Achradocera longiseta Parent, 1933

(Figs 19, 26)

Achradocera longiseta Parent, 1933: 246.

Type-locality: San José, Argentina. Type male, SNMS.

Diagnosis (male). Postpedicel longer than arista-like stylus; lower postoccipital setae somewhat dense. Legs mostly yellow, except for FIII, dorsal surface of FI, and distal tarsi, which are all brown infuscated; legs I, II, and III simple. Hypopygium small; surstylus subtriangular, tapered and bearing 1 apical and 1 subapical strong seta; postgonite enlarged and covered by small setae.

Redescription. Similar to A. angustifacies stat. rev., except as noted. Male. Body length: 1.96 mm. Wing: 1.85 mm long, 0.7 mm wide. Head. Lower postoccipital setae (Fig. 19, B) weak and only somewhat dense. Wing. CuAx: 0.56; RMx: 1.57; lower calypter yellow with fan of about 5 brownish setae; halter dark yellow. Leg I. 36, 36, 20, 9, 6, 4, 4. F with posterior row of about 4 distinct setae at apical 1/4. Leg II. 35, 36, 20, 9, 6, 5, 4. F yellow; T bearing anterior seta at basal 1/4, and 2 setae apically (1 av and 1 pv). Leg III. 38, 47, 14, 9, 5, 4, 4. T yellow, with 3 pd, 2 ad, and 4 apical setae (1 av, 1 pv, 1d and 1 ad); t 3–4 simple. Hypopygium (Fig. 19D). Dark brown; epandrium small and globose; surstylus subtriangular with two conspicuous setae apically; cercus pale yellow, rounded and bearing some hair-like setae.

Female. Unknown.

Distribution. Argentina (Fig. 26).

Type material examined. LECTOTYPE [here designated] ♂, labelled: “ San José, N-Arg | X.25. Lindner | D. Chaco-Exped ”, “ Achradocera longiseta n. sp. | O. Parent Type”, “SMNS_Dip_ | 007102” [SMNS]. PARALECTOTYPES: 1♀, “ Samaihuate | Bol. IV.26. Lind | D. Chaco-Exped ”, “ Achradocera longiseta | Par.”, “ SMNS _Dip_ | 007133”; 1♀, “F. Esteros Bol. | III.26 Linder. | D. Chaco-Exped ”, “SMNS_Dip_ | 007135” [SMNS].

Remarks. As mentioned above for A. insignis, females of different species are difficult to associate with males based on morphology. Parent (1933) described A. longiseta using males and females from different localities. The location of the single known paralectotype female is closer to the known distributions of A. insignis and A. gimli sp. nov. than to the male lectotype of A. longiseta. Therefore, to be more conservative when discussing the species’ distribution range, we opted to only consider the locality of the male holotype.