identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
B74687E8853308484396FB42A5F751A4.text	B74687E8853308484396FB42A5F751A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia Robineau-Desvoidy 1830	<div><p>Genus Bengalia Robineau-Desvoidy</p><p>Bengalia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830: 425 . Type species: Bengalia testacea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, by designation of Duponchel (1842: 542) (= Musca torosa Wiedemann, 1819). For lists of generic synonyms, see James (1977), Pont (1980) and Rognes (2006).</p><p>The genus Bengalia has been characterised by several authors, including Bezzi (1911, 1913), Surcouf (1920), Malloch (1927), Senior-White et al. (1940), Zumpt (1956), and Lehrer (2005, as Bengaliidae), and its defining character states need not be repeated here. A phylogenetic analysis of its systematic position is given by Rognes (1997) and a discussion of Lehrer’s work on the genus is given by Rognes (2006).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E8853308484396FB42A5F751A4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E8853508504396FA5EA4B656E9.text	B74687E8853508504396FA5EA4B656E9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia peuhi Villeneuve 1914	<div><p>Key to males of the Oriental Bengalia peuhi species-group</p><p>1 Fronto-orbital plate with 2–3 pairs of proclinate orbital setae, the hindmost pair more or less lateroclinate; distal half of distiphallus enormously prolonged and supported on underside by diverging sclerotised lamellae; distiphallus without dorsolateral wings; inner hypophallic lobes strongly converging midventrally; external hypophallic lobes ending in long sharply pointed ventral fingers; distiphallus with short pointed antlers, with a pair of long delicate denticulate lateral fingers projecting downwards from a shield-like apical dorsal surface, and with a transversely oval upper lip (Figs. 54, 56, 57, 61, 62) ........................................................................... 4. Bengalia fani Feng &amp; Wei</p><p>- Fronto-orbital plate without proclinate orbital setae (very rare exceptions); distiphallus with or without dorsolateral wings; distal half of distiphallus not prolonged ........................................................................................................... 2</p><p>2 Anepimeron with yellow setulae only, no black setulae at all ..................................................................................... 3</p><p>- At least some black setulae (as few as 2–3, usually many more) on anepimeron ....................................................... 5</p><p>3 ST5 flap with lateral edges converging gradually distally, a shallow V-shaped emargination present in distal edge (Fig. 168). Fore tibia with a few strong ventral spine-like setae in proximal half, shorter than tibial diameter (Fig. 186) ..................................................................................................................................... 13. Bengalia weii sp. nov. ......................................................................................................................................... 5. Bengalia inermis Malloch</p><p>- Fore tibia with at least two strong ventral spine-like setae in basal half, much stronger than the other small spine-like setae (Fig. 183) ................................................................................................................ 11. Bengalia unicolor Séguy</p><p>5 Upper lip of aedeagus shaped as a long narrow strongly sclerotised pointed and partly upturned process (Figs. 98– 100). ST5 flap almost square with rounded distal corners, hind margin usually with a broad depression of varying depth in middle (Fig. 105). Fore tibia with several strong ventral spine-like setae a little above middle, the strongest a little longer than tibial diameter (Fig. 179). Anepimeron with few (up to 10–12) black setulae. Narrow black bands on yellow abdominal tergites. Hind tibial fringe weak.....................................................7. Bengalia lyneborgi James</p><p>- Upper lip of aedeagus broad or non-projecting, never a narrow pointed tooth-like structure. ST5 flap different ..... 6</p><p>6 ST5 flap with an even or almost even, hind border, at most a small nick in the middle part (Figs. 90, 155), never a deep excavation. Fore tibia in basal half with row of small ventral spine-like setae of which the distal ones are slightly longer than the others (Figs. 178, 184, 185). Distiphallus with a strongly projecting upper lip, its anterior edge convex in dorsal view and strongly concave on the underside as seen from in front ......................................... 7</p><p>- ST5 flap with a more or less deep excavation in posterior border (Figs. 12, 15, 19, 23, 35, 37, 38, 40, 42, 50, 116, 127, 136). Fore tibia varied ......................................................................................................................................... 8</p><p>7 ST5 flap as in Fig. 90, concave laterally, proximal half usually a little narrower but sometimes about as broad as distal half, distal margin almost straight or (rarely) slightly sinuous with very broad and very shallow bay at middle. Never a nick in the middle. Mid tibia with weak fringe distally, longest fringe setae on posteroventral side 1.5–2.0x tibial diameter (Fig. 191). Hind tibia strongly fringed on anteroventral side (Fig. 203). Distiphallus with both lateral and ventral fingers strong; anterior end of midventral wall level with anterior end of dorsolateral wings in profile view (Figs. 84, 86, 87, 91, 92)..........................................................................................6. Bengalia latro de Meijere</p><p>- ST5 flap as in Fig. 155, concave laterally, much narrower in basal than distal half, posterolateral corners usually rather acute, distal margin slightly convex and usually (but not always) with a small pronounced notch at middle (Fig. 155). No posteroventral fringe distally on mid tibia, setae in this region shorter than diameter of mid tibia (Fig. 197). Hind tibia with a weak av fringe (Fig. 209). Distiphallus with lateral and ventral fingers small; anterior end of midventral wall level with middle of dorsolateral wings in profile view (Figs. 149, 150, 152, 156, 157), resembling a strongly receding lower jaw..................................................................................... 12. Bengalia varicolor (Fabricius)</p><p>8 Hind tibia with a row of 3–5 long thin setae on anteroventral surface of apical half in addition to the strong av seta, but without typical fringe (Figs. 205, 206). Mid tibia also without distal fringe, all setae shorter than tibial diameter (Figs. 193, 194). Fore tibia varied................................................................................................................................ 9</p><p>- Fringe on hind tibia usually pronounced, with numerous setae beside the av row, also invading the v and pv side (Figs. 199, 200, 207). Mid tibia varied. Fore tibia proximally with a ventral row of very small equally sized spinelike setae (Figs. 173–175, 182) .................................................................................................................................. 10</p><p>9 Fore tibia without spine-like setae proximally on ventral side (Fig. 180). ST5 flap with slightly convex lateral edges (Fig. 116). Strikingly narrow frons. Anepimeron almost entirely with black setulae, many reaching katepisternum, a few yellow setulae in lower hind part only. Aedeagus with no projecting upper lip (Fig. 109). [Aedeagus very similar to that of Bengalia taksina] ............................................ 8. Bengalia pseudovaricolor Kurahashi &amp; Tumrasvin, 1979</p><p>- Fore tibia with two rather long spine-like setae a little shorter than tibial diameter proximally on ventral side (Fig. 181). ST5 flap with concave lateral edges (Fig. 127). Anepimeron mostly clothed with yellow setulae, a small bundle of black setulae (3–15) on upper part just below lesser ampulla. Aedeagus with projecting upper lip (Figs. 119, 122) .................................................................................................................. 9. Bengalia surcoufi Senior-White</p><p>10 Anepimeron with numerous black setulae almost all over posterior half, some small black setulae reaching katepisternum. Strongly developed fringes on all tibiae (Figs. 173, 174, 187, 199). ST5 flap with distal emargination of varying depth (Figs. 12, 35, 40). Distiphallus distally in dorsal view with a broad projecting transverse lip (Figs. 6, 26) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11</p><p>- Anepimeron with a small bundle of black setulae in upper third or half, no black setulae reaching katepisternum. Fringes on tibiae usually less strongly developed. ST5 flap elongate with deep distal excavation and diverging, slightly convex sides (Figs. 50, 136). Distiphallus without projecting upper lip (Figs. 47, 130).............................. 12</p><p>11 ST5 flap rounded with a rounded distal emargination; distally on each side a small but conspicuous concavity (Figs. 12, 15, 19, 23) which is somewhat depressed below the remaining surface of the flap, like a broad gutter. Upper lip of distiphallus transverse in dorsal view (Fig. 6). Outer edge of upper lip slightly inside of base of antlers as seen in anterior view (Fig. 14). Upper part of anterior edge of vertical sclerotised sheet serrated and right-angled in profile</p><p>- ST5 flap more elongate with rounded sides and with a variably sized distal emargination (Figs. 35, 37, 38, 40, 42); no concavity distally on each side and no edge area depressed below general flap surface on distal half of the external side, latter evenly rounded. Upper lip of distiphallus very slightly convex in dorsal view (Fig. 26). Outer edge of upper lip outside of base of antlers as seen in anterior view (Fig. 34). Anterior edge of vertical sclerotised sheet a straight serrated line in profile view (Fig. 33). Edge connecting lip and base of antler straight in lateral view (Fig. 28) ................................................................................................................ 2. Bengalia emarginatoides sp. nov.</p><p>12 Aedeagus with parastomal sclerites curving forwards in profile view (concavity towards distal end), and with a forward projection at middle (Fig. 132). Frons narrow. Mid tibia without prolonged posteroventral setae in distal part (Fig. 195). Fringe on hind tibia not very dense, covering slightly more than distal half of anteroventral surface, hardly invading ventral and posteroventral surface, the posteroventral fringe setae hardly longer than tibial diameter (Fig. 207)........................................................................................................................10. Bengalia taksina (Lehrer)</p><p>- Aedeagus with parastomal sclerites curving downwards in profile view (concavity towards ventral side) (Fig. 47). Mid tibia with somewhat prolonged posteroventral setae in distal part, twice the diameter of tibia (Fig. 188). Fringe on hind tibia rather dense (Fig. 200), situated on distal two-thirds or more of anteroventral surface, prominent also on ventral and posteroventral surface, the posteroventral fringe setae twice the tibial diameter or more............................................................................................................................................................3. Bengalia emdeniella (Lehrer)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E8853508504396FA5EA4B656E9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E8852B08564396FCEBA41653F9.text	B74687E8852B08564396FCEBA41653F9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia emarginata Malloch. First 1927	<div><p>1. Bengalia emarginata Malloch, 1927</p><p>Figs. 6–25, 173, 187, 199, 211–213.</p><p>Holotype male, Singapore (BMNH), by original designation. For details see Type material below.</p><p>Bengalia latro: Bezzi, 1913: 78 . Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. Taiwan (Tainan). Examined.</p><p>Note. Bezzi wrote about latro: “Ich rechne zu dieser javanischen Art einige Exemplare aus Tainan, Formosa (H. Sauter) in der Sammlung des Herrn Dr. J. Escher-Kündig aus Zürich …”. This refers to two males in ETHZ which I have examined, see below under Material examined. Malloch (1927: 414) received one of the specimens from Bezzi subsequent to the publication of Bezzi’s paper and thought it was the same as his own emarginata .</p><p>Bengalia latro: Surcouf, 1920: 39 . Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. A male identified as latro by Surcouf has been examined (see Note). Taiwan (Toyenmongai).