Homalocnemis nigripennis Philippi 1865
- 1. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazo ̂ nia, INPA, Coordenação de Biodiversidade, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. jarafael @ inpa. gov. br, https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0002 - 0170 - 0514
- 2. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazo ̂ nia, INPA, Coordenação de Biodiversidade, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. willkenia @ gmail. com, https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0001 - 7260 - 5760
- 3. Instituto de Entomología, Facultad de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Santiago, Chile. christian. gonzalez @ umce. cl, https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0003 - 2582 - 6071
- 4. Canadian National Collection of Insects & Canadian Food Inspection Agency, OPL-Entomology, Ottawa, Canada. bradley. sinclair @ inspection. gc. ca, https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0001 - 6413 - 1606
Description
Homalocnemis nigripennis Philippi, 1865
(Figs 1–12, 28)
Homalocnemis nigripennis Philippi, 1865: 752. Type-locality: Chile.
Holotype. Male (not found in MNNC, presumably lost). Chile.
Distribution. Chile: Valparaiso, Santiago (Fig. 28).
References. Reed, 1888: 301 (cat.); Bezzi, 1905: 457 (list); Kertész, 1909: 8 (cat.); Collin, 1928: 54 (com.); Melander, 1928: 14 (dist.); Collin, 1933: 29 (redes., fig. 6a); Stuardo, 1946: 104 (cat.); Smith, 1967: 9 (cat.); Chvála, 1991: 13 (com.); Camousseight, 2005: 90 (list); Yang et al., 2007: 280 (cat.).
Diagnosis. In addition to features in the key, this species is distinguished by the long, narrow digitiform epandrial process, male cerci separate from epandrium and female sternite 8 not greatly enlarged and apex weakly bilobed.
Redescription. Wing length: 5.0– 5.1 mm. Male (Figs 1, 3, 6–8). Predominantly gray pruinose, especially mesopleuron, postpronotal lobe and notopleuron; prescutellar depression with long, anteriorly pointed pruinescent stripe, extending to near apex of scutum; front of scutum gray pruinose, with brown vittae along dorsocentral rows, apex of scutum and postsutural region (Figs 1, 4). Palpus with long whitish setae. Wing darkly infuscate, anal lobe well developed in both sexes (Figs 1–5). Vein R 2+3 strongly upcurved distally around pterostigma, ending well proximal to level of branching of vein R 4+5. Section between veins R 2+3 and R 4 equal to or longer than section between veins R 4 and R 5. Hind tarsomere 1 slightly swollen (Fig. 3). Tergite 8 less than half-length of respective sternite (Fig. 7), narrowed medially (Fig. 6); sternite 8 with desclerotized or depigmented medial area, with intersegmental membrane pigmented or weakly sclerotized posterolaterally (Fig. 7); remaining pregenital sclerites unmodified. Terminalia not highly sclerotized. Epandrial lamellae subrectangular, fused narrowly along dorsal bridge; with narrow, digitiform subapical process; dorsal margin with long, dense setae, nearly as long as width of epandrium (Fig. 6). Cercus oval, rounded posteriorly, with short dense ventroapical setae; not fused to epandrium or surstylus (Figs 6, 7). Hypoproct membranous medially, clothed in setulae laterally. Subepandrial sclerite broadly V-shaped, extending as bacilliform sclerites to surstylus; surstylus arched dorsally with apical notch; basally fused with epandrium (Figs 6, 8). Hypandrium (Figs 7, 8) with gonocoxal apodeme short, narrow, not greatly expanded horizontally; gonocoxal apodemes united dorsally by upright phallic plate; phallic plate paired, narrowly extending dorsally to base of subepandrial sclerite, opposite dorsal bridge of epandrial lamellae. Postgonites not differentiated. Hypandrium mostly fused with phallus, with apex of phallus emerging apically (Fig. 8); without lateral projections. Ejaculatory apodeme slender, elongate, positioned within hypandrium (Fig. 8).
