Diplonevra, Lioy, 1864
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5733/afin.053.0106 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C487EA-FFE5-255B-C69A-0C78FB84FDA4 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Diplonevra |
status |
|
Key to the Afrotropical species of Diplonevra View in CoL
Note: Species recognition in this genus is based on the male sex in the first instance. The description of D. hercules and D. concava from the female sex only was unfortunate. When their males become known an improved key can be constructed.
1 At least top of thorax brown to dark brown...........................................................2
– Thorax reddish yellow..................................................................... hercules Beyer View in CoL
2 Hind tibia with ventral spines as well as anterodorsals (e.g., Fig. 10 View Figs10–12 )...................3
– Hind tibia without ventral spines...........................................................................5
3 Hind femora brown to dark brown.........................................................................4
– Hind femora largely yellow (tip of hind trochanter and base of hind femur as in Fig. 11 View Figs10–12 ; hind tibia as in Fig. 10 View Figs10–12 ; postpedicels short in both sexes) .......................... ....................................................................................................... armipes (Brues) View in CoL
4 Wing at most 3 mm long. Hind femora brown, but not very dark... concava Beyer View in CoL
– Wing clearly more than 3 mm long. Hind femora dark brown (♂ postpedicel about 2.75× as long as basal width and tapered to a point.................... epinephele Beyer
5 Hind femora brown to dark brown.........................................................................6
– Hind femora with basal halves at least yellowish brown to yellow.......................8
6 Haltere knob brown................................................................................................7
– Haltere knob yellow or paler (♂ anal tube more than 3× as long as dorsal face of epandrium ( Fig. 9 View Figs 8, 9 ); ♂ postpedicel as in Fig. 8 View Figs 8, 9 ) ....................... stuckenbergi sp. n.
7 Mid tibia with a single greatly reduced anterodorsal bristle in its basal third. Wing length clearly more than 3 mm. Base of hind femur and trochanter as Fig. 7 View Figs 4–7 (♂ postpedicel as in Fig. 6 View Figs 4–7 ; hypopygium as in Fig. 4 View Figs 4–7 ; palps as in Fig. 5 View Figs 4–7 )................ ................................................................................................ meridafricana sp. n.
– Mid tibia with the typical dorsal and anterodorsal bristles in the basal third. Wing length clearly less than 3 mm. Base of hind femur and trochanter as in Fig. 12 View Figs10–12 ..... ........................................................................................................... brincki Beyer View in CoL
8 Male anal tube exceptionally long ( Fig. 1 View Figs 1–3 ). Postpedicel as in Fig. 3 View Figs 1–3 (base of hind femur as in Fig. 2 View Figs 1–3 )....................................................................... longifistula sp. n.
– Male anal tube less than twice as long as dorsal face of epandrium. Postpedicel shorter and rather lemonshaped................................................ basilewskyi Beyer
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.