</p><p>Note. A specimen in MSNM which also served as holotype for the nominal species Afridigalia bezziella Lehrer, 2005 (given an entry below), carries a handwritten determination label (with three ruled lines inside a black frame) reading “ Bengalia latro / De Meijere” (Fig. 24) which very likely is written by Surcouf. I think this is a specimen that was before Surcouf (1920: 39), singly or with others, when he referred to and described some features of a species he named “ B. latro ”. It has the same type of label and the same handwriting as on Bezzi’s specimen of Bengalia bezzii from Trichinopoly, which Surcouf compared with the type of Musca varicolor (see annotations to the synonymy of Bengalia varicolor below).</p><p>This specimen, possibly originally part of the MNHN collections, may have been given to Bezzi from Surcouf as a return favour for letting him study Bezzi’s collection for his “ Muscidae testaceae” studies.</p><p>There is no evidence that Surcouf (1920) studied type material of latro de Meijere (he did not mention RMNH or ZMAN among the collections he had access to). But he studied material in MNHN and it is possible that his determinations are the basis for the arrangement in the MNHN collections. Four of six specimens still in MNHN under “ latro ” belong to emarginata, the other two to emarginatoides; none of these specimens carry any label written by Surcouf, however. See entry under Séguy (1946) below.</p><p>For more details on the communication between Bezzi and Surcouf, see entry for Bezzi (1913) in the synonymy of Bengalia varicolor, below.</p><p>Bengalia emarginata Malloch, 1927: 412, fig. 15 (ST5 flap). Holotype male, by original designation, Singapore (BMNH). Examined.</p><p>Bengalia latro: Hennig, 1941: 180 . Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. Taiwan. Examined.</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Hennig, 1941: 80 (in part; but see also treatment of Bengalia varicolor below). Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Taiwan. Examined.</p><p>Bengalia latro: Séguy, 1946: 83 . Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. Taiwan, Laos. Examined.</p><p>Note. Kurahashi &amp; Chowanadisai (2001: 201) assumed, by putting Séguy’s latro reference in their synonymy of bezzii, that Séguy’s specimens were actually bezzii, but that is an error. I have examined all six “ latro ” specimens present in MNHN, and none are bezzii (and none are latro de Meijere). One male and 2 females from Taiwan and 1 male from Laos (both localities published by Séguy 1946) belong to emarginata Malloch, whereas 2 males from Sri Lanka (not published by Séguy 1946) belong to emarginatoides; see treatment of that species, below.</p><p>Bengalia emarginata: James, 1977: 530 . Catalogue entry as [erroneous] synonym under Bengalia varicolor (Fabricius) .</p><p>Bengalia emarginata: Tumrasvin et al., 1979: 259, Plate 1 fig. 1 (ST5 flap), Plate 2 fig. 17 (aedeagus in profile), Plate 3 fig. 27 (cerci, surstyli, epandrium in profile), Plate 4 fig. 39 (cerci, surstyli, dorsal view). Thailand.</p><p>Bengalia emarginata: Fan, 1992: 532, fig. 1109i. China (Fujian, Guangxi, Hainan).</p><p>Bengalia emarginata: Kurahashi &amp; Thapa, 1994: 217, fig. 8b (ST5 flap). Nepal.</p><p>Bengalia emarginata: Fan, 1997: 452, fig. 140i. China (Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan).</p><p>Bengalia emarginata: Feng et al., 1998: 1378, fig. 2818Jv (ST5 flap). China (Fujian, Guangxi, Hainan, Yunnan), Taiwan .</p><p>Bengalia emarginata: Kurahashi &amp; Chowanadisai, 2001: 202 . Laos, Vietnam.</p><p>Afridigalia bezziella Lehrer, 2005: 29 . Holotype male, by original designation, Taiwan (Toyenmongai) (MSNM). Examined. Syn. nov.</p><p>Note. ST5 flap (fig. 10A) with small concavity and shallow gutter in distal half of both lateral edges.</p><p>Bengalia emarginata: Verves, 2005: 238 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Afridigalia bezziella: Lehrer, 2006a: 7 . Taiwan.</p><p>Afridigalia emarginata: Lehrer 2006a: 7 . Specimen from Taiwan only. Examined.</p><p>Bengalia emarginata: Heo et al., 2008: 263 . Malaysia (Malaya). Not examined.</p><p>Diagnosis. Male. Length 12–14mm. Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.325 –0.342 (mean 0.333, n=6). Fronto-orbital plate without proclinate orbital setae. Lunula setose in most specimens. Anepimeron with numerous black setulae on almost all of upper half, a few black setulae reaching katepisternum. Fore tibia in basal half with a ventral row of even and very short spine-like setae (Fig. 173). Mid tibia with a prominent pv fringe distally, its longest setae about 3x as long as tibial diameter. Hind tibia with dense fringe of long thin setae on av, v and pv side occupying almost the whole length of the tibia, except for the basal 1/5.</p><p>ST5 flap (Figs. 12, 15, 19, 23) with rounded outline, slightly broader than long, with a distal emargination and small concavities on the distal half of the lateral margins. The latter bent downwards to some extent, forming a kind of shallow gutter on each side, and best observed edge-on. The gutter is more densely microtrichiose than the remainder of the flap.</p><p>Cerci broad and strong in dorsal aspect, curved distally in lateral view. Lateral edge straight in dorsal view, with no narrowing at the junction of the basal (fused) and distal (free) parts (Fig. 10). [In B. emarginatoides the cerci are conspicuously narrowed in this region and the distal parts much narrower.] Surstylus without vestiture below. Process of bacilliform sclerite with a base about as long as the free upturned point (Fig. 11) [in B. emarginatoides with a longer base than point (Fig. 31)].</p><p>Distiphallus with prominent dorsolateral wings. Antlers very narrow and directed dorsally, with 2–6 points at tip. Basal tooth present or absent (Figs. 9, 16, 17). In dorsal view the upper lip is projecting beyond the base of the antlers and its distal edge transverse. The lip is flat as seen from in front, and narrower than or equal to distance between bases of antlers (Figs. 6, 14). [In B. emarginatoides the lip is much broader and its lateral ends are lateral to the antler bases (Figs. 26, 34).] In profile view the lateral wall of the upper lip at its junction with the base of the antler has an almost vertical anterior border and an angular upper corner (Fig. 9). [In B. emarginatoides the corresponding area is different, the lateral wall of the upper lip being evenly oblique.] Lateral finger very small and tiny, in ventral view of distiphallus not passing beyond the lateral-most parts of the folded distal part of the external hypophallic lobe (Fig. 7, l. f.). Anterior edge of vertical sclerotised sheet with a right-angled serrated protrusion a little above lateral finger (Fig. 8). [In B. emarginatoides the anterior edge is serrated but not produced into a right angle, rather quite even all the way to the lateral finger (Fig. 33).] Internal hypophallic lobes slightly converging towards anterior end. External hypophallic lobe folded distally and here produced ventrally into a spatulate ventral finger curving downwards and forwards towards the midline.</p><p>Female. Length 13–15mm (n=5). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.338 –0.350 (mean 0.344, n=5). 1–2 pairs of proclinate orbital setae. Anepimeron with numerous black setulae in upper part, a few black setulae among yellow ones reaching katepisternum. ST2 long, with a pair of strong marginal spine-like setae; ST3 very short and even broader than ST2, with a row of about 4 short strong marginal spine-like setae though of somewhat variable strength; ST4 still broad, but longer than ST3 and with row of 4–6 strong marginal spinelike setae; ST5 triangular, about as broad as long, blunt distally, and usually with a pair of spine-like setae near tip (Fig. 212). Ovipositor as in Figs. 211, 213.</p><p>Distribution. China (Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Yunnan), Laos, Malaysia, Nepal,</p><p>Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam.</p><p>Material examined. Type material. Bengalia emarginata Malloch, 1927 . Holotype male, in BMNH, labelled: (1) “Holo- / type” [printed on circular label with red margin]; (2) “ Singapore / May 1924 / Coll.” [printed, except “24” which is handwritten]; (3) “ Bengalia / emarginata / Type / Det. / J.R.Malloch” [handwritten except two last lines; label framed with black line]; (4) “Pres. By / Imp.Bur.Ent / Brit. Mus. / 1929 – 61” [printed, label with text facing down]; (5) “Abdomen and dissected / genitalia on separate pin / K. Rognes 3.vii.2008 ” [printed] (Fig. 18). Right hind leg loose in box at reception, accident with left hind tibia. Both glued on to the plastic stage carrying the specimen. Dissected by K. R. Abdominal T1–5 glued to card on separate pin, genitalia in glycerol in glass vial on this second pin. Second pin labelled “ HOLOTYPE / Singapore May 1924 / Bengalia emarginata / Malloch, 1927 / Abdomen dissected by / K. Rognes 3.vii.2008 ” [printed]. The ST5 flap (Fig. 15) is clearly shaped as the one figured by Lehrer for his bezziella (Lehrer, 2005: 31, fig. 10A). Distally on the lateral edge there is a small concavity, as seen directly from above, which is shaped like a slight depression (shallow gutter), as seen directly from the side or from in front edge-on, and which has a large amount of microtrichiae. Lehrer, who did not study the type of emarginata, must have been misled by Malloch’s inaccurate drawing of the ST5 flap (Malloch, 1927: fig. 15), which shows a completely even lateral edge. Lehrer therefore has re-described Malloch’s emarginata as bezziella Lehrer and misidentified specimens of emarginatoides as emarginata (see below). In the aedeagus both antlers of the holotype have a small tooth at base, and five tags at the tip (Figs. 16, 17), the left antler also with a suggestion of a sixth tag. The anterior serrated edge of vertical sclerotised sheet angulated (Fig. 17, lower right).</p><p>Afridigalia bezziella Lehrer, 2005 . Holotype male, in MSNM, labelled: (1) “ Formosa / Toyenmongai”; (2) “ Bengalia latro / De Meijere” [black-rimmed label with three thin ruled black lines in Surcouf’s handwriting]; (3) “latro” [printed museum label]; (4) “ Bengalia ♂ / bezziana [sic] Lehrer, sp.n. / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / XII.2004 ” [printed]; (5) “ Bengalia ♂ / bezziana [sic] Lehrer, sp.n. / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / XII.2004 ” [printed]; (6) “ HOLOTYPUS ” [black print on white label, latter glued to larger red label]; (7) “Published as / Afridigalia bezziella / Lehrer, 2005: 29 / K. Rognes 23.vi.2008 ” [printed] (Figs. 24, 25); (8) My determination label ( emarginata Malloch). Dissected by Lehrer. I have transferred the genital parts in glycerol from original large opaque plastic vial to a glass microvial pinned below the specimen. The specimen was partly destroyed in the mail at reception (but not the genitalia in the plastic vial). I have glued the wings, abdomen and both fore legs (without tarsi), one mid leg (without tarsus) and one hind leg to a card on a separate pin labelled “From holotype of / Afridigalia bezziella Lehrer, 2005 / Labelled as / Bengalia bezziana Lehrer n. sp. / Crushed in accident in mail / K. Rognes 23.vi.2008 ”. In the aedeagus the right antler is broken midway but the left is intact (figured by Lehrer). The genitalia are embedded in glycerol jelly which has not dissolved in glycerol and which creates lines and artifacts in the microscope. The ST5 flap (Fig. 23) and other genital features clearly identifies the holotype as conspecific with the holotype of Bengalia emarginata Malloch.</p><p>Other material. BMNH: 1 male labelled (1) “Formosa I / Sauter Rlle” [black ink handwriting]; (2) “det. Baranoff” [printed]; (3) “coll. Oldenberg” [print]; (4) “ Bengalia / varicolor / Fbr.” [blue ink handwriting]; (5) “In exchange / Deuts. Ent. Inst. / B.M.1939-70” [printed]; (6) “ Afridigalia ♂ / emarginata (Malloch) / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / 2004” [print]; (7) “ Afridigalia ♂ / emarginata (Malloch) / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / 2004” [print]; (8) My determination label ( emarginata Malloch). “Rlle” must be same as Rolle in “gekft von Rolle” see below under specimens from ETHZ. I have transferred the genital capsule plus the ST5 and ST5 flap to a glass microvial. In the distiphallus both antlers are lost and on the right side the loss of the antler also involves the vertical sclerotised sheet so that its anterior border is absent. On the left side this sheet is visible. The upper lip and its sidewalls are also intact. This specimen has been published by Lehrer (2006a: 7) as “ Afridigalia emarginata ”, but Lehrer’s concept of this nominal species = emarginatoides sp. nov. He listed it together with material of the latter species from “Ceylan” and “Inde”. However, the specimen does not belong to emarginatoides but is a typical true emarginata Malloch (= bezziella Lehrer), as indicated by the broad cerci, the right-angled denticulate anterior border of the vertical sclerotised sheet, by the upper lip being with almost identical original labels, which he has identified as Afridigalia bezziella Lehrer (= B. emarginata Malloch), probably correctly, since it fits in with the known distribution of this species. I have not seen that specimen. CDPCAG: 1 male labelled (1) “Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Anshun City, Guizhou, China / Laogaocun Village, Guanling County, Guizhou, 700m / coll. Wei Lianmeng et al. leg / 20 March 2008 ” [In Chinese]; (2) “C068 … [Chinese name for B. emarginata] / Bengalia emarginata / Malloch, / 1927 ♂ ” [male symbol in red]; (3) My determination label ( emarginata Malloch). Dissected by Wei Lianmeng, genitalia in alcohol in plastic vessel with lid, numbered “108”. ETHZ: 1 male labelled (1) “Tainan / Formosa” [handwritten on white paper with blue crossed lines 5mm apart]; (2) “ Bengalia / latro / ♂ Meij.” [handwritten on old brown paper]; (3) upper side: “ Bengalia / latro / ♂ Meig. [sic]” [handwritten on same type of paper as label no. 1]; reverse side: “13230?” [handwritten in pencil, referring to number in the museum journal for the Escher-Kündig collection]; (4) My determination label ( emarginata Malloch). 