Kiefferulus pruinosus ( Freeman, 1961 ) Ekrem & Technology & Museum & History & Trondheim & Email, 2016

Ekrem, Torbjørn & Elisabeth Stur, 2016, NEW COMBINATIONS OF AFROTROPICAL CHIRONOMINI (DIPTERA: CHIRONOMIDAE) Abstract, CHIRONOMUS Journal of Chironomidae Research 29, pp. 4-10 : 7

Kiefferulus pruinosus ( Freeman, 1961) comb. n.

http://zoobank.org/ 0A207111-3F6B-4169-A6EB-2CDDC478E839

Chironomus (Endochironomus) pruinosa [sic!] Freeman, 1961: 246.

Endochironomus pruinosus ( Freeman, 1961) , Freeman and Cranston (1980).

Material examined: Holotype male ( MNHN), Madagascar Nord , Montagne d’Ambre 1000m, 23.xi-4.xii.1958, B. Stuckenberg.

The male holotype lacks frontal tubercles, has numerous setae on vein R in an otherwise bare wing ( Fig. 3a ), and has divided mid- and hind tibial combs, each with spur. Antenna with 11 flagellomeres and an AR of about 2.7. The hypopygium ( Fig. 3b ) lacks median tergite setae, has Y-shaped anal tergite bands, almost bare superior volsella, setose inferior volsella that is slightly expanded dorso-ventrally and gonostylus with slight subapical constriction. The species fits quite well in the definition of Kiefferulus Goetghebuer after the inclusion of Nilodorum Kieffer by Cranston et al. (1990). Indeed Freeman (1961) had discussed the similarity with Nilodorum in the original description, especially with regard to the appearance of the thorax ( Fig. 3c ). He chose not to place the species there due to the normally developed maxillary palps and the narrow inferior volsella, but these characters later have been argued not to be diagnostic at genus-level ( Cranston et al. 1990). The shape of the superior volsella ( Fig. 3b ) is quite aberrant compared to other species in Kiefferulus , but we interpret this as a species-specific trait.

Figures

Figure 3. Kiefferulus pruinosus. Holotype male: a) wing, scale bar = 500 µm; b) hypopygium, scale bar = 100 µm; c) thorax, scale bar = 500 µm.