Sarcophaga (Heteronychia) dissimilis Meigen 1826

Sarcophaga (Heteronychia) dissimilis Meigen, 1826

Sarcophaga dissimilis Meigen, 1826: 25.

Sarcophaga offuscata Meigen, 1826: 26.

Sarcophaga infantula Rondani, 1860: 390.

Sarcophaga dissoluta Pandellé, 1896: 201.

Pierretia nigricauda Povolný & Slamečková, 1959: 431. [Junior secondary homonym of Erichsonia nigricauda Robineau- Desvoidy, 1830.]

Heteronychia (Heteronychia) rohdendorfiana Mihályi, 1975: 106.

Heteronychia (Heteronychia) nigricaudata Povolný & Slamečková, 1982 (in Povolný 1982): 1. New replacement name for Pierretia nigricauda Povolný & Slamečková, 1959.

Heteronychia dimioniphalla Lehrer, 1996a: 102, syn. nov.

Type material examined. Sarcophaga dissimilis: Lectotype 3 (designated by Blackith et al. 2004) and paralectotype Ƥ: Sarcophaga / dissimilis / Ƥ // [round label] 2089 / 40 // [white label] Lectotype 3 / Sarcophaga / dissimilis Meig. / R. Richet // dét. 2003 // [white label, red handwriting] Paralectotype Ƥ (MNHN) [lectotype and paralectotype on the same pin; terminalia dissected (by R. Richet) and placed in Canada balsam on a small slide on the same pin]. Paralectotypes: 2 3, 1 Ƥ: 2089 / 40 (MNHN) [one male = S. pumila Meigen, 1826, but improperly labelled as follows: Paralectotype 3 / Sarcophaga / pumila Meig. / R. Richet det. 2003].

Sarcophaga offuscata: Lectotype 3 (designated by Blackith et al. 2004) and paralectotype Ƥ: Ƥ / 1057 // Valenier fg? / 10.5.78 // lectotype 3 / Sarcophaga / dissimilis Meig. / R. Richet dét. 2003 (MNHN) [lectotype and paralectotype on the same pin; terminalia dissected (by R. Richet) and placed in Canada balsam in a small slide on the same pin].

Sarcophaga infantula: Lectotype 3 (designated by Pape 1988): 1030 // = dissimilis / Tipo di Meig. / Parigi / det. Böttcher (MZUF).

Sarcophaga dissoluta: Lectotype 3 (designated by Pape 2004b): 3 / 6362 // [red label] LECTOTYPE 3 / Sarcophaga / dissoluta Pnd. / T. Pape det. 2002 // Coll. Soc. ent. Fr. / Sarcophaga / dissimilis Meig. sec. Typ. / J. Villeneuve vid. (MNHN) (see Pape 2004b).

Heteronychia rohdendorfiana: Paratype 3: Bükk-hg. 1957, Nagyvisnyó, Elza-lak, 3.VI.1957, S. Tóth leg. (ZMUC).

Pierretia nigricauda: 8 3 (the holotype and 7 paratypes, all conspecific): 5 3: [Slovakia] Vel’ Inovec [= Vel’ký Inovec] / Slov. 20.6.1957 / Slamečková // Pierretia / nigricauda / Pov. & Slam. (MMBC) [one with left wing and terminalia missing, two with terminalia broken off (by me) and glued to a slip of card beneath the source specimen]; 1 3: Vel’ Inovec / Slov. 20.6.1957 / Slamečková // Pierretia / sp. nova / prope recta Roh / B. Rohdendorf / det. 1958.I [additional morphological annotations scribbled in Russian on side of label] // 616 // Pierretia / nigricauda / Pov. & Slam. (MMBC) [terminalia missing]; 1 3: Vel’ Inovec / Slov. 20.6.1957 / Gyulai leg. // 612 // Pierretia / nigricauda / Pov. & Slam. (MMBC) [terminalia missing]; 1 3: Vel’ Inovec / Slov. 20.6.1957 / Slamečková // Het. rohdendorfiana / Mih. Dt. Yu.G. Verves (YVC).

Remarks. Povolný and Slamečková (1959: 432) based their description of Pierretia nigricauda upon the holotype 3 from “Vel’ký Inovec [Slovakia] (Berggipfel, 900 m hoch), 20. 6. 1957 leg. prom. biol. Slamečková”, seven male paratypes from the same locality, and three male paratypes from Želiezovce (Slovakia). I was able to examine all of the eight type specimens from Vel’ký Inovec; however, as none of them are labelled as either holotype or paratype, it is impossible to state exactly which is the holotype, and all of them, including the specimen found in YVC, could potentially qualify as such.