1 male labelled (1) “Tainan / Formosa” [handwritten on white paper with printed blue crossed lines 5mm apart]; (2) “ Bengalia / latro / ♂ Meig. [sic]” [handwritten on same type of paper as label no. 1]; (3) “13231” [handwritten in ink on small label, typical of specimens in the Escher-Kündig collection, referring to number in the museum journal for this collection]; (4) My determination label ( emarginata Malloch). Dissected by K. R. According to the ETHZ museum journal both specimens were bought from a person named Rolle (“gekft von Rolle”; cf. entry page for 1912 / 9, reference nos. 13230 and 13231, in museum journal). The specimens are obviously the ones Bezzi (1913: 78) wrote about under Bengalia latro: “Ich rechne zu dieser javanischen Art einige Exemplare aus Tainan, Formosa (H. Sauter) in der Sammlung des Herrn Dr. J. Escher-Kündig aus Zürich …”. MNHN: 1 male labelled (1) “ LAOS / Na Leu [handwritten] / le 17-III 1918 [handwritten, except “le” and “191”] / R. Vitalis de Salvaza [printed]”; (2) My determination label ( emarginata Malloch). The specimen has been dissected by K. R. and carries one leg and the abdominal tergites glued to a card below the specimen. The genitalia are kept in a glass microvial pinned below the card. 1 male labelled (1) “Formosa / Sauter” [printed]; (2) “Kosempo / 908. II” [printed, except “II” which is handwritten]; (3) “ Bengalia / latro / de Meijere” [handwritten]; (4) “J. VILLENEUVE det.” [printed]; (5) My determination label ( emarginata Malloch). 1 female labelled (1) “Formosa / Sauter” [printed]; (2) “Polisha / 908. III.” [printed]; (3) “J. VILLENEUVE det.” [printed]; (4) My determination label ( emarginata Malloch). 2 pairs of proclinate orbitals. 1 female labelled (1) “MUSEUM PARIS [printed] / Formose [handwritten] / Coll. E. SÉGUY 1919” [printed]; (2) My determination label ( emarginata Malloch). 1 pair of proclinate orbitals. MSNM: 1 male labelled (1) “Los Banos / P.I.Baker”; (2) “ Bengalia ♂ / bezziana [sic] Lehrer, sp. n. / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / XII.2004 ”; (3) “Published as / Afridigalia bezziella / Lehrer, 2005: 29 / K. Rognes 23.vi.2008 ” (Figs. 19, 20); (4) My determination label ( emarginata Malloch). “P. I. Baker” translates to: Philippine Islands, Baker leg. Specimen has been dissected and published by Lehrer (2005: 30), as Afridigalia bezziella . Both fore tarsi, left mid leg, right hind leg and four distal tarsomeres of left hind leg are lost. All abdominal tergites are in situ. The main part of the ST5 flap is glued to a piece of card on the pin (Fig. 19). Other genital parts in glycerol have been transferred by K. R. from original big plastic vial to glass vial on pin. Antlers of aedeagus are broken at base, but aedeagal upper lip, other genital features (e.g., narrow antlers) and shape of ST5 flap (Fig. 19) are clearly identifiable as belonging to the species Bengalia emarginata Malloch. First record from the Philippines. SDEI (most of the specimens have previously been published by Hennig (1941) as latro and / or varicolor, and all have been given my determination label ( emarginata Malloch): 1 male labelled (1) “Anping / Formosa / H. Sauter V. 12” [printed, except “V. 12” which is handwritten]. 1 female labelled (1) “Chip-Chip / Formosa / H. Sauter 09” [printed, except “09” which is handwritten]; (2) “Villeneuve det.” [printed]. 1 female labelled (1) “Formosa / Sauter” [handwritten]; (2) “coll. Oldenberg” [printed]; (3) “det. Baranoff” [printed]; (4) “ Bengalia / varicolor / Fabr.” [handwritten]. 4 females labelled (1) “Formosa I / Sauter” [handwritten]; (2) “coll. Oldenberg” [printed]; (3) “det. Baranoff” [printed]; (4) “ Bengalia / varicolor / Fabr.” [handwritten]. 1 male labelled (1) “Fuhosho / Formosa / H. Sauter / VII 09” [printed, except “VII 09” which is handwritten]; (2) “ Bengalia / latro de Meij. / Villeneuve det.” [handwritten, “Fuhosho / Formosa / H. Sauter / VII 09” [printed, except “VII 09” which is handwritten]; (2) “Villeneuve det.” [printed]. 1 male labelled (1) “Fuhosho / Formosa / H. Sauter / VII 09” [printed, except “VII 09” which is handwritten]. 1 female labelled (1) “Fuhosho / Formosa / H. Sauter / VII 09” [printed, except “VII 09” which is handwritten]; (2) “Villeneuve det.” [printed]. 1 male labelled (1) “Gebiet des Sh’sha /stammes (Formosa) / H. Sauter V.-VI.1912 ” [printed]; (2) “Townsend det.” [printed]. 1 male labelled (1) “Kankau (Formosa) / H. Sauter / VII.”; (2) “coll. Oldenberg” [printed]; (3) “Townsend det.” [printed]. 1 male labelled (1) “Kankau (Formosa) / H. Sauter / VII.”; (2) “Townsend det.” [printed]. 1 male labelled (1) “Kankau (Koshun) / Formosa / H. Sauter / V.1912 ” [printed; “V” is handwritten, the original printed “IV” is crossed out]; (2) “coll. Oldenberg” [printed]; (3) “Townsend det.” [printed]; (4) “ Bengalia / latro Meij. ” [handwritten]. 1 male labelled (1) “Kankau (Koshun) / Formosa / H. Sauter … 1912” [printed, “IV” crossed out]; (2) “7.VII.” [printed]; (3) “Townsend det.” [printed]; (4) “ Bengalia / latro Mj. ♂ / Det CHTT” [handwritten, except last line which is printed]. 4 males labelled (1) “Kankau (Koshun) / Formosa / H. Sauter … 1912” [printed, “V” crossed out]; (2) “7.VII.” [printed]; (3) “Townsend det.” [printed]. 1 male labelled (1) “Kankau (Koshun) / Formosa / H. Sauter … 1912” [printed, “V” crossed out]; (2) “7.VII.” [printed]. 1 female labelled (1) “Kankau (Koshun) / Formosa / H. Sauter 1912” [printed]; (2) “7.VII.” [printed]; (3) “ Bengalia / latro Mj. ♀ / Det CHTT” [handwritten, except last line which is printed]. 1 female labelled (1) “Kankau (Koshun) / Formosa / H. Sauter 1912” [printed]; (2) “7.VII.” [printed]; (3) “Townsend det.” [printed]. 1 female labelled (1) “Kankau (Formosa) / H. Sauter VII. 1912 ” [printed]; “coll. Oldenberg” [printed]; “det. Baranoff” [printed]; (4) “ Bengalia / varicolor / Fabr.” [handwritten]. 1 female labelled (1) “Kanshirei / Formosa / H. Sauter VIII 08” [printed, except “VIII 08” which is handwritten]; (2) “Villeneuve det.” [printed]. 1 female labelled (1) “Kosempo / Formosa / Sauter XI 08” [printed, except “XI 08” which is handwritten]; (2) “Villeneuve det.” [printed]. 1 female labelled (1) “Kosempo / Formosa / Sauter VII 09” [printed, except “VII” which is handwritten]; (2) “Villeneuve det.” [printed]. 1 male labelled (1) “Kosempo / Formosa / H. Sauter V.12” [printed, except “V.12” which is handwritten]; (2) Red label with handwritten “Tachin” on upper side, handwritten “ Muscidae ” (crossed out) on reverse side; (3) “Townsend det.” [printed]. 1 male labelled (1) “Koshun / Formosa / Sauter IX. 08” [printed, except “IX. 08” which is handwritten]; (2) “Villeneuve det.” [printed]. Dissected by K. R. (Figs. 21, 22). T1–5 glued to card on pin, dissected parts in glycerol in glass vial on pin. 1 female labelled (1) “Koshun / Formosa / Sauter VII 08” [printed, except “VII 08” which is handwritten]; (2) “ Bengalia / latro Meij. / Villeneuve det. [handwritten, but not by Villeneuve?]. 2 females labelled (1) “Koshun / Formosa / Sauter VII 08” [printed, except “VII 08” which is handwritten]; (2) “Villeneuve det.” [printed]. 1 male labelled (1) “Sokutsu / Formosa / H. Sauter VI 1912 ” [printed, except “I” in “VI” which is handwritten]; (2) “Townsend det.” [printed]. 1 female labelled (1) “Sokutsu / Formosa / H. Sauter VI 1912 ” [printed, except “I” in “VI” which is handwritten]; (2) “Townsend det.” [printed]. 1 female labelled (1) “Sokutsu / Formosa / H. Sauter VI 1912 ” [printed, except “I” in “VI” which is handwritten]; (2) “det. Baranoff” [printed]; (3) “ Bengalia / varicolor / Fabr.” [handwritten]. 1 male labelled (1) “IX Taihorinsho / Formosa / H. Sauter 09” [printed, except “IX” and “09” which are handwritten]; (2) “Villeneuve det.” [printed]. 1 female labelled (1) “Taihorinsho / Formosa / H. Sauter XI 10” [printed, except “XI 10” which is handwritten]; (2) “ Bengalia / latro / de Meij.” [handwritten in Villeneuve’s hand]; (3) “Villeneuve det.” [printed]; (4) “G. pr. 406 / 16.v.2008 / K. Rognes”. Dissected by K. R. Abdominal T1–5 glued to card on pin; spermathecae and common oviduct in glycerol in vial on pin, ST1–5 and ovipositor on microscope slide no. 406. 2 females labelled (1) “Tappani / Formosa / H. Sauter XI. 09” [printed, except “XI. 09” which is handwritten]; (2) “Villeneuve det.” [printed]. SMNS: 1 male and 1 female labelled (1) “Tainan / Formosa” [handwritten]; (2) “ Bengalia / latro de Meij. ” [Villeneuve’s handwriting]; (3) “Sammlung / E. Engel” [printed on reverse side of label]; (4) My determination label ( emarginata Malloch). This male has the genitalia exerted. 1 male labelled (1) “Tainan / Formosa” [handwritten]; (2) “ Bengalia / latro de Meij. / det. D r. Villeneuve” [Villeneuve’s handwriting, except last line which is printed]; (3) “Sammlung / E. Engel” [printed on reverse side of label]; (4) My determination label ( emarginata Malloch). This male is undissected.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E8852B08564396FCEBA41653F9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E8852C085B4396FF7BA285514D.text	B74687E8852C085B4396FF7BA285514D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia emarginatoides Rognes 2009	<div><p>2. Bengalia emarginatoides sp. nov.</p><p>Figs. 26–43, 174.</p><p>Holotype male, Sri Lanka (SDEI), here designated. For details see Type material below.</p><p>Bengalia latro: Senior-White, 1923a: 307, Plate IX. Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. Sri Lanka (“…jungle area of Ceylon, …Colombo …”).</p><p>Note. Senior-White (1923a) mentions and keys four species with discal setae on T5, i.e., his new species bezzii and surcoufi and “ latro ” de Meijere and “ varicolor ” Fabricius, and illustrates the ST5 flap for all except “ varicolor ”. He says he was unable to recognise the latter and refrained “from bringing latro under it, though I am of the opinion that such will ultimately prove to be the case”. He figures the genitalia of a species he identified as “ latro ”, most likely on the basis of one of the specimens from “the jungle area of Ceylon ” in his own collection. The illustration of the ST5 flap shows a rather deep excavation of the hind border. He keys “ latro ” as having the hind tibia “shaggily fringed”, as opposed to bezzii and surcoufi which were “not shaggily fringed”. In fact, emarginatoides has a very densely fringed hind tibia, similar to the one illustrated for emarginata (Fig. 199), compared to bezzii (Fig. 209, now = varicolor Fabricius) and surcoufi (Fig. 206).</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Senior-White, 1923b: 37 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. India (Kerala, “… mile 10—14, Cochin Forest Tramway …”).</p><p>Note. Senior-White’s record here is of a female (in the “Calcutta collection”) which “… is almost certainly this species. I still await the discovery of a ♂ indubitably of this species to discover whether de Meijere’s latro is valid or merely a colour variety of the Fabrician species” (Senior-White 1923b: 37). Not seen.</p><p>Bengalia latro: Senior-White, 1923b: 37 . Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. India (Kerala, “Parambikulam (Cochin)”).</p><p>Note. Senior-White’s record here is of “… 1♂ 2♀ from Parambikulam (Cochin) …”. I have not seen this material (in the “Calcutta collection”), but since he gives data on his recently described species surcoufi and bezzii, both listed on the same page, it very likely belongs to emarginatoides [not present in BMNH, Nigel Wyatt, pers. comm., February 2009].</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Senior-White, 1924: 106 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Sri Lanka.