Afroxanthandrus Kassebeer, 2000

Midgley, John M., Goergen, Georg & Jordaens, Kurt, 2024, A revision of the Afrotropical hover fly genus Afroxanthandrus Kassebeer, 2000 (Diptera, Syrphidae), with the description of two new species and one new synonymy, European Journal of Taxonomy 968, pp. 60-85 : 63

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2024.968.2717
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B0360A6E-1283-45FC-B973-E9CF21ABAEC8
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14006219
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F77B87D1-FFC4-FFE5-6A41-3796FACAF82E
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Afroxanthandrus Kassebeer, 2000
status

Treatment

Genus Afroxanthandrus Kassebeer, 2000 View in CoL

Figs 1–24 View Fig View Figs 2–6 View Figs 7–8 View Figs 9–10 View Figs 11–12 View Figs 13–17 View Figs 18–23 View Fig

Afroxanthandrus Kassebeer, 2000b: 150 View in CoL . Type species: Xanthandrus congensis Curran, 1938 View in CoL (by original designation)

Diagnosis

Afroxanthandrus can be distinguished from other Afrotropical Melanostomini Williston, 1885 by the combination of the pile on the hind coxae (bare in Melanostoma Schiner, 1860 ) and the lack of a marginal groove on the abdomen (present in Pelloloma Vockeroth, 1973 ). While geographically distinct from Xanthandrus, Kassebeer (2000b) distinguished the genus by the combination of yellow-brown markings on tergite 1 (dark in Xanthandrus ), frons of the female medially swollen (evenly curved in Xanthandrus ), antennae elongated (shorter in Xanthandrus ), hair on the scutum standing on fine, shiny bases (no raised bases in Xanthandrus ), scutellum enlarged and bulging (not enlarged and bulging in Xanthandrus ), front tarsi slightly widened (not widened in Xanthandrus ) and femora moderately thickened. The genital characters provided in Kassebeer’s (2000b) revision were based on a single specimen, and are of questionable value given the variation presented here.

Key to species

1. Tergite 4 entirely dark. Yellow fascia on tergite 2 with curved or triangular posterior border ( Figs 13, 15–16 View Figs 13–17 ) ............................................................................................................................................... 2

– Tergite 4 with broad yellow fascia. Yellow fascia on tergite 2 with straight posterior border ( Figs 12 View Figs 11–12 , 14 View Figs 13–17 ) ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Tergite 3 with broad fascia, about ¾ of the length of the tergite ( Figs 13, 15 View Figs 13–17 ); scutal pile short, half as long or less as length of scape ( Figs 8 View Figs 7–8 , 10 View Figs 9–10 ); male genitalia: surstyli short, about 2.5 times as long as wide ( Figs 18, 21 View Figs 18–23 ) .............................................................................. A. congensis ( Curran, 1938) View in CoL

– Tergite 3 with narrow fascia, about ⅓ of the length of the tergite ( Fig. 16 View Figs 13–17 ); scutal pile long, as long as or slightly longer than length of scape ( Fig. 11 View Figs 11–12 ) (male unknown) ................................................. ............................................................................................................. A. longipilus Kassebeer, 2000 View in CoL

3. Tergite 4 with broad fascia, similar in shape to fasciae on tergites 2 and 3 ( Fig. 12 View Figs 11–12 ); male genitalia: surstyli short, about twice as long as wide ( Figs 17 View Figs 13–17 , 20 View Figs 18–23 ) ............................ A. comorosensis sp. nov.

– Tergite 4 with narrow fascia, clearly narrower than fasciae on tergites 2 and 3 ( Fig. 14 View Figs 13–17 ); male genitalia: surstyli long, about eight times as long as wide ( Figs 19, 22 View Figs 18–23 ) ......... A. conopeum sp. nov.