Ceroptera rufitarsis (Meigen, 1830)

Papp, LÁsZLÓ, 2014, A Review Of The Old World Species Of Ceroptera Macquart, 1835 (Diptera, Sphaeroceridae), Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 60 (2), pp. 109-155 : 120-123

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.12626496
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2D64A424-FFDF-FFA4-C36A-FC27CB10BD31
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Ceroptera rufitarsis (Meigen, 1830)
status

Treatment

Ceroptera rufitarsis (Meigen, 1830) View in CoL

(Figs 20–21, 24–26, 29)

Borborusrufitarsis Meigen, 1830: 199 (sexnotstated). Syntypeslocality: Portugal. Syntypes are though to be in the MNHN, but nobody has seen them since their description (sex unknown). Duda, 1938: 66 (genericcombination, redescription, illustration); Papp, 1977: 378–379 (redescription); Papp, 1984: 80 (Palaearcticcatalogue).

Ceroptera (Ceroptera) rufitarsis: Richards, 1980: 615 (Afrotropicalcatalogue) View in CoL .

Limosinasacra Meigen, 1838: 409 (sexnotgiven). Typelocality: Spain, “ Andalusien ”. STs, sex unknown (?MNHN). – Duda, 1925: 135 (synonymy). Morge, 1976: Pl. 269, Figs 9a,b View Figs 7–12 (reproductionofMeigen’soriginalillustration).

Borborus sacer: Morge, 1976 View in CoL : Pl. CCLXXXIX, Figs 8a- c View Figs 7–12 (reproduction of Meigen’s original illustration).

Pseudosphaerocera luteipennis Strobl, 1902: 506 View in CoL . Holotype female (NMBA): Greece, Pentelikon.

Withoutanopportunitytostudytypes, thesituationwith C. rufitarsis View in CoL is problematic, indeed. ThespecieswasdescribedfromPortugal, butMeigen (1838) describedanotherspecies, Limosinasacra fromSpain (Andalusia). Os- waldDudaandsubsequentauthors (incl. me) regardeditasajuniorsynonym of Borborus rufitarsis View in CoL . Later StrobL (1902) described Pseudosphaerocera luteipennis View in CoL from Greece. I was who proposed it as a junior synonym of C. rufitarsis (Meigen) ( PAPP 1977: 384) View in CoL ; however, that was made not on a comparison of typesbutonfindingthat Ceroptera View in CoL specimensfromGreeceandAfghanistan (other than C. rubricornis (Duda) View in CoL are conspecific (I have never seen any specimen from Spain).

Figs 19–24. Ceroptera picta (Becker) (Figs 19, 22–23) and C. rufitarsis (Meigen) (Figs 20–21,

24), male postabdomen and genitalia: 19 = sternite 5, ventral view, 20 = sternite 5, ventral view, 21 = medio-caudal part of sternite 5 in a higher magnification, 22 = epandrium, cerci and subepandrial sclerite with the right surstylus, caudal view, 23 = phallus and phallapodeme, lateral view, 24 = phallus and phallapodeme with contours of left postgonite, lateral view. Scales: 0.4 mm for Fig. 20, 0.2 mm for Figs 19, 21–24.

Figs 25–29. Ceroptera picta (Becker) (Figs 27–28) and C. rufitarsis (Meigen) (Figs 25–26, 29), malepostabdomenandgenitalia: 25 = synsternitewithright-sidesclerites, ventralview, 26 = postgonite, broadest (lateral) view, 27 = postgonite, broadest (nearlylateral) view, 28 = leftsurstylus, broadest (sublateral) view, 29 = thewholegenitalia, lateralview. Scales: 0.2

mm for Figs 25, 29, 0.1 mm for Figs 26–28.

Meigen’sfigure ( Morge 1976) doesnotgivebasisforseparation. Howev- er, the inter-crossvein section on the figure much longer than M-M crossvein, which is a distinctive feature of C. rufitarsis .

Materialstudied (allHNHM): 2 malesfromAghanistanasgivenbyPAPP (1977). 1 male 2 females: GREECE: Rhodope, Paranesti, 24 May 2004 – fromScarabaeuspius (Il- liger), leg. ÁdámL. 1 male 2 females: IRAN, Prov. Kordestan, 15 kmNofSanandag, 35°46’N 46°58’E, 1700 m, 19. GoogleMaps V. 2001, leg. B. Benedek & G. Csorba. 1 male (gen. prep.) 2 females: “ ВЕДИ, АрмЕНИЯ, ΤрЯПИЦЫН, 6. V. 957” det. L. Papp 1984 .

Althoughbodycharacteristicsareratherdifferentfromthoseof C. picta , theircloserrelationshipisreflectedinthedetailsofthemalegenitalia. Male sternite 5 (Figs 20–21) lesslong, medialsetaeonitsposteriorhalfslightly shorterthatthoseof C. picta . Synsternite (Fig. 25) withcomparativelysmall sternite 8 portion, right-side slerites large. Cercus (Fig. 29) similar with a pair ofverylongsetae. Surstylus (Fig. 29) withposteriorlobesomewhatnarrower andmorepointed. Basiphallus (Fig. 24) recurvedapically. Postgonite (Fig. 26, cf. Fig. 27) more curved.

Distribution. SouthPalaearctic: Afghanistan, Armenia, France, Greece,? Italy (Sicily), Morocco, Portugal, Spain, Syria, Tunisia;? Belgium (cf. RohÁček et al. 2001). The records from the Afrotropical region as well as from Belgium arehighlyquestionable.