</p><p>Note. Senior-White (1924: 106) writes concerning “ Bengalia varicolor F”: “The discovery of an indubitable ♂ of this species enables me to sink de Meijere’s latro here, the genitalia proving to be identical. The National Collection contains, a ♂ from Kandy, vi.02, (Green); … A ♂ from India, (Bombay N.H.S.); has the abdomen all yellowish.” In the next sentence he mentions three females from “ Los Banos, Philippines, 1913, (Baker)…” .</p><p>It is not clear from the text which of the two males (Kandy or Bombay) he considers to be an “indubitable” male of varicolor . However, the Kandy male (now in BMNH) which I have examined, carries a label reading: “ Bengalia varicolor / F. (= latro Meij.) / R. SW det. 1923.” [handwritten by Senior-White in pencil] (Fig. 43), and, since it has a rather deep excavation in the hind border of the ST5 flap (Fig. 42), I take this to indicate that this is the very specimen that induced him to propose the (erroneous) synonymy. It is a specimen of emarginatoides . For more details on this specimen, see below under paratypes in BMNH.</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Senior-White, 1926: 139 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Sri Lanka.</p><p>Note. For a description of his “ varicolor ” Senior-White (1926: 139) refers to his 1923a paper under “ latro Meij. ” thus confirming the decision reached in 1924 (see previous entry).</p><p>Senior-White (1926: 137) now keys only three species with discal setae on T5, i.e., bezzii, surcoufi and “ varicolor ”. This time it is “ varicolor ” that is “shaggily fringed”, as opposed to the other two species, which are separated on the shape of the ST5 flap (termed an “[a]ccessory forceps”), in bezzii a “plain edged plate”, in surcoufi “bilobed.” Senior-White (1926) lists the species as distributed also in “South India ”, probably because this is the type locality of varicolor, but possibly also because of the Parambikulam specimens of “ latro ” or the Cochin Forest Tramway specimens of “ varicolor ” cited earlier by Senior-White (1923b: 37). When stating (p. 139) that the species is known from the “the Philippines ”, he is apparently referring to the three females from “Los Banos” already mentioned in his 1924 paper (see previous entry). The identity of this material cannot be decided.</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Senior-White et al., 1940: 101 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Sri Lanka.</p><p>Note. Senior-White et al. (1940: 85), like Senior-White (1926), key only three species with discal setae on T5, i.e., bezzii, surcoufi and “ varicolor ”. The “ latro ” figures in Senior-White (1923a) have been reproduced in Senior-White et al. (1940: 102, fig. 51), but given a new legend identifying the species as “ varicolor ”, in accordance with the opinion reached in 1924 (“the genitalia proving to be identical”), and maintained in his 1926 paper. Again, the record from “ Philippine Islands ” is most likely based on the three females from “Los Banos” mentioned in his 1924 paper (see previous entry).</p><p>Bengalia fuscipennis: Séguy, 1946: 83 . Record from “ Ceylan: Kandy, 15–28 mai 1901 (M. Maindron)”. Misidentification, not fuscipennis Bezzi. Sri Lanka. “ Ceylan … Kandy” is listed by Séguy and is a misidentified male of emarginatoides . The two other specimens, not listed by Séguy (1946), are a male and a female of fuscipennis Bezzi from Taiwan (not a member of the B. peuhi species-group), correctly identified by Villeneuve (both examined).</p><p>In the Oriental catalogue James (1977: 529) lists fuscipennis Bezzi, 1913: 75 from “ Ceylon ”, in addition to the type locality “ Formosa ”. Most likely this record is based on the misidentified male of emarginatoides cited above and published as fuscipennis by Séguy. I have found no other sources listing fuscipennis from “ Ceylon ”. Sri Lanka should therefore be deleted from the geographical range of fuscipennis as it is based on a misidentified specimen.</p><p>So far it appears that fuscipennis is only known from the type locality (Taiwan). Fan (1965: 194) described a nominal species taiwanensis which I believe is the same as fuscipennis, since the male syntype of fuscipennis (in ETHZ, examined) fits exactly with the figures and descriptions by Fan (1965, 1992, 1997) and Feng et al. (1998) of Bengalia taiwanensis Fan, syn. nov. This nominal species is also reported from the Guangdong province of China (Feng et al. 1998).</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Séguy, 1946: 85, only fig. 1b (as variicolor). Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Sri Lanka.</p><p>Note. Two males of emarginatoides from Sri Lanka were found in the general collection in Paris under “ Bengalia latro ”, although there are no Sri Lanka localities among those listed by Séguy (1946: 83) under that name. According to the labels both were captured in “ Ceylan … Kandy” by M. Maindron 15–28 May 1901. One of them is labelled “varicolor / F.” in Séguy’s hand. I have dissected it. The ST5 flap (Fig. 40) was exposed in the undissected specimen and matches fig. 1b on p. 85 fairly well, although the distal excavation is not as deep as in the figure and the tips do not curve inwards. I assume nevertheless that Séguy’s fig. 1b is made from this specimen.</p><p>Bengalia emarginata: Maschwitz &amp; Schönegge, 1980: 2 . Misidentification, not emarginata Malloch. Sri Lanka (Anuradhapura).</p><p>Note. A specimen collected by Maschwitz and cited as emarginata by Maschwitz &amp; Schönegge (1980) is in SMNS and has been misidentified as emarginata by B. Herting. Examined.</p><p>Afridigalia emarginata: Lehrer, 2005: 36 . India (Tamil Nadu). Misidentification, not emarginata Malloch.</p><p>Note. Lehrer’s (2005) treatment was based on 5 males and 4 females from South India, Nilgiri Hills (Devala), in BPBM, identified by Kurahashi as emarginata, but never published by him to my knowledge. Not examined .</p><p>Lehrer (2005) was the first to recognise that two species were actually involved here—in the present work named emarginata Malloch and emarginatoides sp. nov. —but he did not study the type of emarginata and therefore got the names wrong. He was obviously misled by Malloch’s inaccurate drawing of the ST5 flap (Malloch 1927: fig. 15) which shows (incorrectly) a completely even and non-undulating lateral edge distally, similar to Lehrer’s figure of the ST5 flap of his “ emarginata ” (Lehrer 2005: fig. 13A). On this basis Lehrer misidentified the specimens from India in BPBM as emarginata and described the species with a small inward and downward bulge in the distal half of the lateral edges of the ST5 flap (the true emarginata Malloch) as new species Afridigalia bezziella .</p><p>Afridigalia emarginata: Lehrer, 2006a: 7 . Records from Sri Lanka and India only. Misidentification, not emarginata Malloch. Examined.</p><p>Note.The Taiwan specimen of “ emarginata ” also listed in Lehrer (2006a: 7) is the true emarginata Malloch (= bezziella Lehrer) (BMNH, examined). See entry in the synonymy of the species Bengalia emarginata treated above.</p><p>Etymology. The specific epithet “ emarginatoides ” is derived from the stem of “ emarginata ” with the addition of the Latin suffix “- oides ” (meaning like, resembling, in the form of) referring to the similarity of the two species.</p><p>Diagnosis. Male. Length 13mm. Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.296 –0.325 (mean 0.310, n=9). Bengalia emarginatoides is extremely similar to B. emarginata and most of the diagnostic characters listed for that species also apply to this one. However, apart from the slightly narrower frons, it differs from B. emarginata in certain features of the male genitalia.</p><p>ST5 flap (Figs. 35, 37, 38, 40, 42) has a rounded outline, but is a little longer than broad and is completely flat as seen edge on. It has a distal emargination which varies in depth (very shallow in material from India), but the lateral edge is even and without inward bulges or depressions on the distal half.</p><p>Cerci (Figs. 30, 31) are conspicuously narrowed in the distal free part compared to the basal part, so that the lateral edge, when seen in dorsal view, is not straight but has an inwardly directed shallow angle slightly behind the middle (Fig. 30). Interestingly, the same kind of constriction is present in Senior-White’s figure of the cerci in dorsal aspect (Senior-White, 1923a: Plate IX, lower half; Senior-White et al., 1940: 102, fig. 51, right hand figure).</p><p>Basal part of the bacilliform sclerite process is a little longer than the point itself (Fig. 31), thus longer than in B. emarginata .</p><p>the distiphallus the lateralmost part of the upper lip has an evenly oblique edge (Fig. 28), whereas in B. emarginata it first arises vertically before it turns backwards. The internal hypophallic lobes are converging more conspicuously than in B. emarginata . The lateral finger appears to be slightly longer than the one in B. emarginata (Figs. 26, 27). The anterior serrated edge of the vertical sclerotised sheet is even and not produced into a right angle (Fig. 33).</p><p>Female. Unknown. The female should, however, be easily identified from material collected for example in Sri Lanka, where only two species in the B. peuhi species-group occur, B. varicolor (= bezzii) and B. emarginatoides . The latter species should have the same kind of vestiture on the anepimeron in the female as in the male (i.e., black setulae reaching the katepisternum), thus different from that of the true B. varicolor (= bezzii).</p><p>Distribution. India (Kerala, Tamil Nadu), Sri Lanka.</p><p>Type material. Holotype male, in SDEI, labelled: (1) “ Ceylon / Horn” [printed on yellow paper; Walther Horn is the collector]; (2) “Townsend det.”; (3) My red holotype label ( emarginatoides n. sp.). Dissected by K. R. T1–5 glued to card on pin. The left fore leg glued to another card on pin. Genitalia in glycerol in microvial on pin (Figs. 26–34, 37). Paratypes. BMNH: 1 male labelled (1) “ Ceylon. / E. E. Green. / 1910— 415 [printed]”; (2) “Kandy / Ceylon, 6-02” [printed, except the numbers which are handwritten]; (3) “ Bengalia varicolor / F. (= latro Meij.) / R. SW det. 1923.” [handwritten in Senior-White’s hand in pencil; text following the word “varicolor” “indéchiffrable” according to Lehrer (2006a: 7)] (Fig. 43); (4) “ Afridigalia ♂ / emarginata (Malloch) / Det. Dr. A. Z. Lehrer / 2005”; (5) “ Afridigalia ♂ / emarginata (Malloch) / Det. Dr. A. Z. Lehrer / 2005”; (6) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp.). The specimen carries the genital capsule and a few abdominal sternites including the ST5 flap mounted in darkened Canada balsam on a clear plastic stage below the specimen (itself staged on a piece of the same clear plastic) (Figs. 42, 43). 1 male labelled (1) “Kanthalla [= Kantalai] / Ceylon / 31.vii. 1890 / Lt. Col. Yerbury / 92.192”; (2) “ Afridigalia ♂ / emarginata (Malloch) / Det. Dr. A. Z. Lehrer / 2005”; (3) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp.). Dissected by Lehrer. Dissected genitalia transferred to glass microvial from Lehrer’s large plastic vial by K. R. 1 male labelled (1) “Naraikkadu, 2500'–3000' / Tinnevelly Dt. [= Tirunelveli district] / South India. 12.III.36” [Tamil Nadu]; (2) “ Afridigalia ♂ / emarginata (Malloch) / Det. Dr. A. Z. Lehrer / 2005”; (3) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp.). MNHN: 1 male labelled (1) “MUSEUM PARIS / CEYLAN / KANDY / M. MAINDRON 1902” [printed]; (2) “KANDY / 15–28 mai 1901 ” [printed]; (3) “varicolor / F.” [black ink in Séguy’s hand]; (4) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp.). Placed under “ Bengalia latro ” in the General collection. Dissected by K. R. (Fig. 40, 41). 1 male labelled (1) “ CEYLAN / M. MAINDRON” [printed]; (2) “KANDY / 15–28 mai 1901 ” [printed]; (3) “MUSEUM PARIS / COTE DE MALABAR / MAHÉ / M. MAINDRON 1902” [printed]; (4) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp.). The presence of label (3) must be due to an error, since Mahé is on the Malabar Coast, in Kerala, India, thus contradicting label (1). I assume this specimen is from Kandy also. Placed under “ Bengalia latro ” in the General collection. Left undissected. 