MACROCERIDAE (Rondani, 1856)

Papp, L., Merz, B. & Földvári, M., 2006, DIPTERA OF THAILAND A summary of the families and genera with references to the species representations, Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 52 (2), No. 2, pp. 97-269 : 140-141

MACROCERIDAE

One species, Macrocera femina COHER, 1963 (p. 31) was described from Thailand, no other species was reported from that country. We have 31 macrocerid specimens from 2004 and 29 specimens from 2003. They represent two genera and eight species. Since macrocerid flies are much better fliers than most of the Sciaroidea groups, at present I am thinking of species more widely distributed (i.e. with large areal). If I am wrong, species, which were/are reported from far distant countries (e.g. Nepal vs Java) must be separated later .

Chiasmoneura anthracina DE MEIJERE, 1913 – 1 m 2 f: OSz03/31; 1 f: FSz03/18; 2 m 1 f: PF04/25; 1 m 1 f and 2 indiv without abdomen: PF04/39; 4 m: PF04/43. It was described from Java and hitherto known from India , Malaysia, Java and Sumatra. Published records seem to need revision, since e.g. genitalia of our males do not respond to MATILE’ s figures (1990, figs 269–70). New to Thailand.

Macrocera brunnea BRUNETTI, 1912 – 1 m: PF04/10 (Doi Pui). Described from India (Simla Distr.) , but COHER (1963) reported it also from Nepal. Our almost intact male fits well to both those descriptions, and even to COHER’ s figure (plate I, lower row) of gonostylus, if we manage to find the special view, in which he depicted male genitalia.

Macrocera femina COHER, 1963 – 1 f: PF04/7; 1 f: PF04/10; 2 f: FSz03/15. Described from Thailand, Trang Prov., “Chong”, based on a single female. Although our specimens have paler wing patterns, they fit well to the description, incl. the small size (wing length of our specimens less than 4.0 mm, about 3.5 mm). M. femina is distinctly smaller than any of the other species from Thailand (even sp. aff. nepalensis ).

Macrocera trispina COHER, 1963 – 1 f: PF04/28; 3 f: PF04/38. Described from Nepal, a far distant area, but anepisternum of our specimens is also without setae, and wing patterns are the same as given in its original description.

Macrocera sp. n. aff. brunnea BRUNETTI – 1 m 2 f: PF04/11. Mesoscutum brown centrally, as well as scutellum and metanotum, while postpronotum, notopleura and most of pleura yellowish. Wing with a pattern more similar to that of M. nepalensis but apical part of wing with macrotrichia.

Macrocera sp. n. aff. nepalensis COHER – 1 m: FSz03/7; 2 m: PF04/26. Wing pattern resembles to that of M. nepalensis but this is obviously a new species with its longer gonocoxite and comparatively rather long gonostylus.

Macrocera sp. n. aff. simbhanjangana COHER – 1 m: FSz03/10; 2 m: PF04/10; 1 f: Fang, Mae Fang N.P., Doi Pha Hom Pok, 22. 11. 2003, 2000m, along road and creek, leg. A. SZAPPANOS. I cannot find a closer relative than that. The species with its simple wing pattern but with dense macrotrichia on wing falls into the same species group as M. simbhanjangana COHER, 1963 ( Nepal). However, basal 2/3 of female wing is not darkened as in simbhanjangana , and I was unable to position male gonostylus to have a similar shape as COHER (1963) gave on his plate 1.

Macrocera sp. (? n.) aff. M. nepalensis COHER, 1963 and M. breviceps SASAKAWA, 1966 – 2 m: FSz03/8; 1 m: FSz03/12; 3 m: FSz03/10; 8 m 1 f: FSz03/15; 1 m 1 f: FSz03/18; 1 f: FSz03/12; 2 f: FSz03/20; 1 m: Fang, Mae Fang N.P., Doi Pha Hom Pok, 22. 11. 2003, 2000m, along road and creek, leg. A. SZAPPANOS; 6 m: PF04/24. 27 indiv. Our specimens have a feature, which seems unique among the Oriental spp.: the species has a very small, black shiny, projecting ocellar triangle, where ocelli are close to each other. The distance between ocelli is not more than their own diameter. It agrees with both nepalensis and breviceps , since it has very short Sc vein and similar wing pattern (and no macrotrichia on wing).