Caenopangonia hirtipalpis ( Bigot, 1892 )

Krolow, Tiago Kütter, Henriques, Augusto Loureiro & González, Christian R., 2016, Taxonomic revision of the Neotropical genus Caenopangonia Kröber, 1930 (Diptera: Tabanidae), Zootaxa 4154 (5), pp. 541-558 : 552-556

Caenopangonia hirtipalpis ( Bigot, 1892)

( Figures 10 A–E, 11A–F, 12A–F, 13A–G, 14A–F)

Diatomineura hirtipalpis Bigot, 1892:619 ; Ricardo, 1900: 172.

Diatomineura (Diatomineura) hirtipalpis, Kertész, 1908: 170 (catalog).

Caenopangonia hirtipalpis, Kröber 1930a: 221 , Fig. 5 (redescription); 1930b: 135; 1934: 245 (catalog); Hack, 1953: 342; Coscarón & Philip, 1979: 446, Fig. 10 A–E (revision); Coscarón & González, 1991: 129 (list of species); Fairchild & Burger, 1994: 34 (catalog); Coscarón & Papavero, 2009b: 34 (catalog); Lessard, 2014: 239 (revision Scionini ).

Mycteromyia hirtipalpis, Fairchild, 1956: 18 (as hirtipalpus); Philip, 1958: 67; Coscarón, 1967: 107 (list); Fairchild, 1971: 13 (catalog); Moucha, 1976: 25 (catalog).

Mycteromyia edwardsi Kröber, 1930b: 131 , plate IV, Fig. 5 ; Hack, 1953: 342, Fig. 5 ; Fairchild, 1956: 15 (synonym); Chainey, 1990: 263 (types of BMNH).

Mycteromyia bejaranoi Barretto & Duret, 1954: 207 ; Fairchild, 1971: 12 (catalog); Moucha, 1976: 25 (catalog); Coscarón & Philip, 1979: 446 (synonym).

Type locality. “ Chile ”.

Redescription Ƌ. Medium sized (9–13 mm); generally dark brown species, but variable in color of body and pilosity ( Figs. 10 A; 12A; 13A; 14A); head and thorax pollinosity grayish; scutum grayish with two lateral stripes (dark brown to black), contrasting with paler center stripe, covered with black, white and yellowish hairs (variable) ( Figs. 10 A; 12A; 13A; 14A); Pleuron dark grayish with white to yellowish hairs ( Figs. 10 B; 12B; 13B; 14B); abdomen predominantly dark brown with dark hairs and median row of pale triangles and lateral incisures from tergites II–V (colors of triangles and lateral incisures are very varied, from white, mix yellowish-white, and only yellowish) ( Figs. 10 A; 12A; 13A; 14A); tergite I grayish as in thorax, with transverse incisures of pale hairs; Frons, subcallus, parafacial, face, gena and occiput gray ( Figs. 10 B–C; 12B–C; 13B–C; 14B–C); frons parallel-sided, with long black hairs and some yellowish ( Figs. 10 C; 12C; 13C; 14C); face reduced, ends on insertion of antenna, with black and yellowish hairs ( Fig. 10 B); beard white to yellowish-white; Antenna dark brown to almost black, scape and pedicel covered with grayish pollinosity, absent in flagellum (eight flagellomeres); palpus dark brown with black hairs, segments subequal in length, second with apex slightly enlarged; proboscis two times longer than height of head; legs variable; coxae dark grayish similar to the pleuron; trochanters and femora dark brown to black (very variable), frequently clearer on distal third of femora, with pilosity white to yellowish; tibiae and tarsi yellowish brown to black, covered with dark hairs; wing strongly infuscated with marked clouds on cross-veins, cell r5 with long petiole ( Fig. 10 D; 12D; 14D); male terminalia, hypandrium + gonocoxite slightly enlarged (almost subequal, little more wide than long) ( Fig. 11 A–B); hypandrium + gonocoxite with internal margins horseshoe-like ( Fig. 11 B); gonocoxite without lateral projections; gonostylus apex truncated with two small rounded lobes; ejaculatory apodeme enlarged anteriorly keel-like ( Fig. 11 C–D); parameral sheath subconical, enlarged anteriorly ( Fig. 11 A–B); epandrium with anterior lateral margins pointed ( Fig. 11 E–F); cercus elongated, approximately half as long as length of epandrium; female terminalia without illustrations or description, comments in Coscarón & Philip (1979: 446).