1 male labelled (1) “ CEYLAN / M. MAINDRON” [printed]; (2) “KANDY / 15–28 mai 1901 ” [printed]; (3) “MUSEUM PARIS / CEYLAN / KANDY / M. MAINDRON 1902” [printed]; (4) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp.). Placed under “ Bengalia fuscipennis ” in the General collection. Left undissected. NHRM: 1 male labelled (1) “ INDIA, Trivandrum district / Ponmudi rain forest / 12.IV.1990 / B. Gustafson” [printed] [Kerala]; (2) “ Bengalia ♂ / emarginata / Malloch, 1927 / Det. H. Kurahashi” [printed]; (3) “NRM Sthlm / Loan 1712/08” [printed green label] (Figs. 35, 36); (4) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp.). Dissected by K. R. SDEI: 1 male with same original labels as holotype. My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp.). Not dissected (Figs. 38, 39). This specimen has a very deep ST5 flap excavation, deeper than in the holotype, almost reaching halfway to base, and thus approaching the depth of the excavation in the illustration by Senior-White (1923a: Plate IX) (as latro). SMNS: 1 male labelled (1) “ Bengalia / emarginata Malloch / B. Herting det.” [Herting’s handwriting, except last line]; (2) “ Ceylon / Maschwitz leg.” [Herting’s handwriting]; (3) My red paratype label ( emarginatoides n. sp.). The ST5 flap is quite typical: pale yellow colour with a distal, deep excavation similar to the one shown in Fig. 38, no depression along lateral edges whether seen from the side or above.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E8852C085B4396FF7BA285514D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E88520085E4396FA81A0F15691.text	B74687E88520085E4396FA81A0F15691.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia emdeniella (Lehrer 2005)	<div><p>3. Bengalia emdeniella (Lehrer, 2005), comb. nov.</p><p>Figs. 44–53, 175, 188, 200.</p><p>Holotype male, China (Fujian, Yenpingfu) (BMNH), by original designation. For details see Type material below.</p><p>The synonymy below (and, consequently, the distribution) is tentative as far as many of the Chinese provinces are concerned. In view of the fact that a new species from Yunnan (see B. weii below) is based on specimens which all carried a “ Bengalia varicolor ” determination label, it is to be expected that several other records of “ varicolor ” from China by Chinese authors may actually refer to specimens belonging to B. weii or even other, undescribed species, rather than to B. emdeniella .</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Fan, 1965: 193, figs. 753–755. Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. China (Guangdong, Hainan, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Yunnan, Zhejiang).</p><p>Note. The vertical sclerotised sheet in the aedeagus of varicolor as interpreted by Fan (1965: fig. 755; repeated in later Chinese publications), and by Lehrer (2005, as fanzideliana) is very narrow (dorsoventrally) in lateral view, but has a slight emargination along the anterior edge as in the emdeniella holotype. The narrowness may be due to foreshortening due to perspective of an aedeagus perhaps being figured from a dried state, and I consider it as the same species as emdeniella (see next entries). In addition the vertical sclerotised sheet appears fused with the mid-dorsal wall of the aedeagus, just as is the case in emdeniella holotype.</p><p>52. Lateral finger of left side. Scale = 0.25mm (Figure 47). Abbreviations: l. f. = lateral finger; pst. scl. = parastomal sclerite.</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Fan, 1992: 532, figs. 1108a, 1108i, 1108m. Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. China (Guangdong, Hainan, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Yunnan, Zhejiang).</p><p>Note. Fan again included Taiwan citing Hennig (1941), but Hennig’s specimens identified as varicolor belong mostly to emarginata Malloch (and a few to varicolor Fabricius).</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Fan, 1997: 451, figs. 139a, 139m, 139i. Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. China (Fujian, Guangdong, Hainan, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Xizang, Yunnan, Zhejiang).</p><p>Note. Fan again included Taiwan, but this time without citing Hennig (1941). However, the localities listed for Taiwan (Fan 1997: 452, lines 1–2), i.e., Anping, Hengchun [formerly Koshun], Sokutsu, Tainan (all in Chinese script) are those listed by Hennig (1941) under varicolor . [I consulted Chiu et al. (1984) for comparison of the Japanese and Chinese names for these localities].</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Feng et al., 1998: 1381, fig. 2825 Jv. Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. China (Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Xizang, Yunnan, Zhejiang).</p><p>Note. Feng et al., included Taiwan, but again, most likely on the basis of Hennig (1941).</p><p>Afridigalia emdeniella Lehrer, 2005: 38 . Holotype male, by original designation, China (Fujian: Yenpingfu) (BMNH). Examined.</p><p>Afridigalia fanzideliana Lehrer, 2005: 42 . Unavailable (no type designation). See Rognes (2006: 457) for details. [China]</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Verves, 2005: 240, in part. Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Catalogue entry for China.</p><p>Diagnosis. Male. Length: 15mm (from Lehrer 2005). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.295 (n=1) (measured on photograph). Fronto-orbital plate without proclinate orbital setae. Anepimeron with about 20– 25 black setulae on upper part of posterior half, below lesser ampulla. Fore tibia in basal half with a row of small spine-like setae of about the same size (Fig. 175). Mid tibia with a fringe of somewhat prolonged thin posteroventral setae in distal part, longest setae about twice the tibial diameter.</p><p>Fringe on hind tibia rather dense and long, situated on distal two-thirds or more of anteroventral surface, prominent also on ventral and posteroventral surface, the posteroventral fringe setae twice the tibial diameter or more.</p><p>ST5 flap (Fig. 50) longer than broad, with a deep marginal excavation almost reaching halfway to its base, and with diverging lateral edges.</p><p>Cerci strongly curved in lateral view. Surstylus without vestiture on underside. Process of bacilliform sclerite with a long point.</p><p>Distiphallus short and high, almost triangular in profile view. Projecting dorsolateral wings absent; middorsal wall broad, fused with vertical sclerotised sheet (Figs. 47, 51). Antlers rather short and projecting upwards and forwards, grooved on anterior side. No basal tooth present. Upper lip (Fig. 47, upper arrow) not projecting beyond base of antlers in dorsal view. [The mid-dorsal wall is ruptured along the midline in the only available genital preparation, rupture seen in Figs. 47, 51]. Lateral finger large (Figs. 45, 51, 52), spinose distally. Vertical sclerotised sheet very conspicuous and its anterior edge smooth, slightly concave, as seen in lateral view. Internal hypophallic lobes strongly converging as seen in ventral view. External hypophallic lobes folded in anterior part, presenting a forwardly facing wall, which is well sclerotised laterally, and which backwards (Fig. 47) and also inwards (Figs. 45, 51). Each parastomal sclerite has a small dorsal projection basally (Fig. 51).</p><p>Female. Unknown.</p><p>Distribution. China (Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Xizang, Yunnan, Zhejiang).</p><p>Material examined. Type material. Afridigalia emdeniella Lehrer, 2005 . Holotype male, in BMNH, labelled (1) “Pres. By / Com.Inst.Ent. / B.M.1954-110.” [printed]; (2) “Suenson” [printed]; (3) “COM. INST: ENT: / COLL. NO. 11715” [printed]; (4) “ China ” [printed]; (5) “SP.NOV.” [handwritten]; (6) “YENPINGFU / Fukian Prov. / E. Suenson / 16 MAY 1935 ” [printed large label]; (7) “ Bengalia / varicolor F. / van Emden det 1953” [handwritten, except “van Emden det 195” which is printed]; (8) “ Bengalia ♂ / emdeniella Lehrer n. sp. / HOLOTYPUS / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / 2004” [printed]; (9) “ HOLOTYPUS ” [red printed label]; (10) “ Bengalia ♂ / emdeniella Lehrer n. sp. / HOLOTYPUS / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / 2004” [printed]; (11) “Published as / Afridigalia emdeniella / Lehrer, 2005: 38 / K. Rognes 23.v.2008 ” [printed]. The specimen is in good condition, one fore leg glued to card on pin. Dissected by Lehrer. Genitalia transferred to glass microvial from original large opaque plastic vial by K. R. Lehrer (2005) renders the type locality as “Yenpingen” but that is an error (cf. Fig. 53).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E88520085E4396FA81A0F15691	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E8852508604396FCC4A5EA5098.text	B74687E8852508604396FCC4A5EA5098.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia fani Feng & Wei 1998	<div><p>4. Bengalia fani Feng &amp; Wei, 1998</p><p>Figs. 54–63, 176, 189, 201.</p><p>Holotype male, China (Guizhou Province, Anshun, Ganpu tree farm) (CDPCAG), by original designation. For details see Type material below.</p><p>Bengalia fani Feng &amp; Wei in Feng et al., 1998: 1378, figs. 2820Jv (ST5 flap), 2820L1 (genital capsule in profile view), 2820R (distiphallus in dorsal view). Holotype male, by original designation, China (Guizhou) (CDPCAG). Examined.</p><p>Diagnosis. Male. Length: 10–12mm. Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.363 –0.375, mean 0.368 (n=4). Easily recognised in the male sex by the presence of 2–3 proclinate orbital setae (the hindmost one directed a little laterally) on each side in front of the reclinate prevertical seta. Lunula bare. Anepimeron with a tuft of 10–25 long black thin setae on upper part of posterior half. Fore tibia with two very closely set ventral rows of small spine-like setae of same size in basal half (Fig. 176). Mid tibia without fringe distally, any prolonged setae shorter than tibial diameter. Hind tibia with an anteroventral fringe of long setae on about distal half. The fringe varies in density, and usually extends on the posteroventral side. Femora are very dark, except sometimes the front one.</p><p>Abdomen rather dark and the black marginal bands occupy about the hindmost third of the tergites. The anterior yellow parts of the tergites very dark in some lights and covered with microtomentum giving a shifting pattern.</p><p>ST5 flap (Fig. 60) about as long as broad, a deep distal excavation present, lateral edges curved but roughly parallel.</p><p>Cerci strongly curved in profile view (Fig. 59). The surstyli placed rather low on the epandrium (Fig. 59).</p><p>Distiphallus with an extremely prolonged distal half. Antler narrow and pointed. Lateral finger very long and denticulate on more than distal half. Internal hypophallic lobes very strongly converging, almost touching midventrally, distally widening out and transforming into two broad strongly sclerotised ventral bands which continue almost to the tip of the distiphallus. The distance between the bands increases towards the middle and then decreases again. External hypophallic lobe folded distally, presenting a forward-facing wall. Ventral finger sharply triangular, projecting and pointed. Vertical sclerotised sheet fused with mid-dorsal wall forming a lateral sheet carrying the antlers and lateral fingers. Upper lip shaped like a transverse oval. Characteristic structures are present encircling the ejaculatory opening (Figs. 56, 61, 62).</p><p>The figure in Feng et al. (1998: 1379, fig. 2820L1) shows the antler and lateral finger both to project ventrally on one side of the distiphallus. This was also the condition of the holotype when I received it for examination. This is an artifact caused by the dried condition of the distiphallus.</p><p>Female. Length: 10.5– 12mm (n=2). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.371 –0.375, mean 0.373 (n=2). ST2–4 each with a pair of strong marginal setae, with some short black ground setae along hind margin and with yellow ground setulae on disc. ST3 and ST4 also with black ground vestiture in broad bands along sides. ST5 much longer than broad at base, without strong marginal setae, with black ground setae all over. ST3 shorter than other sternites, which are of about the same length.</p><p>Description. An English translation of the Chinese original description is given in Appendix 1.</p><p>Distribution. China (Guizhou, Yunnan).</p><p>Type material. Bengalia fani Feng &amp; Wei in Feng et al., 1998. Holotype male, in CDPCAG, labelled (1) “ Centre for Disease Prevention and Control of Anshun City, Guizhou / Ganpu Tree Farm, 1200m / Wei Lianmeng et al. leg. / 14 May 1985 ” [in Chinese, print on white label] (Fig. 63); (2) “C032 … [Chinese name for B. fani] / Bengalia fani Feng / et Wei, 1996” [print on white label]; (3) “ ♂ / Holotype ” [handwritten on red label]. The specimen is in good condition. Right mid leg is lacking, left mid leg glued to card on pin below specimen. Dissected by K. R. Abdominal tergites T1–5 glued to card. Dissected parts in glycerol in glass microvial on pin below labels.</p><p>Other material. CDPCAG: 1 male labelled (1) “ Centre for Disease Prevention and Control of Anshun City, Guizhou / Ganpu Tree Farm, 1200m / Wei Lianmeng et al. leg. / 16 October 1990 ” [in Chinese, print on white label]; (2) “C032 … [Chinese name for B. fani] / Bengalia fani Feng / et Wei, 1996 ♂ ” [print on white label, male symbol in red] . 