Additional material examined. Austria: Eichkogel, 2.IX.2002, D. Povolný leg., 1 3 (MMBC); Hollenburg, VI–VII.1997, D. Povolný leg., 6 3 (MMBC); Niederösterreich, Hochkar nr. Göstling (nr. Lunz am See), 18.VI.1994, D. Povolný leg., 1 3 (MMBC). Belgium: Furfooz, 7.VIII.1952, A. Collart leg., 1 3 (IRSNB); Izier, Ozo, 6.VI.1958, R. Delvigne leg., 1 3 (IRSNB); Ligneuville (Pont), 25.VII.1967, A. Collart leg., 1 3 (IRSNB); Lixhe (Mont St. Pierre), 13.VIII.1948, A. Collart leg., 2 3 (IRSNB); Yvoir, 5.VI.1946, A. Collart leg., 1 3 (IRSNB). Czech Republic: Čelákovice, 180m, 19.VI.1992, M. Barták leg., 1 3 (ZMUC); Chropynĕ, 190m, 20.V.1990, M. Barták leg., 4 3 (ZMUC); Rajhrad, 23.VI.42, 1 3 (MMBC); same locality, 13.V.43, 2 3 (MMBC); Třinec, Sosna, 350m, 24–27.VII.1996, M. Barták leg., 5 3 (ZMUC). France: Alpes Maritimes, Sospel, 1.V.1994, R. & B. Blackith leg., 2 3 (NHRS); Haute Savoie, nr. Ardent, la Lecherette, 22.VI.2000, T. Pape leg., 1 3 (NHRS); Lyon, 20 km N, 250m, 2.VII.1990, M. Barták leg., 1 3 (ZMUC); Montgenèvre, 1800m, 12.VII.1990, M. Barták leg., 1 3 (ZMUC); Rambouillet, 15.V, 1 3 (NHRS), same locality, 28.V.1905, J. Villeneuve leg., 1 3 (USNM); same locality, 18.VII.1915, 1 3 (USNM); Saône-et-Loire, Brancion, 3.VII.1996, T. Pape leg., 2 3 (NHRS); St. Pierre de Chartreuse, 1 3 (USNM). Italy: 2 3 from Stelvio National Park (Trentino-Alto Adige) (see Whitmore et al. 2008b); Venetia, Verona prov., Monte Baldo, Caprino, 23.IV.2006, D. Whitmore leg., 1 3 (CNB- FVR); Trentino-Alto Adige, Südtirol, Tartscher Alm, SW of Trafoi, 1900m, 6.VII.2000, C. Lange & J. Ziegler leg., 1 3 (NHRS). Switzerland: Klöntal, Vorauen, 8.VIII.1995, B. Merz leg., 1 3 (NHRS); Lägern, Lägerweid, 1975, R. Cuny leg., 1 3 (NHRS); Savognin, 17–20.VIII.1988, G. Bächli leg., 2 3 (NHRS); Thal, 1 3 (ZMUC); Würenlingen, 6–11.VI.1973, G. Bächli leg., 1 3 (NHRS); Zürich-Katzensee, 440m, 25.V.1996, B. Merz leg., 1 3 (NHRS); Zürich-Zürichberg, 650m, 23.VII.1996, B. Merz leg., 1 3 (ZMUC).

Remarks. Lehrer (1996a: 102) described Heteronychia dimioniphalla based exclusively upon drawings of “ Pierretia dissimilis ” by Rohdendorf (1937: 348, figs 477–478). The holotype therefore corresponds to the (presumably single) specimen used by Rohdendorf for his illustrations (preserved in all probability at ZIN, although I did not specifically look for it during my visit to that institution in 2007). Lehrer distinguished H. dimioniphalla from S. (H.) dissimilis by small details of the cerci and lateral styli which, also considering the morphological variability that exists within S. (H.) dissimilis (see below), cannot be considered as sufficient to justify the description of a new species; hence the synonymy proposed above.

Blackith et al. (2004), in their revision of Sarcophaga (Heteronychia) chaetoneura Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889 and S. (H.) dissimilis, synonymized the large-sized Pierretia nigricauda (= nigricaudata) and the small-sized Heteronychia rohdendorfiana with S. dissimilis, making the following comment about the conspicuous size of some specimens: “ S. chaetoneura does not appear to produce such large specimens at all”. I have observed a similar variability also in S. (H.) chaetoneura, and noticed that differences in size in these two species are correlated with other morphological features such as a much denser abdominal microtrichosity in the larger specimens, relatively longer antennae in the smaller individuals, and variation in details of the juxta and, particularly in S. dissimilis, of the cercus – narrower in profile in the larger individuals. (Variability in the shape of the cercus in profile was mentioned by Blackith et al. (2004), although they probably inadvertently switched their figures 9 and 10.) It is interesting that Povolný (1982) also discussed the variability in size of Heteronychia nigricaudata (= dissimilis): he mentioned rearing several specimens of the “small nigricaudata ” from small-sized pulmonate snails of the species Arianta arbustorum (Linnaeus) (Helicidae), Fruticicola fruticum (Müller) (Bradybaenidae) and Monachoides incarnatus (Müller) (Hygromiidae), and suggested that the “large nigricaudata ” may breed, as a parasitoid, in larger hosts (rarer in the area of former Czechoslovakia investigated by Povolný, which would explain the rarity of the large specimens). Other Heteronychia species show a great variability in size; S. (H.) villeneuveana (Enderlein, 1928) varies from 3–4mm to over 10mm and has been demonstrated to be a true parasitoid of Cochlicella acuta (Müller) (Cochlicellidae) (Coupland & Baker 1994), suggesting a possible link between morphological variability and host-parasitoid relationships.