Chiromyza ochracea, Wiedemann, 1820

Fachin, Diego Aguilar, Zichinelli, Marcela Maria Parada & Barrett, Bolívar Rafael Garcete, 2022, An illustrated checklist of Stratiomyidae (Diptera: Brachycera) from Paraguay with three new synonyms and 22 new records of species for the country, Zootaxa 5190 (1), pp. 1-55 : 12

ochracea Wiedemann, 1820

Chiromyza ochracea Wiedemann, 1820: 20 . Syntypes: 2 males (NMW, see comments below). Type locality: Brazil.

= Chiromyza fuscana Wiedemann, 1821: 115 (stated 65 in Woodley 2001: 47). Syntype: female (NMW). Type locality: “Amer. mer.” (stated as Brazil in Wiedemann 1828: 238).

= Cheiromyza ochracea Henning, 1832: 338 . Syntype: female (NMW). Type locality: Brazil. Preoccupied, secondary homonym of Chiromyza ochracea Wiedemann, 1820 .

References. Enderlein, 1921: 160 (suppl. descr., as Xenomorpha , C. fuscana as syn.); Bezzi, 1922: 119 (in key to species, as Chiromyza ), 120 (record from Paraguay); James, 1973a: 26.2 (cat.); Woodley, 2001: 47 (cat., Paraguay not mentioned); Pujol-Luz, 2020: 6 (type specimens’ images).

Distribution. Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay (Alto Paraná: Puerto Bertoni), Peru.

Comments. Bezzi (1922: 120) reported Chiromyza vittata fuscana Wiedemann, 1821 from Puerto Bertoni, Alto Paraná, Paraguay, although he considered the species a variety of Chiromyza vittata Wiedemann, 1820 . In his same paper, he reported C. vittata ochracea Wiedemann, 1820 (species above) from the state of São Paulo, Brazil, and described a new variety: C. vittata viridis Bezzi, 1922 . Although he considered them all varieties of C. vittata , C. ochracea and C. viridis are currently valid and separated species from C. vittata , but C. fuscana is a synonym of C. ochracea (see James 1973a: 26.2; Woodley 2001: 47–48). Given that, the record presented by Bezzi (1922) for C. vittata fuscana from Paraguay should be assigned to C. ochracea , which then represents the second species of the genus in the country.

The information on the number of specimens in the type series of C. ochracea , that was not given in the original description and stated as “ syntype ♂ ” in Woodley (2001: 47), should be now read as “ two male syntypes ”, of which images of the specimens and labels are given in Pujol-Luz (2020).