1 female labelled (1) “ Centre for Disease Prevention and Control of Anshun City, Guizhou / Ganpu Tree Farm, 1200m / Wei Lianmeng et al. leg. / 30 May 1993 ” [in Chinese, print on white label, parts of date handwritten]; (2) “C032 … [Chinese name for B. fani] / Bengalia fani Feng / et Wei, 1996 ♀ ” [print on white label, female symbol in red] . 1 male labelled (1) “ Centre for Disease Prevention and Control of Anshun City, Guizhou / Jiaozishan Hill 1400m / Wei Lianmeng et al. leg. / 21 July 1991 ” [in Chinese, print on white label, parts of date handwritten]; (2) “C032 … [Chinese name for B. fani] / Bengalia fani Feng / et Wei, 1996 ♂ ” [print on white label, male symbol in red] . 1 male labelled (1) “ Centre for Disease Prevention and Control of Anshun City, Guizhou / Jiuhuashan Hill, Ninggu, Anshun City 1200m / Wei Lianmeng et al. leg. / 20 July 2008 ” [in Chinese, print on white label]; (2) “C032 … [Chinese name for B. fani] / Bengalia fani Feng / et Wei, 1996 ♂ ” [print on white label, male symbol in red] . 1 female labelled (1) “ Centre for Disease Prevention and Control of Anshun City, Guizhou / Jichang, Anshun City 1200m / Wei Lianmeng et al. leg. / 6 April 2008 ” [in Chinese, print on white label]; (2) “C032 … [Chinese name for B. fani] / Bengalia fani Feng / et Wei, 1996 ♀ ” [print on white label, female symbol in red] .</p><p>Material not examined. Dr. Wei Lianmeng (pers. comm. in e-mail 15 January 2009) reports to have collected 1 male and 1 female of B. fani also in Yunnan province ( Jīzú Shān, 2200–2700m 6–8 August 1994, Wei Lianmeng &amp; Liu Meihua leg.) apart from several other localities in Guizhou province.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E8852508604396FCC4A5EA5098	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E8851B08654396FAF3A217571D.text	B74687E8851B08654396FAF3A217571D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia inermis Malloch 1927	<div><p>5. Bengalia inermis Malloch, 1927</p><p>Figs. 64–82, 177, 190, 202.</p><p>Holotype male, Philippines ( Luzon, Mt. Makiling) (BMNH), by original designation. For details see Type material below.</p><p>“7. Bengalia sp. incerta ♂.”: Bezzi, 1913: 78 (as “sp. incerta Nr. 2.” in key p. 74). “Ein Männchen aus Los Banos, Philippinen, in meiner Sammlung, von Prof. Baker erhalten …“. Examined.</p><p>Note. This refers to a male specimen in MSNM which subsequently served as the holotype of Afridigalia laguna Lehrer. As detailed below, it carries a label in Bezzi’s hand reading “ Bengalia inermis n. sp. ” Bengalia inermis was described by Malloch in 1927 from a single “Type” from Mt. Maquiling, Philippines, thus a holotype was designated. The laguna holotype is therefore not a syntype of inermis (even though it carries a printed label reading “inermis SYNTYPUS ”). Malloch (1927: 414) mentions it and thinks that this particular specimen in coll. Bezzi might belong to the same taxon as his own inermis (“[T]his may be the species “sp. incerta No. 2” of Bezzi’s paper on the genus…”). He may have corresponded about it with Bezzi, and Bezzi as a result possibly wrote the name on a label in his own hand and put it on the specimen in anticipation of Malloch’s paper (Bezzi died in 1927 and is mentioned as “the late Dr. M. Bezzi” in Malloch’s paper, p. 412). This might explain the presence of a n. sp. label in Bezzi’s hand on a specimen of a species Bezzi did not describe himself.</p><p>Bengalia inermis Malloch, 1927: 400 (key), 413 (main entry). Holotype male, by original designation, Philippines ( Mt. Makiling) (BMNH). Examined.</p><p>Bengalia inermis: James, 1977: 529 . Catalogue entry. Examined. For details of the specimen, see below. See also “7. Bengalia sp. incerta ♂ ” entry above. Discussed and put into synonymy by Rognes (2006: 464).</p><p>Afridigalia nusantara Lehrer, 2005: 58 . Holotype male, by original designation, Philippines (Luzon, Mt. Makiling) (BPBM). Not examined. Discussed and put into synonymy by Rognes (2006: 464).</p><p>Afridigalia pinatuba Lehrer, 2005: 63 . Holotype male, by original designation, Philippines (BMNH). Not examined. Syn. nov.</p><p>Note. The anepimeron is described as having only yellow setulae. There is nothing in Lehrer’s description and figures of pinatuba that indicate that it differs from inermis .</p><p>Ashokiana ramsdalei Lehrer, 2005: 78 . Holotype male, by original designation, Philippines (Luzon, Camarines Sur, Mt. Iriga) (BPBM). Examined. Syn. nov. For details of the specimen, see below.</p><p>Bengalia inermis: Verves, 2005: 239 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Diagnosis. A bright yellow species. Male. Length: 13mm. Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.283 –0.292 (mean 0.285, n=4). Lunula bare. Fronto-orbital plate without proclinate orbital setae. Anepimeron with yellow setulae only. Legs yellow. Fore tibia without spine-like setae on ventral side (Fig. 177). Mid tibia with a fringe of long thin pv setae in distal half, longest setae 1.5–2.0x tibial diameter (Fig. 190). Hind tibia with a dense fringe of long av, v and pv setae on distal two-thirds (Fig. 202). Abdomen almost all yellow with narrow (1/6) black marginal bands. ST5 flap (Figs. 71, 78) almost square, with the hind edge straight or slightly concave.</p><p>Cerci slightly curved distally. Surstylus without vestiture below. The triangular projection of the bacilliform sclerite short and blunt.</p><p>Distiphallus with prominent dorsolateral wings and broad, backwardly curved antlers. Basal tooth strong. Tip of antlers with 2–5 tines. Upper lip projecting beyond base of antlers, distal edge convex in dorsal view, underside concave as seen from in front (Fig. 73). Lateral finger small (Figs. 66, 72). Ventral finger strongly projecting below midventral wall in profile view, its anterior edge smooth, without denticles (Figs. 67, 72). Internal hypophallic lobes only slightly converging in ventral view, distal part of outer hypophallic lobe moderately folded with a distinct shelf (Fig. 66).</p><p>Female. Unknown to me.</p><p>Distribution. Philippines.</p><p>Material examined. Type material. Bengalia inermis Malloch, 1927 . Holotype male, in BMNH, labelled (1) “Holo- / type” [printed on circular label with broad red margin]; (2) “ Mt. Makiling / Luzon, Baker” [printed]; (3) “Brit. Mus. / 1923 – 423” [first line printed, second handwritten]; (4) “ Bengalia / inermis / Type / Det. / J R Malloch” [first three lines handwritten in Malloch’s hand, last two lines printed]; (5) “See slide / collection.” [printed]. Label on slide, in BMNH, reads: “ Bengalia / inermis Mall / Holotype / BM: 1923: 423 / [black line across label] / mounted / 25 – 7 – 38 J. SMART” [label handwritten, except “ Holotype ” which is printed on circular white label with broad red margin glued to main label, and “J SMART” which is printed; also black printed line all around label].</p><p>Afridigalia laguna Lehrer, 2005 . Holotype male, in MSNM, labelled (1) “Los Banos / P. I. Baker” [printed; note two pinholes (Fig. 80)]; (2) “76” [handwritten number]; (3) “ Bengalia sp. nov. / peut être ♂ de / B. javana Macq.” [black-rimmed label with three thin ruled black lines in Surcouf’s handwriting]; (4) “ Bengalia / inermis / n. sp.” [black ink in Bezzi’s handwriting]; (5) “inermis / SYNTYPUS ” [printed museum label]; (6) “ Bengalia ♂ / laguna Lehrer sp.n. / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / XII.2005 ” [printed]; (7) “ Bengalia ♂ / laguna Lehrer sp.n. / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / XII.2005 ” [printed]; (8) “ HOLOTYPUS ” [black print on white label, latter glued to larger red label]; (9) “Published as / Afridigalia laguna / Lehrer 2005: 48 / K. Rognes 23.vi.2008 ” [printed]; (10) My determination label ( inermis Malloch).</p><p>Note. The specimen was badly damaged in the mail at reception, but the genitalia, which were kept in a big plastic vial, arrived safely. I have glued head, wings, abdomen, one fore femur, one mid leg and two hind legs to a card on a separate pin labelled “From holotype of / Afridigalia laguna Lehrer, 2005 / Specimen crushed in accident / in mail”. Genital parts in glycerol have been transferred from original big plastic vial to glass microvial on pin where it is placed between labels (9) and (10). The ST5 flap is partly destroyed (as shown in Lehrer’s fig. 19A). In the aedeagus both antlers are broken off halfway (Figs 81, 82), basal tooth finger. broken at base on right side, left basal tooth intact. The ventral finger is bent stronger than usual towards base of aedeagus. Upper lip is intact. In his key to species Lehrer (2005: 23) defines the species on the assumption that the “Apophyses latérales postérieures [= antlers] sont large, courtes, ayant le bout taillé en biais ... ”, whereas they are clearly broken, a fact also suggested by Lehrer’s fig. 19C. Afridigalia laguna is therefore clearly based on an artifact. Lehrer seems not to have understood that the antlers are not in their pristine state. Without ever mentioning B. inermis as a valid species in his book, Lehrer nevertheless notes that the “… ptéropleures [= anepimeron] sont brunes avec de poils jaunes…” and he is the only witness to the fact that the fore tibiae are “... exceptionnellement, sans ctenidium proximo-ventral” [fore tibiae both destroyed in mail], exactly the reason why Malloch named his species inermis (= latin for unarmed).</p><p>Ashokiana ramsdalei Lehrer, 2005 . Holotype male, in BPBM, labelled: (1) “ H. M. Torrevillas / Collector / BISHOP” [printed]; (2) “P. I. CAMARINES / SUR, Mt. Iriga (500m, 27.III.1962 ” [printed]; (3) “ HOLOTYPE ” [printed white label glued to larger red label] / “17040” [pencil writing on red part of label]; (4) “ Ashokiana ♂ / ramsdalei Lehrer n. sp. / Det. Dr. A.Z. Lehrer / 2004” [printed]; (5) “ Ashokiana ♂ / ramsdalei Lehrer n. sp. / Det. Dr. A.Z. Lehrer / 2004” [printed]; (6) My determination label ( inermis Malloch). Dissected by Lehrer.</p><p>Note. The abdomen is intact except for the genitalia and ST5 flap which have been removed, probably by Lehrer. The epandrial complex (bacilliform sclerite present on one side only, other side lost), aedeagus with pre- and postgonites plus the basal part of the phallapodeme (i.e., the long-legged intermedium piece), and the ST5 flap were stored in a plastic vial at reception of the holotype in the mail. I have transferred the genitalia to glycerol in a glass microvial pinned below the specimen.</p><p>The holotype has a rather peculiar aedeagus according to the detailed figure by Lehrer (2005: 78, fig. 34C). Rather than reflecting a separate species and genus, however, I have to conclude that the peculiar structure is simply an artifact resulting from an effort (most likely on the part of Lehrer himself) to pry loose the aedeagus from the epandrium to which it has apparently been glued by accident. This effort has partly destroyed the distiphallus by rupturing its midventral wall. The explanation, as I see it, follows below.</p><p>When received by me the aedeagus was glued with its apex to the side of the epandrium near the anal membrane, apparently because of some accident from treatment with glycerol jelly or some other substance (no details are given by Lehrer) (Figs. 74, 75). It was impossible to disconnect the aedeagus from the epandrium by heating the joined complex carefully in a water bath at near boiling point. Nevertheless, it was perfectly possible to study most of the aedeagus. The upper lip could not be observed, but the antlers were clearly visible.