Female. No female was analyzed in this study, see comments below.

Holotype. Diatomineura hirtipalpis Bigot, 1892 , Ƌ deposited at BMNH, examined photographically (Fig. 12A–F).

Synonyms. Holotype and two paratypes of Mycteromyia bejaranoi Barretto & Duret, 1954 (3Ƌ MZSUP) and the holotype of Mycteromyia edwardsi Kröber, 1930 (Ƌ BMNH) were examined photographically, figures 13A–F and 14A–F respectively.

Distribution. Chile (Curicó, Ñuble, Concepción, Arauco, Malleco, Cautín, Valdivia, Osorno ), Argentina (Neuquén).

Material examined. ARGENTINA, Neuquén, Pucará, P. Nac. Lanín, xi.1952, Schajovskoi, Mycteromyia bejaranoi B. & D. (Ƌ MZUSP) ; idem, xii.1951, ibidem, Mycteromyia bejaranoi Barr. & Dur. (Ƌ MZUSP); idem, Pucará , [0] 5.i.1951, Schajovskoi, Compared with type Ƌ Mycteromyia edwardsi Krb. C.B. Philip Aug [19]53, Comp. with type ♀ Diatomineura hirtipalpis Big. C.B. Philip Aug [19]53 agrees (Ƌ CAS) ; idem, Pucará , xii.1952, Schajovskoi, Mycteromyia bejaranoi det. B. & D. Ƌ, Caenopangonia hirtipalpis (Bigot) det. Cosc. & Phil. 76 (Ƌ MZUSP) ; idem, Pucará, Lago Lácar , i.1954, Duret, Mycteromyia bejaranoi det. Barr. & Dur. (2Ƌ MZUSP) ; CHILE, Vilcún , Prov. Cautín, 15.xii.1954, A. Burgos, Mycteromyia hirtipalpis det. Philip [19]65 (Ƌ CAS) ; idem, [ Malleco ], Tolhuaca , i.[19]22, E.F. Reed, Mycteromyia fusca det. Dr. Reed, Compared with type Ƌ ♀ Mycteromyia edwardsi Krb C.B. Philip Aug [19]53, Comp. with type ♀ Diatomineura hirtipalpis Big. C.B. Philip Aug [19]53 agrees (Ƌ CAS) ; Valdivia, Sto. Domingo , [0] 8.xi.1981, E. Kramer, Caenopangonia hirtipalpis (Bigot) det. C. González 1991 (Ƌ MNHNS); [Arauco], [Pichinahuel], Parque Nahuelbuta , 15.i.1978, P. Cerda (♂ INPA); idem, cord. Nahuelbuta, 20km W. Caramavida, 31°47’S –73°21’W, 750m, 31.i. [19]67, E.I. Schlinger, Mycteromyia hirtipalpis (Bigot) det. W. Middlekauft (Ƌ CAS); idem, Pillim Pilli , 15.i. [19]54, L.E. Peña (Ƌ CAS) ; Curicó, El Coigual , 20–26.i.1964, L.E. Peña (2 Ƌ CAS) ; idem, 11.i.1956, ibidem, probably n. sp. closer to murina , Mycteromyia hirtipalpis ♀ (Big) det. C.B. Philip [19]56 (Ƌ CAS); idem, El Buchen , 8–9.i.1961, L. Peña (Ƌ CAS) ; [Cautín], 20 km E. of Temuco , 8.i. [19]51, Ross and Michelbacher, Mycteromyia murina Phil ♀ det. C.B. Philip [19]55 (2#m CAS) ; Ñuble, Las Trancas , 23.i.1955, L.E. Peña, Mycteromyia hirtipalpis ♀ (Big) det. C.B. Philip [19]56 (Ƌ CAS) ; idem, Las Trancas , 28.i.1967, E.I. Schlinger (Ƌ CAS) .

Comments. Only two females of C. hirtipalpis are known, the first by Kröber (1930a, 1930b) in description of genus Caenopangonia from Chile ( Valdivia ), probably in error, no terminalia characters given. A second was recorded by Coscarón & Philip (1979) for Chile (Ñuble, Las Cabras), and according the authors (1979: 446): “ the only specimen available is a little lighter brown with triangles and lateral incisures well defined, the former crossing tergites. Length 12 mm, wing 11mm, proboscis 4.5 mm, ratio palpus: wing 1:13.7. Genitalia: no significant differences from C. brevirostris ”. This information seems somewhat uncertain, since no illustration of the body or terminalia has been provided and sexing errors are common in Caenopangonia. For example, in most specimens of C. hirtipalpis studied by C.B. Philip, the determination labels treated the examined specimens as female. The separation of males and females without dissection of the terminalia could be an arduous task in Caenopangonia. Two classic cases are known, C. aspera (see comments above) and the synonym Mycteromyia bejaranoi Barretto & Duret, 1954 , that was described as female but it is a male ( Fig. 13 A–C).

