Lypoglossa Fenyes, 1918
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.158194 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C33D1A01-2247-47C8-BA04-79ADFBB629E5 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6269828 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/AE6A8797-7C5E-FFD4-FEB7-C4F0FE6AC3CA |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Lypoglossa Fenyes, 1918 |
status |
|
Lypoglossa Fenyes, 1918 View in CoL
( Figs. 1–17 View FIGURES 1 – 5 View FIGURES 6 – 11 View FIGURES 12 – 17 , 25–70 View FIGURES 25 – 32 View FIGURES 33 – 40 View FIGURES 41 – 48 View FIGURES 49 – 50 View FIGURES 51 – 54 View FIGURES 55 – 63 View FIGURES 64 – 70 , 72–78 View FIGURES 72 – 78 )
Lypoglossa Fenyes, 1918: 23 View in CoL (type species: Dasyglossa fenyesi Bernhauer, 1907 View in CoL , by original designation).
Lypoglossa: Fenyes, 1920: 239 View in CoL (as valid genus).
Lypoglossa: Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 597 View in CoL (as valid genus in subtribe Athetina Casey, 1910 View in CoL ).
Megacrotona Scheerpeltz, 1968: 159 View in CoL (unavailable name; as subgenus of Atheta Thomson, 1858 View in CoL ; type species: Oxypoda lateralis Mannerheim, 1830 View in CoL , by original designation).
Megacrotona Benick & Lohse, 1974: 103 View in CoL (available name; as valid genus in tribe Callicerini Lohse, 1969 View in CoL ).
Lypoglossa: Moore & Legner, 1975: 448 View in CoL (as valid genus).
Lypoglossa: Seevers, 1978: 134 View in CoL (as valid genus in tribe Athetini View in CoL ).
Lypoglossa: Lohse & Smetana, 1985: 294 View in CoL (as valid genus).
Megacrotona: Lohse & Smetana, 1985: 294 View in CoL (as synonym of Lypoglossa View in CoL ).
Lypoglossa: Lohse, 1989: 207 View in CoL (as valid genus in tribe Athetini View in CoL ).
Megacrotona: Lohse, 1989: 207 View in CoL (as synonym of Lypoglossa View in CoL ).
Lypoglossa: Hoebeke, 1992: 382 View in CoL (as valid genus).
Megacrotona: Hoebeke, 1992: 382 View in CoL (as synonym of Lypoglossa View in CoL ).
Lypoglossa: Ashe View in CoL in Newton, Thayer, Ashe & Chandler, 2000: 371 (as valid genus in tribe Athetini View in CoL ; unassigned to subtribe).
(Other references for Palaearctic Lypoglossa are omitted)
Diagnosis. Lypoglossa is distinguished from other athetine genera by the combination of the following characters: body parallelsided; sensilla a of epipharynx long ( Fig. 2 View FIGURES 1 – 5 ); antennal article 2 as long as article 3 ( Figs. 12–13 View FIGURES 12 – 17 ); ligula with broad base, split in two lobes ( Fig. 6 View FIGURES 6 – 11 ); labial palpus with setae,, and present ( Fig. 6 View FIGURES 6 – 11 ); pronotum transverse, 1.2–1.4 times as wide as long, with microsetae directed anteriorly along midline, and laterally and posteriorly in lateral portions of the disc (Type I, Benick & Lohse 1974) ( Fig. 16 View FIGURES 12 – 17 ); pronotal macrosetae short and thin; pronotal hypomera invisible in lateral view; medial macroseta of mesotibia thin, much shorter than tibial width; mesothoracic process narrow ( Fig. 17 View FIGURES 12 – 17 ); posterior margin of elytra near posterolateral angle straight or slightly concave; tarsal formula 455; metatarsal segment 1 much longer than segment 2; single empodial seta shorter than claws ( Fig. 15 View FIGURES 12 – 17 ); abdominal terga 3–5 with weak transverse basal impression; medial lamellae of internal sac present ( Figs. 49–50 View FIGURES 49 – 50 ); copulatory piece with pointed apex ( Fig. 49 View FIGURES 49 – 50 ) and without sclerotized suspensoria; spermatheca Sshaped, with large umbilicus ( Figs. 32 View FIGURES 25 – 32 , 78 View FIGURES 72 – 78 ).
Description. Length 3.2–4.6 mm, pronotal width 0.81–1.09 mm. Body parallelsided; uniformly brown to dark brown with lighter appendages or with reddish brown pronotum and elytra.
