Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae) Author Rognes, Knut text Zootaxa 2009 2009-10-08 2251 1 1 76 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1 1175­5334 10093353 2. Bengalia emarginatoides sp. nov. Figs. 26–43 , 174 . Holotype male, Sri Lanka ( SDEI ), here designated. For details see Type material below. Bengalia latro : Senior-White, 1923a: 307 , Plate IX. Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. Sri Lanka (“…jungle area of Ceylon , …Colombo …”). Note. Senior-White (1923a) mentions and keys four species with discal setae on T5, i.e., his new species bezzii and surcoufi and “ latro ” de Meijere and “ varicolor ” Fabricius, and illustrates the ST5 flap for all except “ varicolor ”. He says he was unable to recognise the latter and refrained “from bringing latro under it, though I am of the opinion that such will ultimately prove to be the case”. He figures the genitalia of a species he identified as “ latro ”, most likely on the basis of one of the specimens from “the jungle area of Ceylon ” in his own collection. The illustration of the ST5 flap shows a rather deep excavation of the hind border. He keys “ latro ” as having the hind tibia “shaggily fringed”, as opposed to bezzii and surcoufi which were “not shaggily fringed”. In fact, emarginatoides has a very densely fringed hind tibia, similar to the one illustrated for emarginata ( Fig. 199 ), compared to bezzii ( Fig. 209 , now = varicolor Fabricius ) and surcoufi ( Fig. 206 ). Bengalia varicolor : Senior-White, 1923b: 37 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. India ( Kerala , “… mile 10—14, Cochin Forest Tramway …”). Note. Senior-White’s record here is of a female (in the “Calcutta collection”) which “… is almost certainly this species. I still await the discovery of a ♂ indubitably of this species to discover whether de Meijere’s latro is valid or merely a colour variety of the Fabrician species” ( Senior-White 1923b: 37 ). Not seen. Bengalia latro : Senior-White, 1923b: 37 . Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. India ( Kerala , “Parambikulam ( Cochin )”). Note. Senior-White’s record here is of “… 1♂ 2♀ from Parambikulam ( Cochin ) …”. I have not seen this material (in the “Calcutta collection”), but since he gives data on his recently described species surcoufi and bezzii , both listed on the same page, it very likely belongs to emarginatoides [not present in BMNH, Nigel Wyatt, pers. comm., February 2009 ]. Bengalia varicolor : Senior-White, 1924: 106 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Sri Lanka . Note. Senior-White (1924: 106) writes concerning “ Bengalia varicolor F”: “The discovery of an indubitable ♂ of this species enables me to sink de Meijere’s latro here, the genitalia proving to be identical. The National Collection contains, a ♂ from Kandy, vi.02, (Green); … A ♂ from India , (Bombay N.H.S.); has the abdomen all yellowish.” In the next sentence he mentions three females from “ Los Banos , Philippines , 1913, ( Baker )…” . It is not clear from the text which of the two males (Kandy or Bombay ) he considers to be an “indubitable” male of varicolor . However, the Kandy male (now in BMNH) which I have examined, carries a label reading: “ Bengalia varicolor / F. (= latro Meij. ) / R. SW det. 1923.” [handwritten by Senior-White in pencil] ( Fig. 43 ), and, since it has a rather deep excavation in the hind border of the ST5 flap ( Fig. 42 ), I take this to indicate that this is the very specimen that induced him to propose the (erroneous) synonymy. It is a specimen of emarginatoides . For more details on this specimen, see below under paratypes in BMNH. Bengalia varicolor : Senior-White, 1926: 139 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Sri Lanka . Note. For a description of his “ varicolor ” Senior-White (1926: 139) refers to his 1923a paper under “ latro Meij. ” thus confirming the decision reached in 1924 (see previous entry). Senior-White (1926: 137) now keys only three species with discal setae on T5, i.e., bezzii , surcoufi and “ varicolor ”. This time it is “ varicolor ” that is “shaggily fringed”, as opposed to the other two species, which are separated on the shape of the ST5 flap (termed an “[a]ccessory forceps”), in bezzii a “plain edged plate”, in surcoufi “bilobed.” Senior-White (1926) lists the species as distributed also in “South India ”, probably because this is the type locality of varicolor , but possibly also because of the Parambikulam specimens of “ latro ” or the Cochin Forest Tramway specimens of “ varicolor ” cited earlier by Senior-White (1923b: 37) . When stating (p. 139) that the species is known from the “the Philippines ”, he is apparently referring to the three females from “Los Banos” already mentioned in his 1924 paper (see previous entry). The identity of this material cannot be decided. Bengalia varicolor : Senior-White et al ., 1940: 101 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Sri Lanka . Note. Senior-White et al . (1940: 85) , like Senior-White (1926) , key only three species with discal setae on T5, i.e., bezzii , surcoufi and “ varicolor ”. The “ latro ” figures in Senior-White (1923a) have been reproduced in Senior-White et al . (1940: 102 , fig. 51), but given a new legend identifying the species as “ varicolor ”, in accordance with the opinion reached in 1924 (“the genitalia proving to be identical”), and maintained in his 1926 paper. Again, the record from “ Philippine Islands ” is most likely based on the three females from “Los Banos” mentioned in his 1924 paper (see previous entry). Bengalia fuscipennis : Séguy, 1946: 83 . Record from “ Ceylan : Kandy, 15–28 mai 1901 (M. Maindron)”. Misidentification, not fuscipennis Bezzi. Sri Lanka . “ Ceylan … Kandy” is listed by Séguy and is a misidentified male of emarginatoides . The two other specimens, not listed by Séguy (1946) , are a male and a female of fuscipennis Bezzi from Taiwan (not a member of the B . peuhi species-group), correctly identified by Villeneuve (both examined). In the Oriental catalogue James (1977: 529) lists fuscipennis Bezzi, 1913: 75 from “ Ceylon ”, in addition to the type locality “ Formosa ”. Most likely this record is based on the misidentified male of emarginatoides cited above and published as fuscipennis by Séguy. I have found no other sources listing fuscipennis from “ Ceylon ”. Sri Lanka should therefore be deleted from the geographical range of fuscipennis as it is based on a misidentified specimen. So far it appears that fuscipennis is only known from the type locality ( Taiwan) . Fan (1965: 194) described a nominal species taiwanensis which I believe is the same as fuscipennis , since the male syntype of fuscipennis (in ETHZ, examined) fits exactly with the figures and descriptions by Fan (1965, 1992, 1997) and Feng et al . (1998) of Bengalia taiwanensis Fan , syn. nov. This nominal species is also reported from the Guangdong province of China (Feng et al . 1998). Bengalia varicolor : Séguy, 1946: 85 , only fig. 1b (as variicolor ). Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Sri Lanka . Note. Two males of emarginatoides from Sri Lanka were found in the general collection in Paris under “ Bengalia latro ”, although there are no Sri Lanka localities among those listed by Séguy (1946: 83) under that name. According to the labels both were captured in “ Ceylan … Kandy” by M. Maindron 15–28 May 1901 . One of them is labelled “varicolor / F.” in Séguy’s hand. I have dissected it. The ST5 flap ( Fig. 40 ) was exposed in the undissected specimen and matches fig. 1b on p. 85 fairly well, although the distal excavation is not as deep as in the figure and the tips do not curve inwards. I assume nevertheless that Séguy’s fig. 1b is made from this specimen. Bengalia emarginata : Maschwitz & Schönegge, 1980: 2 . Misidentification, not emarginata Malloch. Sri Lanka (Anuradhapura). Note. A specimen collected by Maschwitz and cited as emarginata by Maschwitz & Schönegge (1980) is in SMNS and has been misidentified as emarginata by B. Herting. Examined. Afridigalia emarginata : Lehrer, 2005: 36 . India ( Tamil Nadu ). Misidentification, not emarginata Malloch. Note. Lehrer’s (2005) treatment was based on 5 males and 4 females from South India , Nilgiri Hills (Devala), in BPBM , identified by Kurahashi as emarginata , but never published by him to my knowledge. Not examined . Lehrer (2005) was the first to recognise that two species were actually involved here—in the present work named emarginata Malloch and emarginatoides sp. nov. —but he did not study the type of emarginata and therefore got the