanniWiedemann, 1819in NHMD, because in that instance the specimen cited was clearly recognizable. Townsend also noted that “… the smallest of these 3 females is  Bengalia lateralisMacq., and is hereby excluded, the species being restricted to the other 2 which measure 14 mmand are  jejuna, Fab., Wied., Macq., Surc.”. I do not think that Townsend was justified in excluding a syntype from the type series. Thompson & Pont (1994: 84, under  ieiuna) accepted Townsend’s (1931b) opinions and stated that a “HT ♀” is in “ UZMC” (= NHMD). I do not accept this claim. There is no holotypein NHMDor elsewhere, only syntypes. The smallest specimen [now labelled “ zmuc/ 00027292”] is in fact a female of  Bengalia lateralisMacquart, as correctly judged by Townsend, thus =  Bengalia torosa(Wiedemann). The two larger specimens, both females as well, are not identifiable at the present state of knowledge, but they are not  B. torosa.   FIGURES 100–113.  Bengalia jejuna(Fabricius)(100–111: male from Kahalla, Sri Lanka, CNC; 112–113: male from Okkampitiya, Sri Lanka, CNC). 100.Epandrial complex, posterior view. 101.Epandrial complex, right lateral view. 102.Epandrial complex, oblique lateral view. 103.Distiphallus, dorsal view. 104.Distiphallus, left lateral view. 105.Distiphallus, ventral view. 106.Head, left lateral view. 107.ST5 flap. 108.Left anepimeron. 109.Distiphallus, apical view. 110.Pre- and postgonites. 111.Label. 112.Label. 113.Right fore leg, outside view. All scale bars = 0.25mm. Abbreviations: dlp= distal lip process; pog= postgonite; prg= pregonite; sd= semidomes.   FIGURES 114–125.  Bengalia jejuna(Fabricius)(114–124: holotype of  Gangelomyia evafoneaeLehrer, NHMUK; 125: male from Coimbatore, India, WSU). 114.Epandrial complex, posterior view. 115.Epandrial complex, left lateral view. 116.ST5 flap. 117.Distiphallus, dorsal view. 118.Distiphallus, lateral view. 119.Distiphallus, ventral view. 120.Labels. 121.ST5 flap, hind edge view, inside up. 122.Pre- and postgonites. 123.Distiphallus, apical view, scale bar = 0.25mm. 124.Distiphallus, apical view. 125.Tip of distiphallus, oblique anterodorsal view. Abbreviations: dlp= distal lip process; pog= postgonite; prg= pregonite; sd= semidomes.   FIGURES 126–130.  Bengalia jejuna(Fabricius)(126: syntypes of  Musca jejunaFabricius, “Habitat Tranquebariae Dom. Lund”, NHMD; 127–130: male proposed as neotype for  Musca jejuna, NHMD). 126.The three specimens with their original Fabricius label. 127.Abdomen in situ, dorsal view. 128.Detached abdomen, ventral view. 129.Label. 130.Proposed neotype label. In the past there have been differences of opinion over the interpretation of the name  Bengalia jejuna(Fabricius). The confusion also involved the nominal species  Bengalia lateralisMacquart(now  B. torosaWiedemann). This confusion led to the unfortunate situation in which the names  B. jejunaand  B. lateralisended up being used to denote two different taxa by two different groups of authors. Bezzi (1913) illustrated the fore tibia of a species he called “ Beng.  jejunaFabr.” as having two groups of strong, short setae. In this interpretation of “  jejuna” he was followed by Senior-White (1923a, 1923b, 1924, 1926, 1930) and Senior-White et al.(1940). Senior-White (1923a, Plate IV)also provided excellent illustrations of the terminalia of his “  jejuna”, reproduced by Senior-White et al.(1940: 89). Senior-White (1923a)named a related Indian species, with another arrangement of fore tibial setae, “  Bengalia lateralisMacquart”, and illustrated the male terminalia of this species as well (his Plate V). These figures were also reproduced in Senior-White et al. (1940: 92).  Surcouf (1920)and Malloch (1927)disagreed with Bezzi’s interpretation. They were of the opinion that the species with the 5+2 arrangement (some variation was noted in the numbers of setae in each group) of the fore tibial spinous setae was the true  Bengalia lateralisMacquart. Surcouf (1920: 37), having access to Macquart’s type, explained that “le thorax et le scutellum ont aussi une marge claire [the thorax and the scutellum also have a pale margin]” and Malloch (1927: 401)noted the presence of a “conspicuous broad margin of pale dust on each side of mesonotum and also on scutellum, which is most evident when the thorax is seen from behind, and this is not present to any appreciable extent in  jejuna. I opine that Macquart named his species from this character. ...”. Malloch (1927: 402 fig. 4)illustrated the terminalia of his “  lateralis”, his illustrations corresponding exactly to Senior-White’s figures of “  jejuna”, and also noted a number of other features, including the concave hind margin of the eye in profile, the position of the vibrissa high “above the mouth-margin” and the anepimeron with pale setulae only. The species interpreted by Senior-White to carry the name “  jejuna” was the same species that Malloch named “  lateralis”.  