Scione rufescens (Ricardo, 1900)

(Figs 70A–F, 71A–E)

Erephrosis rufescens Ricardo, 1900b: 294; Kertész, 1908: 167 (cat.).

Rhinotriclista rufescens; Kröber, 1930: 147 (rev.).

Scione rufescens; Kröber, 1934: 234 (cat.); Bequaert & Renjifo-Salcedo, 1946: 63 (Colombia spp.); Fairchild, 1956: 27 (tax.); 1971: 27 (cat.); Carrasco, 1972: 317 (Peru spp.); Moucha, 1976: 40 (cat.); Wilkerson, 1979: 173 (Colombia spp.); Hogue & Fairchild, 1974: 14 (Costa Rica spp.); Fairchild, 1986: 33 (Panama spp.); Fairchild & Burger, 1994: 51 (cat.); Chainey et al., 1994: 327 (tax.); Coscarón & Papavero, 2009: 54 (cat.).

Rhinotriclista generosa Enderlein, 1925: 302 (tax.); Fairchild, 1966: 13, fig. 20 (Enderlein spp.).

Type locality. Peru, Callanga.

Diagnosis. Body predominantly brown. Clypeus marked prominence at its apex. Thorax without stripes, wings slightly smoky without spots on crossveins. Abdomen with dense coppery setulae.

Redescription. Female. Body length: 17–17.4 mm (X = 17.2 mm, N = 3), wing length: 17.5–18.1 mm (X = 17.8 mm, N = 3).

Head. Frons nearly parallel, divergence index 09–1.1 (X = 1.0, N = 3), frontal index 2.5–2.9 (X = 2.7, N = 3). Frons unspotted. Vertex dark brown with orange pruinosity and not very dense black setulae, ocellar triangle prominent, ocelli orange brown. Frons and subcallus dark brown; frons with sparse black setulae. Parafacial and gena dark brown with orange pruinosity; gena with dense and long black and orange setulae. Clypeus dark brown with some black setulae, marked prominence at its apex, clypeal index 0.7–0.9 (X = 0.8, N = 3). Scape and pedicel dark brown with black setulae, flagellum orange brown. Palpus dark brown with black setulae on both segments; second segment larger than the first and quite tapered towards the apex. Proboscis bright orange brown, about 3x the height of the frons, lip short dark brown. Thorax. Scutum dark brown with dense black and orange setulae. Scutellum orange brown with dense black and orange setulae. Notopleuron with a small tuft of black and orange setulae. Anepisternum, katepisternum and anepimeron with tufts of long dense black and orange setulae. Postalar callus with long, dense orange setulae. Coxae and trochanters dark brown with dense black setulae. Femora orange brown with long dense black setulae. Tibiae and tarsi orange brown with short dense black and orange setulae. Wing slightly smoky with brown veins. Abdomen. Tergites dark brown with dense coppery setulae on the dorsal margin and on the lateral margin of the tergites. Sternites dark and with sparse black and coppery setulae.

Distribution. Eastern Andes of Ecuador, Bolivia.

Type material examined. Paratype, ♀, deposited at the NHMUK (examined through photographs); Lectotype of Rhinotriclista generosa, ♀, deposited at the MNHUB (examined through photographs).

Additional material examined. 3 ♀, “ Peru, Cuzco, Cosñipata Valley Quebra. San Pedro, 13º03’S, 71º30’W, 1400 m, 1–3-II-2013, Mielke Leg./ Scione sp. det. Henriques, 2016 (INPA)”.

Comments. The paratype studied has two faint lighter stripes on the scutum, a characteristic not observed in any of the specimens examined. In addition, the coppery setulae on the sternites of the paratype are denser than in the specimens examined. Scione rufescens and S. fulvosericea have been considered closely related species for five decades. Fairchild (1956) was the first to synonymize S. fulvosericea under S. rufescens. Moucha (1976) and Wilkerson (1979) continued to treat S. fulvosericea as a synonym, but Fairchild & Burger (1994) once again treated it as a valid species. The authors mentioned that specimens of S. fulvosericea collected west of the Andes are consistently different from those of S. rufescens collected east of the Andes. They further noted that John E. Chainey (NHMUK) compared the specimens with the London types and confirmed that they were different species. Given the above, and taking into account that each of these species currently has its own synonym Rhinotriclista generosa Enderlein, 1925, for S. rufescens and S. aureopygia Fairchild, 1942, for S. fulvosericea and that we examined only a small amount of material, we decided to retain both species as valid. However, examination of the type photographs and those of the synonyms of both species revealed no marked differences between them.