Bengalia peuhi

Rognes, Knut, 2012, 3553, Zootaxa 3553, pp. 1-79 : 10

Bengalia peuhi subgroup

Rognes (2009: 15) defined a monophyletic Bengalia peuhi subgroup within the Bengalia peuhi species-group on the basis of an aedeagus with a prominent upper lip, a small lateral finger, a rounded anteroventral corner of the external hypophallic lobes, and long thin antlers, It was thought to consist of the Afrotropical species B. peuhi Villeneuve, 1914 and B. minor Malloch, 1927 . At the same time the antlers were characterised as “denticulate at the tip in B. peuhi ”, an error of fact, based on an unjustified interpretation of the drawings of the aedeagus published by Lehrer (2005). This is discussed in more detail under B. peuhi , below.

Since 2009 I have become aware of a few other crucially important features characterising this subgroup. First, both species have 1–2 prominent pd setae on the hind tibia, a feature first described by Malloch (1927). Secondly, they also have the anepimeron clothed by yellow setulae only, no black setulae being present.

A third oversight on my part in my revision of the Oriental species of the B. peuhi species-group ( Rognes 2009) concerns the species B. unicolor Séguy , known only from the holotype from Pakistan. I had overlooked the presence in the holotype of 2 pd setae in the proximal half of the right hind tibia and 1 pd seta in that position on the left hind tibia. Interestingly, both pd setae on the right hind tibia are clearly visible in fig. 208 (p. 66) of my revision, the lower one between the two strong av setae and the upper one above the uppermost av seta. For this reason it is clear that B. unicolor also belongs in the B. peuhi subgroup of the Bengalia peuhi species-group. This classification finds additional support in the structure of the distiphallus, which shares many of its unique features with the one of B. peuhi and B. minor . Thus, the B. peuhi subgroup has members in both the Oriental ( B. unicolor ) and the Afrotropical Regions ( B. minor , B. peuhi ).

Character states shared between the members of this subgroup are as follows:

(1) parafacial with no dark spot in upper part;

(2) frons yellow, frontal vitta with numerous conspicuous setulae;

(3) lunula bare in B. peuhi , bare or setose in B. minor and B. unicolor ( Rognes 2009) ;

(4) anepimeron with yellow setulae only;

(5) ia 0+1 ( lepineyi HT ), usually 0+2;

(6) small stout setae ventrally in proximal half of fore tibia, except in minor where they may be absent;

(7) hind tibia with 1–2 pd setae at proximal third;

(8) all tibiae with fringes distally;

(9) a conspicuous and striking row of stout short setae on (almost along) the whole pv surface of mid femur as a continuation medially of the distal pv ctenidium, longest setae much shorter than femoral diameter (at most 0.5x);

(10) ST5 flap rectangular, short (half as long as wide) in B. minor , small irregularities (nicks) in its hind edge in B. peuhi ; upturned and drawn-out posterolateral corners in B. unicolor ;

(11) process of the bacilliform sclerite a strong but narrow upturned hook;

(12) distal margin of upper lip weakly convex in dorsal view;

(13) upper lip almost flat as seen from front (apical view), not concave below;

(14) presence of two diverging lines of sclerotisation on upper lip, reflecting presence of vertical supporting structures below it, latter is triangular in lateral view of distiphallus;

(15) long and narrow antlers, in unicolor directed anterodorsally;

(16) no basal tooth on antler;

(17) a varying number of sometimes extremely small tines on the tip of the antler, sometimes larger and less difficult to make out (e.g. Fig. 32);

(18) dorsolateral wing of distiphallus in front view varying from very upright ( B. unicolor ), to forming a right angle with each other; a horizontally directed lateral part visible in B. minor in dorsal and ventral views;

(19) very small lateral finger, with reduced number of denticles;

(20) converging internal hypophallic lobes;

(21) ventral finger rounded in lateral view.