names wrong. He was obviously misled by Malloch’s inaccurate drawing of the ST5 flap ( Malloch 1927 : fig. 15) which shows (incorrectly) a completely even and non-undulating lateral edge distally, similar to Lehrer’s figure of the ST5 flap of his “ emarginata ” ( Lehrer 2005 : fig. 13A). On this basis Lehrer misidentified the specimens from India in BPBM as emarginata and described the species with a small inward and downward bulge in the distal half of the lateral edges of the ST5 flap (the true emarginata Malloch ) as new species Afridigalia bezziella . Afridigalia emarginata : Lehrer, 2006a: 7 . Records from Sri Lanka and India only. Misidentification, not emarginata Malloch. Examined. Note.The Taiwan specimen of “ emarginata ” also listed in Lehrer (2006a: 7) is the true emarginata Malloch (= bezziella Lehrer ) (BMNH, examined). See entry in the synonymy of the species Bengalia emarginata treated above. Etymology. The specific epithet “ emarginatoides ” is derived from the stem of “ emarginata ” with the addition of the Latin suffix “- oides ” (meaning like, resembling, in the form of) referring to the similarity of the two species. Diagnosis. Male . Length 13mm . Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.296 –0.325 (mean 0.310, n=9). Bengalia emarginatoides is extremely similar to B . emarginata and most of the diagnostic characters listed for that species also apply to this one. However, apart from the slightly narrower frons, it differs from B . emarginata in certain features of the male genitalia. ST5 flap ( Figs. 35, 37, 38, 40, 42 ) has a rounded outline, but is a little longer than broad and is completely flat as seen edge on. It has a distal emargination which varies in depth (very shallow in material from India ), but the lateral edge is even and without inward bulges or depressions on the distal half. Cerci ( Figs. 30, 31 ) are conspicuously narrowed in the distal free part compared to the basal part, so that the lateral edge, when seen in dorsal view, is not straight but has an inwardly directed shallow angle slightly behind the middle ( Fig. 30 ). Interestingly, the same kind of constriction is present in Senior-White’s figure of the cerci in dorsal aspect ( Senior-White, 1923a : Plate IX, lower half; Senior-White et al ., 1940: 102 , fig. 51, right hand figure). Basal part of the bacilliform sclerite process is a little longer than the point itself ( Fig. 31 ), thus longer than in B . emarginata . FIGURES 26–34 . Bengalia emarginatoides sp. nov. , male (from holotype in SDEI). 26 . Distiphallus, dorsal view. 27 . Distiphallus, ventral view. 28 . Distiphallus, left lateral view. 29 . Original label. 30 . Cerci and surstyli, dorsal view. 31 . Cerci and surstyli, left lateral view. 32 . Pre- and postgonites. 33 . Anterior edge of vertical sclerotised sheet, showing linear shape and serrations. 34 . Distiphallus from in front. Scale = 0.25mm (Figures 26, 27, 28, 32). the distiphallus the lateralmost part of the upper lip has an evenly oblique edge ( Fig. 28 ), whereas in B . emarginata it first arises vertically before it turns backwards. The internal hypophallic lobes are converging more conspicuously than in B . emarginata . The lateral finger appears to be slightly longer than the one in B . emarginata ( Figs. 26, 27 ). The anterior serrated edge of the vertical sclerotised sheet is even and not produced into a right angle ( Fig. 33 ). Female . Unknown. The female should, however, be easily identified from material collected for example in Sri Lanka , where only two species in the B . peuhi species-group occur, B . varicolor (= bezzii ) and B . emarginatoides . The latter species should have the same kind of vestiture on the anepimeron in the female as in the male (i.e., black setulae reaching the katepisternum), thus different from that of the true B . varicolor (= bezzii ). Distribution. India ( Kerala , Tamil Nadu ), Sri Lanka . FIGURES 35–43 . Bengalia emarginatoides sp. nov. , male (35, 36 from paratype in NHRM; 37 from holotype in SDEI; 38, 39 from paratype in SDEI; 40, 41 from dissected paratype in MNHN; 42, 43 from paratype in BMNH, Green leg.). 35 . ST5 flap (microscope image). 36 . Original label. 37 . ST5 flap (microscope image). 38 . ST5 flap (stereomicroscope image of dried specimen). 39 . Original label. 