Clinocera nigra Meigen 1804

Clinocera nigra Meigen, 1804: 292 Heleodromia unicolor Curtis, 1834: 513. Paramesia roberti Macquart, 1835: 657. Clinocera rufipes Bezzi, 1899: 147. syn. nov. Type material examined. Clinocera nigra Meigen, LECTOTYPE (here designated), female labelled: “Meigen [circle]”; “858/ 40 [under surface]”; “ Clinocera / nigra [rectangle]” (MNHN). My lectotype label “ LECTOTYPE / of Clinocera / nigra Meigen / des. B.J. Sinclair 1999 ” has been attached to this specimen. The specimen is pinned through the thorax with a rather stout pin and mounted on a large foam block. Clinocera rufipes Bezzi, LECTOTYPE (here designated), male labelled: “Arquata/ 6.VIII.[18]97” (MSNM). My lectotype label “ LECTOTYPE / of Clinocera / rufipes Bezzi / des. B.J. Sinclair 2007 [red label]” has been attached to this specimen. Paralectotypes: same data as lectotype (1 ♂, 3 ♀, MSNM; 1 ♀, USNM); Arquata: 8.viii.1897 (1 ♀, MSNM); Arquata, 9.viii.1897 (2 ♂, 2 ♀, MSNM; 1 ♂, USNM); Tannacola, 19.vi.1897 (2 ♂, MSNM); Tannacola, 22.vi.1897 (1 ♂, 1 ♀, USNM); Tannacola, 30.vi.1897 (4 ♂, MSNM). My paralectotype labels have additionally been attached to these specimens. An additional male specimen (Tannacola, 30.vi.1897), presumably identified as C. rufipes in the Bezzi collection of MSNM was misidentified and is in fact, Wiedemannia (Chamaedipsia) nr. longicornis (Mik). Notes on synonymy. Meigen (1804) based his description of the Palaearctic species C. nigra on two female specimens, one of which remains in the Meigen Diptera collection (No. 654, Box 16) in MNHN. Although the condition of the specimen is poor (missing head, forelegs, and only left mid femur and hind femur and tibia remain attached), the specimen distinctly matches the present concept of C. nigra on the basis of the reduced postpronotal bristle and narrow cell r 4 with base of R 4 straight, not curved to R 5. The illustration of the wing (Meigen 1804, fig. 25) with its auxiliary or additional crossvein between R 4 and R 5 matches the lectotype. This condition is often observed in this species. The lectotype is designated in order to confirm the application of the name to this taxon. Bezzi (1899) based his description of C. rufipes on an unspecified number of specimens, of which several were discovered in the USNM, including labels in Bezzi’s handwriting. These specimens were likely received as part of an exchange with Dr. A.L. Melander and Dr. J.M. Aldrich. A series of syntypes also remain in the Bezzi collection at MSNM. Bezzi (1899) considered C. rufipes a distinct species due to its pale legs and only compared his new species with species of Kowarzia Mik. In contrast, Collin (1961: 743) viewed C. rufipes only as a pale-legged form of C. nigra and this conclusion is accepted here based on comparison with C. nigra (dark legged forms) and experience with widespread Nearctic taxa where a great variation in leg coloration occurs in some species (e.g., C. fuscipennis Loew). The male terminalia between dark and pale legged forms is also identical supporting this conclusion. The lectotype is designated in order to confirm the application of the name to this taxon. Diagnosis. Face broad, lower outer corner of face with pale pruinescence. Postpronotal bristle much finer and shorter than remaining scutal bristles. Extreme tip of coxae and femora, trochanters and ventral face of femora pale or legs generally uniformly darker; apex of fore femur lacking preapical anterior comb. Male terminalia (Fig. 1): Hypandrium broadly triangular. Phallus gently bent at mid-length; apex of shaft with oval membranous cap, bearing microtrichia; distiphallus dorsoventrally flattened, apex slender. Clasping cercus with nipple-like apex, ventral margin straight, dorsal margin rounded apically with subbasal rounded expansion; inner face with fine setulae and short spine-like setae. Surstylus much shorter than clasping cercus; apex with strongly sclerotized dolphin-nose prolongation; dorsal margin with wide field of microtrichia. Remarks. The external morphology of C. nigra was thoroughly redescribed by Collin (1961), but the male terminalia was only briefly described and the illustration was very inadequate. Consequently the male terminalia from a paralectotype of C. rufipes is illustrated here (Fig. 1). The illustration by Vaillant (1965, figs. 1j–k) is also clearly conspecific with the present concept. The status of C. nigra orientalis Vaillant 1965 (Vaillant 1965, figs. 1l-m; Vaillant 1960, figs. 2c–f) from central Asia should also be re-evaluated. Acknowledgements. My thanks to Norm Woodley (National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., USA —USNM) for the loan of C. rufipes and assistance in determining the status of the syntypes. Fabrizio Rigato (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Milano, Italy —MSNM) kindly arranged the loan of additional syntypes of C. rufipes. Christophe Daugeron (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France —MNHN) greatly assisted in the study of the Meigen types. Jeff Cumming (Canadian National Collection, Ottawa, Canada) kindly reviewed an earlier draft of this study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.