James (1966)accepted Surcouf’s and Malloch’s views and in his Calliphoridaechapter in the Catalog of the Dipteraof the OrientalRegion ( James 1977) also introduced  Bengalia torosa(Wiedemann, 1819)as the valid name for  Bengalia lateralis Macquart, 1844. The concepts of  Bengalia jejunaand  Bengalia torosaas established by James (1977)have since been universally accepted, except by Lehrer (2005)who introduced two brand new names: “  Gangelomyia senausmarta” for  Bengalia jejunaand “  Ochromyia jejutora” for  Bengalia torosa.Lehrer apparently did this in an effort to alleviate the confusion over the identity of the names, but also honestly believed the matter could be settled by such an approach. Lehrer’s actions were discussed by Rognes (2006). From the facts above, and the widespread use of the name   MuscajejunaFabriciusin the literature on  Bengalia, there is obviously a need to fix the identity of the name in order to ensure stability and universality. There are three options for this: (1) to do nothing and follow current usage regarding the interpretation of the name   Muscajejuna Fabricius, 1787. This is a precarious situation, as exemplified by the actions of Lehrer (2005); (2) to select the specimen labelled “ zmuc/ 00027292” (identity =   Muscatorosa) as a lectotypefor   Muscajejuna Fabricius, 1787. This would imply that the senior name  Bengalia jejuna(Fabricius)is transferred to the nominal species currently known as  Bengalia torosa(Wiedemann)(fore tibia with spinous setae in a 5+2 arrangement; posterior margin of eye with a concavity in profile, etc.). This would revert nomenclature back to that of Senior-White (1923a, 1924, 1926) and Senior-White et al. (1940: 88, 89 fig. 42), now long abandoned, and would result in tremendous confusion and instability. The next oldest synonym,  obscuripennisBigot, which has never been used as a senior name, would then take priority as the valid specific name for the taxon currently referred to as  Bengalia jejuna; or (3) to exploit the possibility offered by Articles 75.5 and 75.6 of the Code ( ICZN1999) to replace namebearing typesthat are either unidentifiable or do not conform with prevailing usage by a neotype. This is the option I will follow. In a forthcoming paper I will request the Commission to set aside, under its plenary power, the namebearing types(i.e., all three syntypesof   Muscajejuna Fabricius, 1787) and replace them with a neotype. This will resolve the problem once and for all, create the basis for a stable nomenclature, and prevent any worker from designating the “ zmuc/ 00027292” specimen as lectotypefor   Muscajejunaand thereby creating nomenclatural chaos. Proposed neotypeof   MuscajejunaFabriciusin NHMD. The specimen I will propose as neotypeof   Muscajejuna Fabricius, 1787is specimen # 3 inthe unit-tray for  Bengalia jejuna(Fabricius)(a tray separate from the one with the 3 syntypes) in NHMD( Figs 127–130). It carries a yellow label with a double-lined black frame, with handwritten (not by Westermann) text as follows: “Madras / Galatea/ Jejuna / F.”. It is a male and I have dissected it. The abdominal tergites are glued to a piece of card above the labels. T3 and T4 have broad, dark marginal bands and T5 is dark all over. The terminalia are in glycerol in a glass microvial pinned below the original label and conform to the current concept of  Bengalia jejuna( Malloch 1927; James 1977). [The specimen is in fair condition, but the left wing was slightly broken along the costa because of the position of the specimen close to the top of the pin, and the left mid leg is lost. When packing the specimen for return, both wings were accidentally broken off and were glued to a card on a separate pin, with a copy of the locality label.] “Madras” is the old name for the city of Chennai, capital of the Tamil Naduprovince of India. “ Tranquebar” [now Tarangambadi] is located on the coast of the Tamil Naduprovince, 150 kmsouth of Chennai. “ Galatea” on the label refers to the Danish corvette  Galathea(sometimes also spelt  Galatea), used during the first  Galatheaexpedition ( 1845–1847) around the world (for more information on the expedition, see http://www. galathea3.dk/uk/Menu/Historical%2bperspective.html). The specimen was likely collected by the entomologist of the expedition, Carl Emil Kiellerup ( 1822–1908) (http:// www.gravsted.dk/person.php?navn=carlemilkiellerup; https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Emil_Kiellerup). The ship visited Tranquebar,  Pondicherry, Madras and Calcutta in India. Tranquebarwas reached in October 1845, whereas Madras was reached later in the same month for maintenance and resupply (http://www.navalhistory.dk/ Danish/Historien/1814_1848/ Galathea1845.htm). The purpose of the visit to Tranquebarwas to transfer sovereignty of the Danish Colony to the British East IndiaCompany. In November 1845the ship reached Calcutta and the Danish possession of Serampore(“Frederiksnagore”), where Westermann lived from 1801 to 1811( Pont 1995).    