Mannheimsia stylodactyla ( Liu, 1995 ) Brown, 2005

Brown, Brian V., 2005, Classification of two poorly known genera of African Phoridae (Diptera), African Invertebrates 46, pp. 133-133 : 137-139

Mannheimsia stylodactyla ( Liu, 1995) , comb. n.

Figs 7–9 , 11 , 14

Chouomyia stylodactyla Liu, 1995: 186–188 , figs 11–20.

Chouomyia ramai Mostovski, 1997: 876 , figs 1–8. Syn. n.

Chouomyia dactyloformis Liu, 2001: 129 , 231. Lapsus for M. stylodactyla . Syn. n.

Female abdomen: Tergites 1–6 present; tergite 6 divided medially, but otherwise normal. Venter of abdomen with small setae; posterior margin of segment 6 with longer setae. Segment 7 lacking tergite, but with elongate, narrow, slightly apically clavate sternite. Segments 8–10 without tergites or sternites; cerci present, but relatively short.

Type material: C. stylodactyla Liu , Holotype ^, CHINA: Yunnan: Menglun , 22.v.1991, G. Liu, Y. Wang (Shenyang Agricultural University Collection; examined).

Figs 13, 14. Wings: (13) drawing of Mannheimsia tianzena (Liu) (modified from Liu, 1995); (14) photograph of Mannheimsia stylodactyla (Liu) .

Fig. 15. Scanning electron micrograph of head, Mannheimsia stricta Beyer , right lateral (material adhering to lower margin of flagellomere 1 and palpus is conducting paint).

Scale bar = 0.5 mm, except Fig. 15 = 0.25 mm.

Material examined: THAILAND: Chiang Mai: Doi Inthanon National Park , 1260 m, 1^ 31.i–7.ii.1989, Malaise trap, T . Thormin ( LACM); Maerim (18.29°N: 98.98°E), 1^ 3–26.i.1995, 1^ viii–ix.1995, 4ơ 1^ xi–xii.1995, 1ơ 1^ i–ii.1996, Malaise trap, R . Beaver ( LACM); Nakhon Ratchasima: Khao Yai National Park , semi-evergreen forest, 780 m, 3^ 11–16.iv.1990, B. Brown, 2^ 11–18.iv.1990, Malaise trap, E. Fuller ( LACM) .

Remarks: Mostovski described C. ramai from Thailand from a specimen extremely similar in appearance to illustrations of C. stylodactyla . In particular, illustrations of the terminalia of the two were almost identical, although the illustrations by both authors, especially of the male terminalia, were not greatly detailed.Mostovski stated that his new species differed from both of Liu’s previously described species by having fewer setae on the palpus, lacking a large seta above the thoracic spiracle, by the different costal index and costal sector measurements, the distribution of setae on the midtibia, and by shape of the epandrium and hypandrium. Furthermore, he stated that C. ramai differed from C. stylodactyla by the dark club of the halter and longer setae on the cercus.

I have several specimens of a species I consider conspecific with C. ramai , as it agrees well with all of Mostovski’s illustrations.After reviewing the supposed differences between this species and the illustrations of C. stylodactyla , however, I consider them to be conspecific. The number of setae on the palpus in my specimens is the same as in C. stylodactyla . The large seta above the spiracle—basal postpronotal seta in the terminology of McAlpine (1981) —is present in my specimens. The differences in wing measurements and small differences in location in midtibial setae are errors in the illustrations of Liu. Part of the difference in male terminalia noted by Mostovski is due to an error in his illustration. The long digitiform structure he illustrates in his fig. 4 as the right surstylus, continuous with the right side of the epandrium, is in fact the medial process of the subepandrial process ( Figs 7, 8 ). The differences in the ventral view of the hypandrium appear to be small variations in angle of observation in the two species. Finally, the halter of both species is dark-coloured, and the illustrations of the terminalia by Liu depict the length of the cercal setae too short.

It is clear from the illustrations of the male terminalia that the subepandrial process has exactly the same structure in both species. Given that there are small errors in the illustrations of both authors, and without other substantive characters that might separate the two, I herein synonymize the names. Additionally, I synonymize the new name C. dactyloformis that Liu (2001) introduced in error in his book on Chinese phorids.

Neither author illustrated the full structure of the hypandrium, probably confusing part of this structure with the aedeagus. Specifically, the right side of the hypandrium has an unusual bilobed secondary process dorsal to the large, more obvious process ( Fig. 9 ).

Figures

Figs 7–9. Mannheimsia stylodactyla (Liu), male terminalia: (7) epandrium, right side; (8) epandrium, left side; (9) hypandrium, ventral.

Figs 11, 12. Scanning electron micrographs of pleuron: (11) Mannheimsia stylodactyla (Liu); (12) Megaselia sp.