</p><p>Seen from the left side (Fig 76), the distiphallus matches perfectly the drawing by Lehrer (2005: 78, fig. 34C). Other angles of view revealed that the peculiar structure of the distiphallus, which led Lehrer to establish the nominal genus Ashokiana (Lehrer, 2005: 22, 78), is simply an artifact resulting from a failed effort to pry loose the aedeagus from the epandrial complex. Evidently pressure has been applied to the basal part of the aedeagus with the attached pre- and postgonites in the hope that the aedeagus might come loose. In the process the ventral wall of the distiphallus has simply ruptured in the middle (between * * in Fig. 77). The basal third of the mid-ventral wall (mv. w.) has remained unharmed but displays a distal termination edge which is angular in ventral view. The peculiar appendix described by Lehrer in the key to Ashokiana on p. 22 [“[d]istiphallus a une structure particulière dans sa partie antéro-inférieure, formée d’une portion supérieure membraneuse et pourvue d’épines récurrentes et d’une portion inférieure plus ou moins sclérifiée et sous forme d’auge”] is the combined distal two-thirds of the midventral wall (mv. w.) plus parts of the hypophallic lobes that have been torn away from and forming an angle with the remainder of the distiphallus as seen in lateral view. Seen from the ventral side the free edge of the projecting appendix has an angular excavation of exactly the same shape as the distal edge of the basal part of the ventral wall, together revealing exactly where the rupture has occurred (between * * in Fig 77). The “portion supérieure membraneuse et pourvue d’épines récurrentes” is simply the torn away internal hypophallic lobes (int. hy. l.), and the “portion inférieure plus ou moins sclérifiée et sous forme d’auge” is the distal two-thirds of the midventral wall (mv. w.). Comparing fig. 19C ( inermis Malloch, as laguna Lehrer) and fig. 34C ( inermis Malloch, as ramsdalei Lehrer) in Lehrer (2005) one can immediately convince oneself of this fact. Close inspection reveals that the membranous part is a bilateral structure as expected, and on the right side it is broken closer to the “auge” than on the other, so that a considerable part of the internal hypophallic lobe remains in situ on the right side (int. hy. l. (right)) to the lower left in Fig. 77). On the left side the whole internal hypophallic lobe (int. hy. l. (left)) is torn away from its natural position. Similarly, a close look at the distal part of the ventral wall [“… sclérifiée et sous forme d’auge”] reveals that it is quite similar to the one in a normal inermis distiphallus in ventral view. The pressure applied to the distiphallus has also caused a vertical rupture in the middle of the external hypophallic lobe on the right side, resulting in a posterior displacement of the lateral finger and shelf area away from the proximal parts of the lobe (Fig. 75). There has also been a rupture in the lateral wall on the left side resulting in an artificially large distance between the shelf area (shelf) of the external hypophallic lobe and the lateral finger (l. f.) (Fig. 76). This is represented by a large clear area in Lehrer’s fig. 34C (Lehrer 2005: 78). Finally, the removal of the distal parts of the mid-ventral wall from its normal position has displaced the distal parts of the remaining external hypophallic lobes, including the ventral finger (v. f.), towards the midline so as to fill the gap (Figs. 75, 77).</p><p>In view of Lehrer’s careful reproduction of the Ashokiana distiphallus it is surprising that he was not aware of the fact that it had already been partly destroyed when he made his drawing. It is equally surprising that Lehrer did not report on the condition of the genitalia of his type specimen (fusion of the epandrial complex with the tip of aedeagus, the rupture of the mid-ventral wall of latter, etc.) and that he failed to understand the true reason behind the peculiar shape of the aedeagus of his ramsdalei holotype.</p><p>The holotype of ramsdalei can safely be assigned to inermis on account of the shape of the ventral finger (long, curved and denticulate on posterior side only), small curved lateral finger, broad antlers terminating in several small points and with a strong and long basal tooth and broad dorsolateral wings. The shape of the ST5 flap, the chaetotaxy of the legs, only yellow setulae on anepimeron, bright yellow body colour and narrow marginal bands on abdominal tergites support this assignment.</p><p>Other material. SDEI: 1 male labelled (1) “Los Banos / P. I. Baker ” [printed; note one pinhole only]; (2) My determination label ( inermis Malloch). Dissected by K. R. Abdominal T1–5 glued to card on pin, genitalia in glycerol in vial on pin. Genitalia shown in Figs. 64–73 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E8851B08654396FAF3A217571D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E8851E08694396FC66A3AB557B.text	B74687E8851E08694396FC66A3AB557B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia latro de Meijere. A 1910	<div><p>6. Bengalia latro de Meijere, 1910</p><p>Figs. 83–97, 178, 191, 203.</p><p>Lectotype male, Indonesia (Java, Semarang) (ZMAN), here designated. For details see Type material below.</p><p>Bengalia latro Jacobson, 1910: 330 . Nomen nudum. Java.</p><p>Bengalia latro de Meijere, 1910: 336 . Lectotype male, here designated, Indonesia (Java: Semarang) (ZMAN). Examined.</p><p>Bengalia latro: Malloch, 1927: 412 . Undissected and unillustrated male from Java and female from Sumatra (both Jacobson leg.) only. [Other specimens belong to lyneborgi James or varicolor Fabricius, see below under those species].</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: James, 1977, in part. Catalogue entry for Java only. Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius.</p><p>Bengalia latro: James, 1977: 530 . Catalogue entry as [erroneous] synonym under Bengalia varicolor (Fabricius) .</p><p>Bengalia latro: de Jong, 2000: 111, 244. Account of type depositories and status.</p><p>Bengalia latro: Verves, 2005: 239 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Afridigalia tenggeria Lehrer, 2006a: 3 . Holotype male, by original designation, Indonesia (Java: Tengger Mts, Nungkodjadjar, 4000 ft) (BMNH). Examined. Syn. nov.</p><p>Diagnosis. A species often with somewhat darkened scutum, pleura, and abdomen; latter sometimes with rather broad black marginal bands. Male. Length: 7–13mm (mean 10.1mm, n=7). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.317 –0.358 (mean 0.336, n=13). Lunula bare. Frontal vitta usually bright yellow anteriorly, often contrasting strongly with darker hind part. Fronto-orbital plate usually without proclinate orbital setae, but a paralectotype male (ZMAN…0118.11) has two proclinate orbital setae on each side, about 2/3 as long as the reclinate prevertical seta. The other males sometimes have a few of the orbital hairs outside of the frontal setae somewhat enlarged but never as strong. Legs yellow, femora often darkened, especially on anterior side. Anepimeron with a bundle of about 25 black setulae among the yellow ground vestiture, all well separated from the katepisternum.</p><p>Fore tibia (Fig. 178) with 7–8 small ventral spine-like setae in proximal half, 2–3 larger than the others; prolonged ground setulae forming a slight fringe distally on ventral side, the setae longer than tibial diameter. Mid tibia with pv fringe distally, fringe setulae much longer than tibial diameter (Fig. 191). Hind tibia with fringe of long densely set av, v and (to a lesser extent) pv setae at distal half or two-thirds (Fig. 203).</p><p>ST5 flap (Fig. 90) with a usually straight or very slightly convex posterior border as seen from above,</p><p>Cerci narrow in dorsal view, curved in lateral view. Surstylus with a dense cover of pale setulae on ventral side (Fig. 83). Triangular projection of bacilliform sclerite pointed.</p><p>ventral view. 87. Distiphallus, left lateral view. 88. Cerci and surstyli, dorsal view. 89. Cerci and surstyli, left lateral view. 90. ST5 flap. 91. Area around lateral and ventral fingers, enlarged view. 92. Distiphallus from in front. Scale = 0.25mm (Figures 84, 86, 87). Abbreviations: l. f. = lateral finger; v. f. = ventral finger.</p><p>Distiphallus with prominent dorsolateral wings and broad, backwardly curving antlers with 2–3 tines at tip. Basal tooth strong. Upper lip projecting beyond base of antlers, distal edge convex in dorsal view, underside strongly concave as seen from in front (Figs. 87, 96). Lateral finger very conspicuous: long, thick, slightly curved, denticulate on all sides and projecting far beyond lateral edges of the hypophallic lobes (Figs. 84, 86, 91, 92). Ventral finger a narrow process in lateral view, projecting well below midventral wall, its anterior edge smooth, without denticles (Figs. 87, 91, 92). Inner and outer hypophallic lobes parallel, not converging with their counterparts. Outer hypophallic lobe with a conspicuous shelf (Figs. 86, 87, 91). Anterior end of midventral wall level with distal end of dorsolateral wings (thus much farther forward than in varicolor .</p><p>Female. Length: 7–11mm (mean 9.4mm, n=4). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.333 –0.350 (mean 0.342, n=6). ST2 as long as wide with 2 well separated strong (though short) erect marginals, sometimes with 2 smaller, one outside each (4 in all). ST3 very short with 2 strong erect marginals as distant as the strong ones on ST2, and sometimes with 1–2 smaller on their inside. ST4 twice as long as ST3 with 6 strong mostly erect marginals in groups of three. The middle in each group stronger than the others, and erect, but sometimes the smaller setae are not developed. ST5 about as long as ST2, broadly triangular, hind end narrower than front end, broadly rounded, with two strong marginals.</p><p>Distribution. Indonesia (Java, also Sumatra [female specimen below]).</p><p>Material examined. Type material. Bengalia latro de Meijere, 1910 . This species was described on the basis of an unknown number of male and female specimens captured in “Semarang, Januar, November; Gunung Ungaran, October, Jacobson leg.; Semarang, Dezember, Drescher leg.”. All the localities are in Java, Indonesia. The syntypes present in RMNH and ZMAN, their labels, and their depository have been reported by de Jong (2000: 111). In addition there are two overlooked male syntypes present in USNM. All material has been examined and is detailed below. To fix the identity of the name Bengalia latro de Meijere, I have selected and labelled a lectotype. I have labelled all the remaining type material with red paralectotype labels. All the original syntypes of B. latro are conspecific, except for one female in RMNH which lacks a pair of discal setae on T5. Its abdominal sternites are shaped quite differently and have a different vestiture compared to the other syntypic females. It is obviously another species than latro .</p><p>Lectotype male, here designated, in ZMAN, labelled (1) “E. JACOBSON / Samarang. Java / Nov. 1909 ” [printed]; (2) “13/57” [printed]; (3) “ Bengalia / latro / de Meijere, 1910 / ZMAN type DIPT.0118.12” [printed on red museum label]; (4) My red lectotype label ( latro de Meijere) (Fig. 95). Dissected by K. R. Abdominal tergites glued to card on pin. Genitalia in glycerol in glass microvial on separate pin with similar lectotype label. Paralectotypes. RMNH: 1 male and 1 female labelled (1) “ Java I. ’06 / Semarang. / Jacobson.” [printed, except “I. ’06” which is handwritten]; (2) “ Bengalia / latro / det. de Meijere.” [handwritten in de Meijere’s hand, except third line which is printed] (Fig. 97). Male dissected by K. R. 1 female labelled (1) “Semarang / Jacobson” [handwritten]; (2) “ Bengalia / latro. / det. de Meijere. / Cotype” [handwritten, except third line which is printed]; (3) “ Bengalia sp. (f) / not latro de Meijere / T5 without discal setae / ST2-5 very different / from latro / K. Rognes det. 2009”. This female lacks a pair of discal setae on T5 and is definitely not latro . It is also much larger than the other syntypic females and the ST2–5 are completely different in shape and setosity. 1 male labelled (1) “ Java / Jacobson” [handwritten]; (2) “Mus. Leiden” [printed], (3) “ Bengalia / latro / det. de Meijere.” [handwritten in de Meijere’s hand, except third line which is printed]. USNM: 1 male labelled (1) “ Java I. ’06 / Semarang. / Jacobson.” [printed, except “I. ’06” which is handwritten]; (2) “ SYNTYPE / Bengalia / latro / De Meijere 1910 / N. E. Woodley ’94” [red label, handwritten except “N. E. Woodley” which is printed]; (3) “ Bengalia / latro / de Meij. / det. de Meijere” [handwritten, upright script, not de Meijere’s]; (4) “ B. latro is in synonymy with / varicolor in James (1977) / but this specimen is / not that species. NEW ’94” [white handwritten label in N. E. Woodley’s hand]; (5) “ USNM / 2046748” [printed on white label]. Flap of ST5 intact and visible. Genital capsule removed and glued to card below specimen, above labels [aedeagus broken, but cerci, surstyli, pre- and postgonites visible]. 1 male labelled (1) “E. Jacobson / Samarang. Java / Nov. 1909 ” [printed]; (2) “13/58” [printed]; (3) “ Bengalia / latro de Meij. ” [handwritten folded white label in de Meijere’s hand, handwriting compared with same writing on RMNH specimens]; (4) “ USNM / 2046748” [printed on white label]. I had an accident with this specimen, and the left mid leg was knocked off and the tarsus lost. The leg has been glued to a card below the specimen above the labels. This male, still undissected but with the ST5 flap visible, and the female from Sumatra 1925 (see below) were studied by Malloch (1927: 410–412), but the genitalia he figured, including the ST5 flap, were not from any of these specimens. See treatment of Bengalia varicolor Fabricius, 1805, below. ZMAN: 1 female labelled (1) “Semarang / Drescher. /12.1905” [printed, except “12” and “05” which are handwritten]; (2) “ Bengalia / latro / de Meijere, 1910 / ZMAN type DIPT.0118.1” [printed on red museum label]. 3 males and 3 females labelled (1) “ Java I. ’06 / Semarang. / Jacobson” [printed, except “I. ’06” which is handwritten]; (2) “ Bengalia / latro / de Meijere, 1910 / ZMAN type DIPT.0118.2–4 [for the males] 5– 7 [for the females]” [printed on red museum label]. 