Additionally, the sympatric distribution of the female of C. brevirostris and the male of C. hirtipalpis , and the absence of complementary sexes or doubtful status of the C. hirtipalpis female, begs the inevitable question: are they synonyms? Coscarón & Philip (1979: 448) stated: “ The variation in size and ornamentation of our inadequate series of specimens, some of them with variable median triangles, suggests that as more material becomes available, this species may be synonymized with the sympatric and also widely variable hirtipalpis . ”. Although both species have been described for more than 120 years, little material has been collected since the last work of Coscarón & Philip (1979), and most of the material examined in this review is the same that those authors examined. Additionally, C. hirtipalpis and C. brevirostris are very different in body color of and structures, which would be a case of pronounced sexual dimorphism, so uncommon in Tabanidae .

Extra comment. Regarding the types of Mycteromyia bejaranoi Barretto & Duret, 1954 . Many incongruities have been observed in the publications and labels of Barretto & Duret (1954) and Coscarón & Philip (1979).

Barretto & Duret (1954) described the species based on female specimens (one holotype and two paratypes). In the paper the holotype is from Lago Hermoso, Parque Nacional Lanín, Neuquén, Argentina, collected by Barrera, without date, deposited in the Duret collection. The two paratypes are from Pucará , Neuquén, Argentina, collected by Schajovskoi, on “ XIII.1950” (sic), and deposited in the Duret Collection and Coleção do Departamento de Parasitologia da Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto ( Brazil). To Coscarón & Philip (1979) the holotype was a male from Pucará, San Martin de Los Andes , Neuquén, Argentina, collected by Schajovskoi, on XII.1948 . Furthermore , three male paratypes were listed, all from Pucará and collected by Schajovskoi, but on different dates, 22.XII.1950 ; –. XI.1952 and 5.I.1951. Currently the type material of Barretto & Duret is deposited in MZUSP and the labels show significant differences in comparison to the data presented in the forementioned publications: holotype without sex on the label, from Lago Hermoso , Parque Nacional Lanín, Neuquén, Argentina, Dic [XII].1949, collected by Barrera ( Fig. 13 D) ; paratypes: a male from Pucará , Neuquén, Argentina, 18.XII.1950, collected by Schajovskoi ( Fig. 13 E); no sex in label, from Pucará , Neuquén, Argentina, 22.XII.1950, collected by Schajovskoi ( Fig. 13 F).

Additionaly we examined one male from Pucará, XI.1952, collected by Schajovskoi ( Fig. 13 G), same date cited by Coscarón & Philip (1979) to one of paratypes, however this specimen did not have any paratype label. Given these examples, we noticed that there were errors in the citation of material examined by Barretto & Duret (1954: 208) and Coscarón & Philip (1979: 446), and based on the labels of the specimens, the recognized types are obviously those examined in figures 13A–F.

Figures

FIGURE 5. Caenopangonia brevirostris (Philippi, 1865) ♀ (A – C). A: hypogynium + hypogynial valve dorsal view; B: tergites 9 + 10, cerci and hypoproct dorsal view; C: genital fork and spermathecal ducts.

FIGURE 10. Caenopangonia hirtipalpis (Bigot, 1892) Ƌ (A – E). A: habitus dorsal view; B: habitus lateral view; C: head frontal view; D: wing dorsal view; E: terminalia posterior view.

FIGURE 11. Caenopangonia hirtipalpis (Bigot, 1892) Ƌ (A – F). A – D: hypandrium, gonostylus, gonocoxite and aedeagus, respectively in dorsal, ventral, lateral and anterior views; E – F: epandrium, cerci and hypoproct dorsal and ventral views.

FIGURE 13. Mycteromyia bejaranoi Barretto & Duret, 1954, Holotype Ƌ (A – D), Paratypes Ƌ (E – F), another specimen Ƌ (G). A: habitus dorsal view; B: habitus lateral view; C: head frontal view; D – G: labels. (Photos kindly sent by Carlos José Einicker Lamas—MZUSP).