Pityocera (Elaphella) cervus (Wiedemann, 1828)

(figures 1A–H, 2A–H)

Type locality. Brazil, Pará.

Pangonia cervus Wiedemann, 1828: 94; Walker, 1854: 131.

Pityocera (Elaphella) cervus, Fairchild, 1969: 204; 1971: 28 (catalog); Moucha, 1976: 41 (catalog); Wilkerson, 1979: 178; Henriques & Gorayeb, 1993: 5 (MPEG collection); Fairchild & Burger, 1994: 52 (catalog); Henriques, 1997: 62 (INPA collection); Coscarón & Papavero, 2009b: 45 (catalog); Lessard et al., 2013: 522 (molecular Scionini); Lessard 2014: 231 (revision Scionini).

Dicrania cervus, Macquart, 1834: 196; 1837: 438; 1838: 110; Giglio-Tos, 1897: 276; Kertész, 1900: 5 (catalog); Ricardo, 1900: 99, 100; 1904: 100; Lutz, 1909: 629, pl. 1 fig.1; 1911: 83.

Dicranomyia cervus, Hunter 1901: 135; Kertész, 1908: 146; Surcouf & González-Rincones, 1912: 84; Surcouf, 1921: 100, pl. 3, figs. 10a–b.

Elaphella cervus, Kröber, 1929: 245; 1930: 309, fig. 4; 1934: 235 (catalog); Bequaert & Renjifo-Salcedo, 1946: 60; Barretto, 1957: 76; Fairchild, 1961b: 434; 1967a: 84 (types of Wiedemann).

Pangonia comprehensa Walker, 1850: 11, pl. l, fig. 2.

Pangonia comprehensa, Chainey, 1990 (types of BMNH. Holotype female in error).

ramicornis Ricardo, 1900: 100, nomen nudum.

Diagnosis. Species light brown (fig. 1A) with wing fumose and legs orange-yellow; face (upper half) and clypeus shiny (fig. 1B). Easily differentiated from other species by its pectinate flagellum (fig. 1C), which has the first flagellomere with a long dorsal projection (tooth), and flagellomeres 2–6 with shorter teeth.

Morphology. For female external characters see Wilkerson (1979: 178).

Terminalia description ♀ (figs. 1E–H): tergites IX and X, cercus and hypoproct as in figure 1E. Tergite IX fused and slightly narrower than tergite X. Tergite X divided into two pieces, but united by membrane. Cercus rounded with yellow hairs. Hypoproct with apex rounded, reaching a little farther than half of the cercus length. Hypogynium + hypogynial valve (fig. 1F). Hypogynium with lateral margins rounded; apex with long slit reaching the hypogynial valve. Genital fork (fig. 1G) with slender arms without distal expansions; anterior margin heavily excavated with lateral and central extremities pointed; spermathecal ducts long and little sclerotized; Spermatheca (fig. 1H) heavily pigmented, slender, with apex acuminate.

Male: described by Giglio-Tos (1897), but treated as unknown by Wilkerson (1979: 178). Furthermore the holotype of P. comprehensa Walker is a male (fig. 2A–B). The examined males are extremely similar to the females, including the shape of the antennae. They differ, however, by the holoptic head and short palpus (fig. 2D).

Terminalia description ♂ (figs. 2E–H): epandrium, cercus and hypoproct as in figures 2G–H. Epandrium fused with lateral margins rounded; strongly excavated at apex (dorsal view). Cercus with apex rounded, ventrally curved. Hypoproct elongated, triangular and pointed, exceeding the cercus apex. Hypandrium + gonocoxite, gonostylus and aedeagus as in figures 2E–F. Hypandrium + gonocoxite robust with anterior margin rounded; hollow of gonocoxite (dorsal view) conspicuous reaching half of its length. Gonostylus elongated, digitform with apex pointed. Aedeagus slender without anterior enlargement, size subequal to the gonocoxal apodeme.

Distribution. Colombia, Venezuela, Guiana, Suriname, Ecuador, French Guiana, Brazil (North), Peru, Bolivia.

Type material. Holotype ♀ ZMHB, not examined. Holotype ♂ of Pangonia comprehensa Walker (figs. 2A–C) examined by photos (BMNH).

