Catostola carrerai Hull, 1958

Camargo, Alexssandro, Vieira, Rodrigo & Rafael, José Albertino, 2023, Taxonomic review of Ctenodontina Enderlein, 1914 with the revalidation of Catostola Hull, 1958 (Diptera: Asilidae: Asilinae) and description of a new species, Zootaxa 5276, pp. 1-71 : 25-28

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5276.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:92300500-BB24-45B0-8ADD-977C3220A069
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7907320
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A4878E-EE5A-3853-BEE1-FA1FF046FAE3
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Catostola carrerai Hull, 1958
status

Treatment

Catostola carrerai Hull, 1958 View in CoL comb. rev.

( Figs 14–15 View FIGURE 14 View FIGURE 15 , 45 View FIGURE 45 )

Catostola carrerai Hull, 1958: 321 View in CoL ; Hull, 1962 (2): 481, 482, figs. 349, 394, 786, 1545, 1554, 2201, 2205 (synopsis of world fauna).

Ctenodontina carrerai View in CoL ; Martin & Papavero, 1970: 70 (catalogue, combination); Lamas, 1972: 313 (catalogue); Lamas, 1973: 275 (synonym of Ctenodontina maya Carrera & d’Andretta, 1953 View in CoL ); Artigas & Papavero, 1995: 36, figs. 17–26 (status revalidated); Papavero, 2009: 30 (catalogue, synonym of Ctenodontina maya Carrera & d’Andretta, 1953 View in CoL ); Sánchez & Camargo, 2021: 273 View Cited Treatment , 274, 278, fig. 4 (status revalidated, key).

Ctenodontina maya View in CoL ; Lamas, 1973: 275, 276, figs. 1–3 (key); Fisher, 1985: 34 (species list); Artigas & Papavero, 1995: 36, figs. 12, 27, 29–34 ( Lecania View in CoL -group catalogue); Papavero, 2009: 30 (catalogue); Vieira, 2012: 2, fig. 1 (key); Vieira, 2014: 314 (comments); Vieira, Ayala-Landa & Rafael, 2017: 290, figs. 1, 3 (key); Sánchez & Camargo, 2021: 275 View Cited Treatment , 276, 278, fig. 5 (comments, key).

Diagnosis. Face greyish white pruinose; ocellar tubercle with two pairs of proclinated black setae; mystical mystacal white, with a few black macrosetae dorsally; fore and mid femora sharply marked with black stripe on anterodorsal surface ( Fig. 14A View FIGURE 14 ); hind femur wholly black ( Fig. 14C View FIGURE 14 ); fore and mid tibiae wholly pale, except for a short discal black spot on anterior surface; hind tibia blackish or dark brown on outer fifth ( Fig. 14A View FIGURE 14 ); hind femur with a cluster of 15 or more short, stout, sub-tuberculate, black and yellow macrosetae closely set and appressed ( Fig. 14C View FIGURE 14 ); terminalia black ( Fig. 14D View FIGURE 14 ); dorsal epandrial margin without an indentation, gently concave on its mid-length ( Fig. 15A–B, F View FIGURE 15 ); apex of epandrium with a short projection pointed downwards ( Fig. 15A–B, F View FIGURE 15 ); apex of gonocoxite almost sickle-like shape apically ( Fig. 15G–H View FIGURE 15 ). This diagnosis is based on the original description of Hull (1958) and the description of the male terminalia provided in an addendum by Sánchez & Camargo (2021).

Taxonomic discussion. The type of this species was deposited in the Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de S„o Paulo (MZUSP) ( Papavero 2009), however in two recent visits by the senior author to the collection (2015 and 2017), the type was not located and it is considered lost (see Sánchez & Camargo 2021).

Lamas (1973) synonymized this species with Ctenodontina maya Carrera & d’Andretta, 1953 . Back in that time, only three species were known: Ctenodontina carrerai , Ctenodontina maya and Ctenodontina pectinatipes Enderlein, 1914 . Lamas (1973) described the fourth species, Ctenodontina mochica Lamas, 1973 , and as pointed out by Sánchez & Camargo (2021), the discrepancy between Ctenodontina pectinatipes and Ctenodontina mochica , may have led Lamas (1973) to recognize Ctenodontina carrerai as a synonym of Ctenodontina maya , since they are much more similar when compared with Ctenodontina mochica and Ctenodontina pectinatipes .

Recently, Sánchez & Camargo (2021) revalidated the status of this species and described the male terminalia in an addendum to the original description, including new distribution records for Peru. This revalidation was based mainly on characters of the male terminalia. The femoral swelling in Catostola carrerai comb. rev., is shallower and almost inconspicuous ( Fig. 14C View FIGURE 14 ); the dorsal epandrial margin lacks an indentation (gently concave) on its mid-length ( Fig. 15A–B, F View FIGURE 15 ); the epandrial apex possesses a short projection pointed downwards ( Fig. 15A–B, F View FIGURE 15 ) and the gonocoxal apex is sickle-like shaped ( Fig. 15G–H View FIGURE 15 ). In the other hand Catostola maya comb. rev. has a conspicuous femoral swelling ( Fig. 26 View FIGURE 26 ); the dorsal epandrial margin has an indentation on its mid-length ( Fig. 24E View FIGURE 24 ); the epandrial apex is rounded and pointed posteriorly ( Fig. 24E View FIGURE 24 ) and the gonocoxal apex is enlarged, spatulated and rounded ( Fig. 25E View FIGURE 25 ).

Contrastingly, Catostola carrerai comb. rev., is more similar to Catostola sagta ( Vieira, Ayala-Landa & Rafael, 2017) comb. nov., which also possesses an almost inconspicuous femoral swelling on the male hind femora ( Fig. 37 View FIGURE 37 ). The main differences are again in the male terminalia. In Catostola sagta comb. nov., the dorsal epandrial margin possesses a gentle indentation on its mid-length and a very conspicuous dorsal apical projection only slightly downwards curved apically, its proximal part much more enlarged ( Fig. 34E View FIGURE 34 ) and the apex of the gonocoxite is pointed ( Fig. 35E View FIGURE 35 ).

It is interesting to mention that in the description of Catostola stat. rev., Hull (1958) describes the S8 and in the description of the species, he calls the same structure as hypandrium. With the revalidation of Catostola carrerai comb. rev., by Sánchez & Camargo (2021) and with the current revalidation of the status of Catostola stat. rev., in the present work this species becomes a valid species of Catostola stat. rev.

Only additional specimens collected in Peru were available for our study through images, which were kindly sent to us by Pável Sánchez (MUSM). Thus, we decided to provide only a brief diagnosis for this species, since redescription based on images should be avoided because some important characters like pruinosity and chaetotaxy would not be properly seen or described.

Distribution ( Fig. 45 View FIGURE 45 ). Peru, (Junín, Valle Chanchamayo and Madre de Dios, Tambopata) ( Hull 1958; Lamas 1973; Sánchez & Camargo 2021).