Homodexia obscuripennisBigot, 1885a, 1885b. HOLOTYPE ♂( NHMUK), labelled (1) Holo- / type[circular white label with red rim]; (2) Ceylon. / Excoll. Bigot./ Pres. By/ G. H. Verrall, /  Oct. 1904. / 1904–274. [printed except first line, which is handwritten]; (3) BMNH(E) # /  241225[printed on underside of label]; (4) H. obscuripennis. ♂. / omodexia / Ceylan. / J. Bigot[white label with black frame and three thin lines, handwritten by Bigot; the letters in the second line are handwritten obliquely downwards from the capital H in the first line, and appear not to be written in Bigot’shand] [ Thewings are sooty, but the thoracic dorsum, pleuron and abdomen are yellow; abdomen with narrow black bands, about a sixth of the length of the tergites; all legs are present on both sides; the ST5 flap is visible].    Gangelomyia evafoneae Lehrer, 2005. Described based on the male holotype and two male paratypes. HOLOTYPE ♂ (NHMUK), labelled (1) HOLO / TYPE. [white circular label with red margin; printed]; (2) HOLOTYPUS [red label with black print]; (3) Dhimbam / Biligirirangan Hills / S. India 28-IV-37[printed, except date]; (4)  Bengalia♂ /  evafoneaeLehrer n. sp./ HOLOTYPUS / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / 2004 [printed] ( Fig. 120) [On the left side of the holotype the mid and hind legs are in place but the foreleg is lost; the right foreleg is glued to a piece of card on the pin, above the labels, but the mid and hind right legs are lost; T1+2 with a narrow dark marginal band, T3 and T4 with broad bands, almost half the length of the tergites; T5 with a narrow dark marginal band; terminalia removed directly from under the abdominal tip, kept by Lehrer in glycerol in a big plastic vial; elements of the terminalia are infused with a substance partly blocking the penetration of light, thus making photography under a compound microscope futile; terminalia transferred to a glass microvial by me; the infused substance is most likely Canada balsam since the specimen was used for the preparation of Lehrer (2005: 116, fig. 50)]. PARATYPES (NHMUK): 1 ♂, labelled (1) Hot Wells, / Trincomali [=Trincomalee], / Ceylon. / 3.viii.1890. / Lt.col.Yerbury. / 92.192 [handwritten in pencil]; (2) O. obscuripennis♂ Bigot / demandé en communication [handwritten by Surcouf?]; (3)  Bengalia♂ /  evafoneaeLehrer n. sp./ Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / 2004 [printed] [Dissected by Lehrer; terminalia moved from Lehrer’s big plastic vial to a small glass microvial by me]; • 1 ♂, labelled (1) CEYLON: / Suduganga. / 17.ii.1925. / In lab. [printed, except last two lines]; (2) Bengalia/ lateralis, Macq./ det. R.Senior White. [handwritten except last line, which is printed]; (3) Purchd. From / R. Senior White / B.M.1938-460. [printed] [Head lost; dissected by Lehrer; terminalia moved from Lehrer’s big plastic vial to a small glass microvial by me; terminalia in a good state of preservation, apparently not infused with Canada balsam].   Other material examined. CNC.Sri Lanka: 1 ♂, labelled (1) Kahalla X-1967/ Katugastota C.P. / Ceylon 1600' / P.B. Karunaratne [printed, except date] ( Fig. 111) [Dissected by me; abdominal tergites glued to a piece of card pinned above the label; terminalia in glycerol in glass microvial pinned below label]; 1 ♂, labelled (1) Okkampitiya. / U.P. CEYLON / 1-10.XII.67/ P.Karunaratne [printed] ( Fig. 112) [Not dissected, but ST5 flap visible]. SMNS.Sri Lanka: 2 ♂, labelled (1) Ceylon / Maschwitz leg. [handwritten by Herting]; (2) Bengalia/ jejunaF. / B. Herting det. [handwritten by Herting except last line, which is printed]; (3) Bengalia(m) / jejuna/ ( Fabricius, 1787) / K. Rognes det. 0 9 [printed, except handwritten 09] [ST5 flap visible]. WSU.India: 1 ♂, labelled (1) Coimbatore / S. INDIA XI-63/ P.S. Nathan [handwritten]; (2) 4 [number handwritten in pencil on small yellow label] [Terminalia extruded and distiphallus well visible ( Fig. 125)]. [See also below, under  B. kanoi, for other specimens from India placed in WSU under  B. jejunabut misidentified.] 1830873842 NHMUK India Dhimbam Biligirirangan Hills 27 28 1 1 holotype 1830873754 1620 1845 1620 India Zimsen Copenhagen Niels Tonder Lund 28 29 3 Musca syntype 1830873855 1904-10 NHMUK Ex & Bigot. & Pres. By & G. H. Verrall Sri Lanka Ceylon 32 33 1 1 holotype 1830873748 25-12-24 BMNH J. Bigot Sri Lanka The Bigot Bigot's 32 33 1 1 holotype