Head transverse; eye length to temple length ratio 0.9–1.5; infraorbital carina complete. Antennal article 2 as long as article 3, article 4 elongate, 5 elongate to subquadrate, 6–10 elongate to transverse, apical article without coeloconic sensilla, as long as articles 9 and 10 combined ( Figs. 12–13 View FIGURES 12 – 17 ). Labrum ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1 – 5 ) transverse, with slightly emarginate anterior margin. Epipharynx ( Fig. 2 View FIGURES 1 – 5 ) with long sensilla a, with three pairs of small marginal setae, medial field with 29 pores, lateral rows with 3 pores each, anterolateral groups with 4–5 pores each, transverse row with six pores, posterolateral groups with 4–5 pores each; two medial proximal pores on each side and one lateral proximal pore. Mandibles ( Figs. 3–5 View FIGURES 1 – 5 ) broad, right mandible with a blunt medial tooth; velvety patch of dorsal molar area visible at 400X. Maxilla ( Figs. 8–11 View FIGURES 6 – 11 ) with galea projecting slightly beyond apex of lacinia; apical lobe of galea covered with numerous fine and short setae; internal margin of galea with long subapical setae ( Fig. 9 View FIGURES 6 – 11 ); distal comb of lacinia is divided into a group of 6 closely placed spines and two isolated spines ( Figs. 10–11 View FIGURES 6 – 11 ), middle portion produced medially and covered with numerous fine setae ( Figs. 10–11 View FIGURES 6 – 11 ), ventral surface of lacinia with a marginal group of 5 strong setae ( Fig. 10 View FIGURES 6 – 11 ), dorsal surface of lacinia with numerous weak setae ( Fig. 11 View FIGURES 6 – 11 ). Labium as in Figs. 6–7 View FIGURES 6 – 11 , 14 View FIGURES 12 – 17 ; ligula with broad base, almost entirely split into two slightly divergent lobes ( Fig. 6 View FIGURES 6 – 11 ); medial area of prementum with 2 pores and 19 pseudopores, lateral areas each with two asetose pores, single setose pore and 8–11 pseudopores ( Fig. 6 View FIGURES 6 – 11 ). Hypopharyngeal lobes as in Fig. 7 View FIGURES 6 – 11 . Labial palpus with setae,, and present ( Fig. 6 View FIGURES 6 – 11 ). Mentum ( Fig. 14 View FIGURES 12 – 17 ) with concave anterior margin.
Pronotum ( Fig. 16 View FIGURES 12 – 17 ) transverse, 1.2–1.4 times as wide as long, with microsetae directed anteriorly along midline, in lateral portions of the disc microsetae directed laterally and posteriorly (Type I, Benick & Lohse 1974); macrosetae short; hypomera invisible in lateral view. Meso and metasternum as in Fig. 17 View FIGURES 12 – 17 , mesosternal process narrow, extending about 2/3 length of mesocoxal cavities, metasternal process short, mesosternum and mesosternal process not carinate medially; relative lengths of mesosternal process: isthmus: metasternal process in ratio of about 9:4:1; mesocoxal cavities margined posteriorly; mesocoxae contiguous. Medial macroseta of mesotibia thin, much shorter than tibial width. Tarsal segmentation 455, metatarsal segment 1 much longer than segment 2 ( Fig. 15 View FIGURES 12 – 17 ). One empodial seta, shorter than claws ( Fig. 15 View FIGURES 12 – 17 ). Posterior margin of elytra near posterolateral angle straight or slightly concave. Wings fully developed.
Abdominal terga 3–5 with weak basal impression. Tergum 7 as long as tergum 6. Terga 3–5 matte due to dense punctation, punctation on terga 6–7 sparser. Tergum 7 with wide white palisade fringe. Posterior margin of tergum 8 in both sexes slightly convex, without modifications ( Figs. 51, 53 View FIGURES 51 – 54 ). Posterior margin of sternum 8 in both sexes strongly convex ( Figs. 52, 54 View FIGURES 51 – 54 ), in male protruding posteriorly beyond the apex of tergum 8 ( Figs. 51–52 View FIGURES 51 – 54 ).
Copulatory piece of the aedeagus with pointed apical process ( Fig. 49 View FIGURES 49 – 50 ); medial lamellae present ( Figs. 49–50 View FIGURES 49 – 50 ). Sclerite of paramere (Sklerit of Brundin (1940), velar sac sclerite of Seevers (1978)) triangular ( Figs. 31 View FIGURES 25 – 32 , 69 View FIGURES 64 – 70 ). Spermatheca Sshaped, with large umbilicus ( Figs. 32 View FIGURES 25 – 32 , 70 View FIGURES 64 – 70 , 78 View FIGURES 72 – 78 ).
Type species. Dasyglossa fenyesi Bernhauer, 1907 , by original designation.
Discussion. When Scheerpeltz (1968) proposed the name Megacrotona he fixed the type species of this subgenus ( Oxypoda lateralis Mannerheim, 1830 ) but did not mention any character of Megacrotona . Therefore, Scheerpeltz did not satisfy the requirements of Article 13.1 of the Code ( ICZN 1999) and had not made the name Megacrotona available. As far as I know, the earliest work where any characters of Megacrotona were mentioned is the paper by Benick and Lohse (1974). Since Benick and Lohse were the first authors to make the name Megacrotona available the name should be attributed to them and not Scheerpeltz.
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 |
Lypoglossa Fenyes, 1918
Gusarov, Vladimir I. 2004 |
Lypoglossa:
Newton 2000: 371 |
Lypoglossa:
Hoebeke 1992: 382 |
Megacrotona:
Hoebeke 1992: 382 |
Lypoglossa:
Lohse 1989: 207 |
Megacrotona:
Lohse 1989: 207 |
Lypoglossa:
Lohse 1985: 294 |
Megacrotona:
Lohse 1985: 294 |
Lypoglossa:
Seevers 1978: 134 |
Lypoglossa:
Moore 1975: 448 |
Megacrotona
Benick 1974: 103 |
Megacrotona
Scheerpeltz 1968: 159 |
Lypoglossa:
Bernhauer 1926: 597 |
Lypoglossa:
Fenyes 1920: 239 |
Lypoglossa
Fenyes 1918: 23 |