Mimapsilopa rugosa Mathis

Mathis, Wayne N., Costa, Daniel N. R. & Marinoni, Luciane, 2015, A review of Mimapsilopa Cresson (Diptera: Ephydridae) from Brazil, Zootaxa 3926 (4), pp. 499-522 : 514-517

Mimapsilopa rugosa Mathis , Costa & Marinoni n. sp.

Figs. 31 –38 , 47 , 52 .

Diagnosis. This species is distinguished from congeners by the following combination of characters: Mostly shiny black; small to medium-sized shore flies, body length 1.65–3.90 mm. Head ( Figs. 31–33 ): Frons black, moderately microtomentose, subshiny to partially dull; 1 proclinate fronto-orbital seta, about length of reclinate seta, inserted anterior of reclinate. Basal flagellomere mostly yellowish, ventrobasally darkened, length only slightly greater than height, apex broadly rounded; arista with 10–11 dorsal rays. Face black, shiny, conspicuously transversely rugose, rugosity moderately deep. Clypeus exposed, black; maxillary palpus black. Eye ratio: 0.64–64; gena-to-eye ratio: 0.14–0.16. Thorax: Mesonotum microsculptured; anepisternum black, shiny. Wing ( Fig. 47 ) with distinct and conspicuous pattern; costal cell hyaline; cell r 1 tannish brown; apical 1 / 3 of wing brown except for broad, completely hyaline, transverse band extended posteriorly from apex of vein R 2 + 3; immediately basad of hyaline band with slightly darker, transverse, brown band; wing length 1.60–2.95 mm; costal ratio 0.88–0.92; M vein ratio 0.58–0.72. Knob of halter whitish yellow, stem yellow. Foreleg entirely black except for apical 3 tarsomeres, tarsomere 3 darkened basally; mid- and hindfemora mostly black, apex yellowish; mid- and hindtibiae and tarsi yellowish brown to yellowish, apical tarsomere brownish black. Abdomen: Tergites sparsely microtomentose to mostly bare, shiny; tergites 1–2 subequal in length; length of tergite 3 subequal to combined length of tergites 1 and 2; tergite 4 slightly longer than 3; length of tergite 5 slightly more than half that of tergite 4; tergite 5 of male trapezoidal, bare, shiny. Male terminalia ( Figs. 34–38 ): Epandrium in posterior view ( Fig. 34 ) setulose with short, moderately stout setulae, shape as an inverted, thick-walled U, especially dorsal portion above cercal cavity, becoming gradually narrower toward ventral apices of arms, in lateral view ( Fig. 35 ) more or less rectangular with height about twice width, dorsal margin sloped ventrad posteriorly, widest subventrally; cercus in posterior view ( Fig. 34 ) elongate, more or less narrowly oval, both apices rounded, in lateral view ( Fig. 35 ) semi-hemispherical; presurstylus symmetrical, in posterior view ( Fig. 34 ) with lateral margin curved, more or less evenly, medial margin with sub-basal, moderately wide invagination, thereafter ventrally tapered, base with 2 well-developed setulae from basal arm, in lateral view ( Fig. 35 ) lobate, fringed with short, closely set setulae, apex rounded; postsurstylus symmetrical, in lateral view ( Fig. 38 ) elongate, tapered irregularly to apex, apical fourth narrowed, digitiform, bearing elongate, well sclerotized, rod-like process extended subapically, process pointed apically; subepandrial plate in ventral view broadly U-shaped, basal portion nearly flat, each arm tapered to point, in lateral view ( Fig. 38 ) robustly L-shaped; aedeagus in lateral view ( Fig. 38 ) somewhat quadrate on basal half, apical portion as thumb-like extension, in ventral view ( Fig. 37 ) base wide, apical portion abruptly narrowed, narrowly rounded apically; phallapodeme in lateral view ( Fig. 38 ) triangular, in ventral view ( Fig. 37 ) elongate, slender, Ishaped, apical crossbar longer than basal bar; pregonite in lateral view ( Fig. 38 ) small, rod-like, bearing 2 setulae apically; postgonite in lateral view narrow, elongate, curved on apical portion, apical portion digitiform; lateral postsurstylar process enlarged, elongate, nearly parallel sided, apex with right angle at one corner, rounded at other; hypandrium in lateral view ( Fig. 38 ) moderately deeply pocket-like, more or less elongate, rectangular, posterior margin shallowly concave on basal portion, base oriented posterior, narrowly pointed.