Female (Figs 2, 4–5). Same pattern of color as male (Fig. 1). Sternite 8 broadly joined ventrally, with apex weakly bilobed (Figs 10, 11), not greatly enlarged, subequal to anterior portion of sternite 8; sparsely clothed in short setae. Syntergite 9+10 well developed, completely divided medially (Fig. 9). Sternite 10 rectangular, weakly sclerotized; narrowly expanded along anterolateral margin of syntergite 9+10. Cercus ovoid fused to syntergite 9+10 (Figs 9–11). Spermatheca well sclerotized, tubular, tapered and sinuous apically (Fig. 12).
Material examined. CHILE. Santiago [= Valparaiso], Marga-Marga, 7.ix.1927, Jaffuel & Pirion (1 ♀, USNM) [33°02′57″S – 71°30′10″W]; Province Santiago [Santiago, metropolis], Quebrada de la Plata, 27.x.1967, el. 510 m, 33°31′S – 70°47′W, E. Schlinger & M. Irwin (1♁, 1♀, CAS).
Remarks. Marga Marga is located in the Valparaíso Region of the Province of Marga Marga, not Santiago Province as stated on the label of the studied specimen. As suggested by Collin (1933), H. nigripennis has a more northerly distribution than H. praesumpta (Fig. 28).
Notes
Files
Files
(4.7 kB)
Name | Size | Download all |
---|---|---|
md5:9d01f0add265b4dc31ef54a37fb49a72
|
4.7 kB | Download |
System files
(37.5 kB)
Name | Size | Download all |
---|---|---|
md5:de1c1743cea4e01e19e7754db623f9b2
|
37.5 kB | Download |
Linked records
Additional details
Identifiers
Biodiversity
- Collection code
- MNNC , USNM
- Event date
- 1927-09-07 , 1967-10-27
- Family
- Homalocnemiidae
- Genus
- Homalocnemis
- Kingdom
- Animalia
- Order
- Diptera
- Phylum
- Arthropoda
- Scientific name authorship
- Philippi
- Species
- nigripennis
- Taxon rank
- species
- Type status
- holotype
- Verbatim event date
- 1927-09-07 , 1967-10-27
- Taxonomic concept label
- Homalocnemis nigripennis Philippi, 1865 sec. Rafael, Marques, González & Sinclair, 2022
References
- Philippi, R. A. (1865) Aufza ¨ hlung der chilenischen Dipteren. Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-ko ¨ niglichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft, Wien, 15, 595 - 782. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 9295
- Reed, E. P. (1888) Catalogo de los insectos Dipteros de Chile. Anales de la Universidad de Chile, 73, 271 - 316. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 8562
- Bezzi, M. (1905) Empididae neotropicae Musei Nationalis Hungarici. Annales historico-naturales Musei nationalis hungarici, Budapest, 3, 424 - 460.
- Kertesz, K. (1909) Catalogus dipterorum hucusque descriptorum. Vol. VI. Empididae, Dolichopodidae, Musidoridae. Museum Nationale Hungaricum, Budapestini [Budapest], 362 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 5145
- Collin, J. E. (1928) New Zealand Empididae based on material in the British Museum (Natural History). British Museum (Natural History), London, 110 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.1038 / 122473 c 0
- Melander, A. L. (1928) Diptera, Fam. Empididae. In: Wytsman, P. (Ed.), Genera Insectorum, 185 (1927), pp. 1 - 434.
- Collin, J. E. (1933) Part IV Empididae. In: Diptera of Patagonia and South Chile. British Museum (Natural History), London, 334 pp.
- Stuardo, C. (1946) Catalogo de los dipteros de Chile. Imprenta Universitaria. Santiago, 250 pp.
- Smith, K. G. V. (1967) Family Empididae (Empidae, Hybotidae). 39. In: Papavero, N. (Ed.), A Catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States. Departamento de Zoologia, SaTo Paulo, pp. 1 - 67.
- Camousseight, A. (2005) La contribucion entomologica de R. A. Philippi entre 1859 y 1875 y el estado actual de sus especies. Boletin del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Chile, 54, 81 - 106.
- Yang, D., Yao, G., Zhang, K. & Zhang, J. (2007) World Catalog of Empididae (Insecta: Diptera). China Agricultural University Press, Beijing, 704 pp.