Examined material. COLOMBIA: Meta, Villavicencio, 14.x.1941 (♀ CAS); VENEZUELA: Amazonas: Cerro de la Neblina, 140 m, 050’N; 6610’W, Spangler et al. (11♀ USNM); idem, Carinagua, Pto. Ayacucho, xi.1949, Castillo (18♀ USNM); GUIANA: without locality, iii. 1928, Pinkus (1♀ AMNH); idem, Wanaina, iii.1931, Myers, “compared\ with type ♀\ E. Comprehensa \ C.B. Philip 56 Wlk (♀ CAS); idem, Shudihar, 01.i.1938 W.G. Hassler (♀ CAS); SURINAME: Kabel Station, J. Bonne (1♀ USNM); FRENCH GUIANA: Piton Rochay, 3o40’N; 52 o15’W (1♀ USNM); BRAZIL: Amazonas, Manaus, Reserva A. Ducke, 20.x.1988, J.A Rafael (♀ INPA); Pará, Óbidos, Fazenda Pajur, 06.ix.2001, J.A. Rafael & J.A. Vidal (27 ♀ INPA); idem, Rio Trombetas, cachoeira da Fumaça, 08–18.x.1985, Equipe comander (♀ INPA); idem, Rio Trombetas, Lago Caetano, 13.iii.1986, Equipe Apoidea (2♀ INPA); idem, Rio Trombetas, cachoeira da Fumaça, 08–18.x.1985, Equipe comander (♀ INPA); idem, Rio Nhamund, 0135’11’’S-5737’32’’W, 17–20.v.2008, J.A Rafael e equipe (♀ INPA); idem, Rio Purus, Hyutanham, xxi.1921, S.M. Klages (♀ CAS); idem, São João do Araguaia, 08.iii.1981, J.A. Nunes de Mello (♀ INPA); idem, Conceição do Araguaia, 19–31.i.1983, J.A. Rafael (♀ INPA); Maranhão, São P.[edro] Água\ Branca, Faz.[enda] Primavera\ Isca Equina \ 03–10.iii.2002, F.L. Oliveira & J.T.\ Câmara (5♀ INPA, 44♀ CZMA); idem, C.[entro] N.[ovo] Maranhão\ REBIO – Res.[erva] Biol.[ógica] Gurupi\ 0314’05”S/4641’83”W\, Arm.[adilha] Luminosa Móvel\ 07–15.i.2011, F.Limeira-de-\Oliveira & M. M. Abreu (♀ CZMA); idem, C.[entro] N.[ovo] Maranhão\ REBIO – Res.[erva] Biol.[ógica] Gurupi\ 0314’05”S/4641’83”W\, Armadilha de Malaise\ 01–06.i.2011, F.Limeira-de-\ Oliveira & D. W. A. Marques (2♀ CZMA); idem, 07–15.i.2011, ibidem (♀ CZMA); PERU: Madre de Dios, Rio Tambopata, xi.1982, E. S. Ross (2♀ CAS); idem, Madre de Dios, Manu, 127’S; 7058'W, Flint & Adams (11♀ USNM); idem, Tingo Maria, 16.xi.1954, E.I. Schilinger & E.S. Ross (♀ CAS); BOLIVIA: without locality, Cachuela Esperanza, iii.1922 (1♀ USNM); La Paz, Chaparé, Yungas, i.1949, Williner, “Elaphella\ cervus (Wied.) \ Barretto et Duret\ det. 1955 (♂ MZUSP); idem, Region Subandina 400m, ex coll Zischka (♂ MZUSP).

Discussion. species with wide distribution in northern South America, where some series exhibit variation in the size of the antenna and in the pilosity coloration, as in the samples from Óbidos (Pará) and São Pedro de Água Branca (Maranhão), respectively. Nevertheless, when series from other locations are examined the differences tend to weaken due to overlapping in the form of each character. Therefore, specimens with the aforementioned variations were kept as P. cervus.

Using Walker’s original description (1850: 11, pl. l, fig. 2) for Pangonia comprehensa and photos of the holotype (figs. 2A–C), it was noted that the species has been described based on a male specimen that has been mistaken as a female by several authors (Fairchild, 1971: 28; Chainey, 1990: 288; Fairchild & Burger, 1994: 52; Coscarón & Papavero, 2009b: 45). Coincidently, a female determined by Cornelius Becker Philip (1900–1987) with the following label was examined in this study: “compared with type ♀ of E. comprehensa Wlk. C.B. Philip [19]58 (fig. 1D); this mistake can be associated with subsequent errors.