Type material. The holotype male is labeled PERU. Madre de Dios: Manu, Rio Manu, 250 m [,] Pakitza, 12 ° 7 'S, 70 ° 58 'W [ 11 ° 56.6 'S, 71 ° 16.9 'W], 9–23 Sep 1988 [,] Wayne N. Mathis/ USNM ENT 0 0 118303 [plastic bar code label]/ Holotype ♂ Mimapsilopa rugosa Mathis , Costa,&Marinoni USNM [red]. The holotype is double mounted (minuten in a block of plastic of plastic), is in excellent condition, and is deposited in USNM. Thirty-nine paratypes ( 22 ♂, 17 ♀; DZUP, USNM) bear the same label data as the holotype. Other paratypes are as follows: PERU. Loreto: Iquitos ( 12 km W; 0 3 ° 48.4 'S, 73 ° 20.5 'W), 16 Feb 1984, W. N. Mathis ( 1 ♂; USNM). Madre de Dios: Río Manu, Pakitza ( 5 km E; Aguajal; 11 ° 58.2 'S, 71 ° 17 'W; 250 m), 19 Sep 1988, W. N. Mathis ( 1 ♀; USNM); Río Manu, Erika (near Salvación; 12 ° 50.7 'S, 71 ° 23.3 'W; 550 m), 5–6 Sep 1988, A. Freidberg ( 6 ♂, 10 ♀; USNM).

Type locality. Peru. Madre de Dios: Río Manu, Pakitza ( 11 ° 56.6 'S, 71 ° 16.9 'W; 250 m).

Other specimens examined.— GUYANA. Conservation of Ecological Interactions and Biotic Associations ( CEIBA; ca 40 km S Georgetown; 0 6 ° 29.9 'N, 58 ° 13.1 'W), 13 Apr– 29 Aug 1994, 1997, W. N. Mathis ( 18 ♂, 16 ♀; USNM).

BRAZIL. Amazonas: Reserva Ducke ( 02° 55.8 'S, 59 ° 58.5 'W; 40 m), 5 May 2010, D. & W. N. Mathis ( 1 ♂; USNM). Bahia: “Cururipe (= Cururupe; 14 ° 51 'S, 39 °03'W), 13 Oct 1920, R. C. Shannon ( 1 ♂; USNM). Pará: Fazenda Taperinha, Santarém ( 02° 31.9 'S, 54 ° 17.7 'W), Nov 1970, Expedição Permanente da Amazônia ( 1 ♂; MZUSP).

Distribution ( Fig. 52 ). Neotropical: Brazil (Amazonas, Bahia, Pará), Guyana, Peru (Loreto, Madre de Dios).

Etymology. The species epithet, rugosa , is of Latin derivation and means wrinkled, referring to the transversely wrinkled face of this species.

Remarks. This is the most widespread species of Mimapsilopa and as would be expected for such a widespread species, there is some variation, which we interpret to be intraspecific. Although similar to other species with subapical and apical transverse bands, such as M. xingu , this species is easily distinguished from congeners, including M. xingu , by the wing pattern, facial rugosity, and yellowish, apical tarsomeres of the foreleg.

Figures

FIGURE 52. Distribution map of Mimapsilopa. Mimapsilopa acta n. sp. (■); M. iguassu n. sp. (●); M. onssa n. sp. (♦); M. plaumanni n. sp. (■); M. rugosa n. sp. (▲); M. xingu n. sp. (●).

FIGURES 31 – 33. Mimapsilopa rugosa n. sp. (31) Head, anterior view; (32) Same, lateral view; (33) Same, oblique view. Scale bar = 0.2 mm.

FIGURES 34 – 38. Mimapsilopa rugosa n. sp. (34). Epandrium, cerci, presurstylus, posterior view. (35). Same, lateral view. (36) Postsurstyli and postsurstylar process. (37). Aedeagus, hypandrium, phallapodeme, pregonite, subepandrial plate, ventral view. (38). Same, postsurstylus, lateral view. Scale bar = 0.1 mm.

FIGURES 46 – 51. Wings: (46) Mimapsilopa xingu n. sp.; (47) Mimapsilopa rugosa n. sp.; (48) Mimapsilopa onssa n. sp.; (49). Mimapsilopa iguassu n. sp.; (50). Mimapsilopa acta n. sp.; (51). Mimapsilopa plaumanni n. sp.