Quichuana nigra, HULL, 1949: 133

Ricarte, Antonio, Marcos-García, M. Ángeles, Hancock, E. G. & Rotheray, Graham E., 2012, Revision of the New World genus Quichuana Knab, 1913 (Diptera: Syrphidae), including descriptions of 24 new species, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society (Zool. J. Linn. Soc.) 166 (1), pp. 72-131 : 104-105

QUICHUANA NIGRA HULL, 1949: 133

The holotype is a female collected in Pucallpa, Peru, 5.ii.1947 by Jose Schunke. The holotype belonged originally to the private collection of Hull ( Hull, 1949). Hull types are deposited in the CNC, but that of Q. nigricans is apparently absent (J. Skevington, pers. comm.). Hull (1946) transferred the species Platynochaetus niger Giglio-Tos, 1892 to the genus Quichuana , but he did not designate the new name properly, as he used Quichuana niger instead of the correct Quichuana nigra , according to the gender. Later, Hull (1949) described a new Quichuana species with the name Quichuana nigra , a name that was preoccupied by the erroneously designated Q. niger . Thus, Thompson et al. (1976) proposed Q. nigricans as a nomen novum for Q. nigra Hull, 1949 .

Range

Peru.

Taxonomic notes

According to Hull (1949), who provided a detailed description of Q. nigricans , this is a large species related to Q. bezzii . Based on this description, Q. nigricans also seems to be similar to Q. undulatipila sp. nov. A remarkable feature of Q. nigricans is the basoflagellomere, which is short in proportion to the width. Also, the face is extensively pollinose, presumably with a central shiny stripe, the metafemur are thickened (‘more than in most species of Quichuana ’; Hull, 1949), the abdomen is black, and, as in Q. bezzii and Q. undulatipila sp. nov., tergum I lacks conspicuous groups of hairs. The male is unknown, although Hull (1949) suggested that the male of Quichuana ursula Hull, 1949 could be the male of Q. nigricans ; in his words ‘I would consider this to be the male of nigra (= nigricans ) because of its black colour and similarly obscure thoracic pattern if there were not so many differences’. Some of these differences are possibly consistent with sexual dimorphism, but until more material is studied this possibility and the validity of this species cannot be further evaluated.

QUICHUANA PARISII CERESA, 1934