40 . ST5 flap (microscope image). 41 . Original labels (two). 42 . ST5 flap (stereomicroscope image of Canada balsam mount). 43 . Original locality labels (two), plus Senior-White’s hand-written label in pencil. Type material. Holotype male, in SDEI , labelled: (1) “ Ceylon / Horn” [printed on yellow paper; Walther Horn is the collector]; (2) “Townsend det.”; (3) My red holotype label ( emarginatoides n. sp. ). Dissected by K. R. T1–5 glued to card on pin. The left fore leg glued to another card on pin. Genitalia in glycerol in microvial on pin ( Figs. 26–34 , 37 ). Paratypes . BMNH : 1 male labelled (1) “ Ceylon . / E. E. Green. / 1910— 415 [printed]”; (2) “Kandy / Ceylon , 6-02” [printed, except the numbers which are handwritten]; (3) “ Bengalia varicolor / F. (= latro Meij. ) / R. SW det. 1923.” [handwritten in Senior-White’s hand in pencil; text following the word “varicolor” “indéchiffrable” according to Lehrer (2006a: 7) ] ( Fig. 43 ); (4) “ Afridigalia ♂ / emarginata (Malloch) / Det. Dr. A. Z. Lehrer / 2005”; (5) “ Afridigalia ♂ / emarginata (Malloch) / Det. Dr. A. Z. Lehrer / 2005”; (6) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp. ). The specimen carries the genital capsule and a few abdominal sternites including the ST5 flap mounted in darkened Canada balsam on a clear plastic stage below the specimen (itself staged on a piece of the same clear plastic) ( Figs. 42, 43 ). 1 male labelled (1) “Kanthalla [= Kantalai] / Ceylon / 31.vii. 1890 / Lt. Col. Yerbury / 92.192”; (2) “ Afridigalia ♂ / emarginata (Malloch) / Det. Dr. A. Z. Lehrer / 2005”; (3) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp. ). Dissected by Lehrer. Dissected genitalia transferred to glass microvial from Lehrer’s large plastic vial by K. R. 1 male labelled (1) “Naraikkadu, 2500'–3000' / Tinnevelly Dt. [= Tirunelveli district] / South India . 12.III.36” [ Tamil Nadu ]; (2) “ Afridigalia ♂ / emarginata (Malloch) / Det. Dr. A. Z. Lehrer / 2005”; (3) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp. ). MNHN : 1 male labelled (1) “MUSEUM PARIS / CEYLAN / KANDY / M. MAINDRON 1902” [printed]; (2) “KANDY / 15–28 mai 1901 ” [printed]; (3) “varicolor / F.” [black ink in Séguy’s hand]; (4) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp. ). Placed under “ Bengalia latro ” in the General collection. Dissected by K. R. ( Fig. 40, 41 ). 1 male labelled (1) “ CEYLAN / M. MAINDRON” [printed]; (2) “KANDY / 15–28 mai 1901 ” [printed]; (3) “MUSEUM PARIS / COTE DE MALABAR / MAHÉ / M. MAINDRON 1902” [printed]; (4) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp. ). The presence of label (3) must be due to an error, since Mahé is on the Malabar Coast, in Kerala , India , thus contradicting label (1). I assume this specimen is from Kandy also. Placed under “ Bengalia latro ” in the General collection. Left undissected. 1 male labelled (1) “ CEYLAN / M. MAINDRON” [printed]; (2) “KANDY / 15–28 mai 1901 ” [printed]; (3) “MUSEUM PARIS / CEYLAN / KANDY / M. MAINDRON 1902” [printed]; (4) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp. ). Placed under “ Bengalia fuscipennis ” in the General collection. Left undissected. NHRM : 1 male labelled (1) “ INDIA , Trivandrum district / Ponmudi rain forest / 12.IV.1990 / B. Gustafson” [printed] [ Kerala ]; (2) “ Bengalia ♂ / emarginata / Malloch, 1927 / Det. H. Kurahashi” [printed]; (3) “NRM Sthlm / Loan 1712/08” [printed green label] ( Figs. 35, 36 ); (4) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp. ). Dissected by K. R. SDEI : 1 male with same original labels as holotype . My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp. ). Not dissected ( Figs. 38, 39 ). This specimen has a very deep ST5 flap excavation, deeper than in the holotype , almost reaching halfway to base, and thus approaching the depth of the excavation in the illustration by Senior-White (1923a : Plate IX ) (as latro ). SMNS : 1 male labelled (1) “ Bengalia / emarginata Malloch / B. Herting det.” [Herting’s handwriting, except last line]; (2) “ Ceylon / Maschwitz leg.” [Herting’s handwriting]; (3) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp. ). The ST5 flap is quite typical: pale yellow colour with a distal, deep excavation similar to the one shown in Fig. 38 , no depression along lateral edges whether seen from the side or above.