Regasilus Curran, 1931
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4894.2.3 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0445D812-2DA7-4BAE-97AC-BD91F74BE4AF |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4327226 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AA87F0-2C12-DF16-FF09-8529664EFA0B |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Regasilus Curran, 1931 |
status |
|
Regasilus Curran, 1931 View in CoL View at ENA
Regasilus Curran, 1931:24 View in CoL .
Type-species, Regasilus strigarius Curran, 1931 (as strigaria View in CoL , error), by original designation.
Diagnosis. Regasilus is characterized by the following combination of characters: 1. Anatergite bare; 2. Scutellum with impressed rim; 3. Mystax with about six remarkably stout macrosetae placed in a triangular area near the lower facial margin; 4. Scape and pedicel bearing conspicuous ventral and lateral macrosetae (Fig. 207, Hull 1962); 5. Apical third of wing darkened by dense microtrichia ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 ); 6. Fore femora without prominent macrosetae; 7. Eighth sternite in males bearing a dense and conspicuous band of macrosetae apically ( Fig. 4B View FIGURE 4 ); 8. Hypandrium with a posterior and central excision ( Fig. 3F View FIGURE 3 ); 9. Female ovipositor apubescent and laterally compressed from sixth abdominal segment ( Fig. 5B View FIGURE 5 ); 10. Common duct long, with three strongly attenuated and apically-coiled spermathecae ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 ); and 11. Median sclerite at posterior end of furca (remnant of tergite 9) present ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 ).
Comments. From examination of specimens of the Glaphyropyga group housed in MZUC–UCCC, as well as the illustrations in Artigas & Papavero (1995) and Artigas (1971), Regasilus is morphologically similar to Leptoharpacticus Lynch Arribálzaga, 1880 and Megalometopon Artigas & Papavero, 1995 (a replacement name for Megametopon Artigas, 1970 , a junior homonym), since these three genera share features such as the fore femora without prominent macrosetae, eighth sternite with an apical band of macrosetae in males, presence of a median sclerite at posterior end of furca in females, and a long common duct with three strongly attenuated and apicallycoiled spermathecae. Although Leptoharpacticus is easily distinguishable owing to its shallow facial gibbosity, plus other differences, to distinguish Regasilus from Megalometopon is more difficult, since the diagnosis given for Regasilus herein also keys out to Megalometopon , except for character 3. In Megalometopon the mystacal macrosetae are uniform, nevertheless some other features of this genus are observed in the variation range of the species of Regasilus described in this work. Therefore, the relationship between these two genera needs to be reevaluated, since Artigas (1971) and Artigas & Papavero (1995) established Megalometopon without examining any specimens of Regasilus , raising the possibility that these genera are subjective synonyms.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
Regasilus Curran, 1931
Sánchez, Pável 2020 |
Regasilus
Curran 1931: 24 |