4 males labelled (1) “E. Jacobson / Samarang. Java / Nov. 1909 ” [printed]; (2) “13/56”, “13/46”, “13/48”, “13/52”, respectively; the one with the “13/56” label also carries a small label reading “ ♂ ” [printed]; (3) “ Bengalia / latro / de Meijere, 1910 / ZMAN type DIPT.0118.8–11” [printed on red museum label]. One of these males (…0118.11) has two proclinate orbital setae on each side.</p><p>Afridigalia tenggeria Lehrer, 2006a . Holotype male, in BMNH, labelled (1) “ WEST JAVA: / Tengger Mts. / Nungkodjadjar. / 4000'. V.1938 / B.M.1962-651” [printed]; (2) “ Afridigalia ♂ / tenggeria n. sp / HOLOTYPUS / Det. Dr.A.Z.Lehrer / 2005” [printed pink label]; (3) “ Afridigalia ♂ / tenggeria n. sp / HOLOTYPUS / Det. Dr.A.Z.Lehrer / 2005” [printed pink even larger label]; (4) My determination label ( latro de Meijere). The specimen was somewhat damaged in the mail at reception. On the left side the fore and mid legs lack the tarsus. On the right side the mid leg lacks the tibia and tarsus. The right hind leg with three tarsomeres intact was loose in the box together with four tarsal fragments. The abdomen had been dissected and has spots of glue. The ST5 flap and the genitalia were in glycerol in a large plastic vial. The distiphallus had the left antler broken at base. I have transferred the genitalia to a smaller glass microvial with glycerol and</p><p>Other material. USNM: 1 female labelled (1) “ Fort de Kock / (Sumatra) 920m / 1925 / leg. E. Jacobson. ” [printed]; (2) “ Bengalia / latro / de Meij. / det. E. Jacobson ” [handwritten, similar to writing on male from Java ’06 in USNM, above; possibly Jacobson’s?]; (3) My determination label ( latro de Meijere). This female was studied by Malloch (1927: 410–412) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E8851E08694396FC66A3AB557B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E88512086B4396FE9DA03952E2.text	B74687E88512086B4396FE9DA03952E2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia lyneborgi James 1966	<div><p>7. Bengalia lyneborgi James, 1966</p><p>Figs. 98–108, 179, 192, 204, 214, 215.</p><p>Holotype male, Philippines (Palawan) (ZMUC), by original designation. For details see Type material below.</p><p>Bengalia latro: Malloch, 1927: 412, “… several specimens from Mt. Maquiling, Los Banos, Baguio, and Cuernos Mts., Philippine Islands (C. F. Baker) …” only. Misidentifications, not latro de Meijere.</p><p>Note. I am basing this synonymy on the examination of 3 male and 5 female specimens from Los Banos, Mt. Makiling, Cuernos Mts. (all Philippine Islands), all Baker leg. in USNM (for details, see below). Although only a female from Cuernos Mts. carries a latro determination label by Malloch, it is likely that this determination label refers to all the Philippine specimens collected by C. F. Baker and seen by Malloch. For more details, see entry for Malloch in the synonymy of Bengalia varicolor Fabricius, below .</p><p>Bengalia lyneborgi James, 1966: 467 . Holotype male, by original designation, Philippines (Palawan, Brooke’s Point, Uring Uring, 22 August 1961) (ZMUC). Only photographs of ST5 flap examined.</p><p>Bengalia lyneborgi: James, 1977: 529 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Rueda, 1985: 347 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Philippines.</p><p>Note. Not examined, but Rueda’s illustrations of the ST5 flap (fig. 17) and the aedeagus in dorsal view leave no doubt about the identity of his material.</p><p>Bengalia lyneborgi: Rognes, 1997: 64 (fig. 24). [Tip of ovipositor.]</p><p>Bengalia lyneborgi: Kurahashi &amp; Magpayo, 2000: 47 . Philippines (Culion Is., Luzon, Mindanao, Negros, Palawan).</p><p>Afridigalia jamesi Lehrer, 2005: 45 . Holotype male, by original designation, Philippines (Palawan, Uring Uring, Brooke’s Point) (WSUP). Not examined, but discussed by Rognes (2006: 465–466).</p><p>Afridigalia lyneborgi: Lehrer, 2005: 52 . Philippines.</p><p>Afridigalia nicolasia Lehrer, 2005: 56 . Holotype male, by original designation, Philippines (Busuanga Is., 4km N San Nicolas) (BPBM). Not examined, but discussed by Rognes (2006: 465–466).</p><p>Bengalia lyneborgi: Verves, 2005: 239 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Diagnosis. Male. Length: 10–11mm (n=4). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.308 –0.329 (mean 0.316, n=7). Lunula bare. Fronto-orbital plate without proclinate orbital setae. Anepimeron with a small tuft of 8–15 black setulae. Fore tibia with a bundle of strong spine-like setae on proximal half of ventral surface, the largest seta slightly longer than tibial diameter (Fig. 179). Mid tibia without elongated pv or other setulae distally, only short ground setulae present, much shorter than diameter of tibia (Fig. 192). Hind tibia with long av setae in a not very dense fringe occupying a little more than distal half, no long setae in fringe on v or pv side, only a few short erect setulae (Fig. 204).</p><p>ST5 flap (Fig. 105) almost square with a hind border which varies from almost straight with a slight emargination only, to a type with a quite deep emargination, the bottom of which forms a right angle.</p><p>Cerci (Figs. 102, 103) with a depression in middle as seen in profile. Surstylus without vestiture below. The dorsal projection of the bacilliform sclerite is rather long and blunt.</p><p>Distiphallus with a strongly sclerotised upper lip in the form of a narrow, elongate and slightly upturned process (Figs. 98–100). Mid-dorsal wall perforated by a long dorsal opening along most of its length (Fig. 98, d. o.). Dorsolateral wings projecting horizontally. Antlers hardly sclerotised, short, slightly upturned and grooved on dorsal side, with small irregular processes basally and distally at the front wall of the groove. Lateral finger long and strong, projecting from a prominent vertical sclerotised sheet (Figs. 99, 100, 107). No ventral finger found. External hypophallic lobe inconspicuous, slightly folded in middle and weakly denticulate. Internal hypophallic lobes strongly reduced, without denticles, originating as very low folds close together near base of distiphallus and diverging towards middle and then disappearing. From within the distiphallus two strong sclerotisations curve outwards and forwards, enclosing between them two balloon-like structures with a complex system of internal sclerotisations on each side at the distal end of the ventral part of the distiphallus (Figs. 99, 100).</p><p>Female. Length: 9–10mm (n=5). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.308 –0.342 (mean 0.324, n=6). ST1– 5 and ovipositor as shown Figs. 214, 215. A pair of strong marginals on ST2–4. ST5 elongate oval.</p><p>Distribution. Philippines.</p><p>Material examined. Type material. Bengalia lyneborgi James, 1966 . Holotype male, Philippines (Palawan, Brooke’s Point, Uring Uring, 22 August 1961) (ZMUC). Only photographs of ST5 flap examined. ST5 flap about as shown in Fig. 105.</p><p>Paratypes (all ZMUC). 1 male labelled (1) “ Philippines, Palawan / Brookes Point / Uring Uring / 19 August 1961 / Noona Dan Exp. 61–62” [printed]; (2) “Caught in / Malaise- / traps” [printed]; (3) “ Bengalia / lyneborgi / ♂ James / PARATYPE ” [red handwritten label]. 1 male labelled (1) “ Philippines, Palawan / Brookes Point / Uring Uring / 20 August 1961 / Noona Dan Exp. 61–62” [printed] (dried genitalia on label) (Figs 104, 108); (2) “Caught in / Malaise- / traps” [printed]; (3) “ Bengalia / lyneborgi / ♂ James / PARATYPE ” [red handwritten label]. 1 male labelled (1) “ Philippines, Palawan / Brookes Point / Uring Uring / 25 August 1961 / Noona Dan Exp. 61–62” [printed]; (2) “Caught in / Malaise- / traps” [printed]; (3) “ Bengalia / lyneborgi / ♂ James / PARATYPE ” [red handwritten label] (4) “Dissected / January 2006 / By Knut Rognes” [printed]. Abdominal tergites glued to card on pin, genitalia in glass microvial on pin (Figs. 98– 103, 106–107). 1 female labelled (1) “ Philippines, Palawan / Brookes Point / Uring Uring / 25 August 1961 / Noona Dan Exp. 61–62” [printed]; (2) “Caught in / Malaise- / traps” [printed]; (3) “ Bengalia / lyneborgi / ♀ James / PARATYPE ” [red handwritten label]; (4) “G. pr. 336 / K. Rognes det. 92.” [handwritten, except “ K. Rognes det.” which is printed]. Dissected by K. R.; spermathecae and common oviduct in glycerol in vial on pin; abdominal tergites T1–5 glued to card on pin; ovipositor on slide G. pr. 336 (Figs. 214, 215). 1 male labelled (1) “ Philippines. Palawan / Mantalingajan / Pinigisan 600 m / 8 Sept. 1961 / Noona Dan Exp. 61–62”; (2) “ Bengalia / lyneborgi / ♂ James / PARATYPE ” [red handwritten label]. Not dissected .</p><p>Other material. USNM (all given my determination label ( lyneborgi James)): 1 female labelled (1) “ Los Banos / P. I. Baker ” [printed]; (2) “ ♀ ” (printed in red); (3) “ USNM / 2047114 ” [printed]. 1 female labelled (1) “ Los Banos / P. I. Baker ” [printed]; (2) “23392” [handwritten]; (3) “ USNM / 2047114 ” [printed]. 1 male labelled (1) “ Los Banos / P. I. Baker ” [printed]; (2) “23392” [handwritten]; (3) “ ♂ ” (printed in red); (4) card with genitalia (capsule and aedeagus complex) glued to one end; (5) “ USNM / 2047114 ” [printed]. ST5 flap, in situ on abdominal tip, square with shallow excavation distally. 1 female labelled (1) “ Cuernos Mts / Negros, Baker ” [printed]; (2) “ USNM / 2047114 ” [printed]. 1 female labelled (1) “ Cuernos Mts / Negros, Baker [printed]; (2) “ Ochromyia / latro / de Meij. [handwritten] / Det. J. R. Malloch ” [printed] [folded label]; (3) “ USNM / 2047114 ” [printed]. 1 male labelled (1) “Los Banos / P. I. Baker ” [printed]; (2) “995” [handwritten]; (3) card with right mid leg, right hind leg and dried genital capsule glued to one end; (4) “ ♂ ” [printed in red]; (5) “ USNM / 2047114 ” [printed]. ST5 flap, in situ on abdominal tip, square with quite deep V-shaped incision distally. 1 male labelled (1) “ Mt. Makiling / Luzon, Baker ” [printed]; (2) “ USNM / 2047114 ” [printed]. Dried abdominal tergites folded over one end of upper label, genital capsule glued to other end; abdominal sternites including ST5 flap not present. I have removed the genital capsule from label, boiled it in KOH, dissected the genitalia, and put all parts into a glass microvial with glycerol on the pin. 1 female labelled (1) “ Mt. Makiling / Luzon, Baker ” [printed]; (2) “ USNM / 2047114 ” [printed] . ZMUC: 1 male labelled (1) “ Philippines, Palawan / Brookes Point / Uring Uring / 17 August 1961 / Noona Dan Exp. 61–62” [printed]; (2) “ Bengalia ♂ / lyneborgi / James, 1966 / Det. H. Kurahashi ” [printed]. Dissected by K. R. (Fig. 105) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E88512086B4396FE9DA03952E2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E88510086D4396F8E2A0765075.text	B74687E88510086D4396F8E2A0765075.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia pseudovaricolor Kurahashi & Tumrasvin 1979	<div><p>8. Bengalia pseudovaricolor Kurahashi &amp; Tumrasvin, 1979</p><p>Figs. 109–118, 180, 193, 205.</p><p>Holotype male, Thailand (NMNS), by original designation. For details see Type material below. ventral finger.</p><p>Diagnosis. Male. Length: 11mm. Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.280 (n=1). Lunula bare. Fronto-orbital plate without proclinate orbital setae. Anepimeron mostly covered with densely set black ground setulae, many reaching katepisternum. Only very few yellow ground setulae in lower hind part (close examination necessary). Femora darkened along upper side, fore femur also on anterior side, mid femur darkened all around. Fore tibia without ventral spine-like setae (Fig. 180). Mid tibia without fringe (Fig. 193). Hind tibia without fringe, only a row of 4–6 thin av setae (Fig. 205).</p><p>ST5 flap (Fig. 116) broad, slightly asymmetric, with diverging lateral edges, and a deep excavation in hind edge.</p><p>Cerci strongly curved in profile view (Fig. 115). Surstylus bare below. Distiphallus with horizontal dorsolateral wings. Antlers simple, with no basal tooth. Upper lip not projecting beyond base of antlers. Distal edge of upper lip straight in dorsal view. Vertical sclerotised sheet prominent, with a depression in the anterior edge above the lateral finger. External hypophallic lobe folded in anterior part and forming an almost transverse forwardly facing wall with a strongly projecting and pointed ventral finger. Internal hypophallic lobes converging. Parastomal sclerites (Figs. 110, 111, 117) long, originating close together just below upper lip, curved, with concavity forwards, a small forward projection present slightly below middle.</p><p>Female. Unknown. I expect the female of B. pseudovaricolor to be recognisable (and separable from the female of B. taksina) based on a relatively narrow frons and the mostly black vestiture on the anepimeron reaching katepisternum (like the males).</p><p>Distribution. Thailand.</p><p>Material examined. Type material. Bengalia pseudovaricolor Kurahashi &amp; Tumrasvin, 1979 . Holotype male, in NMNS, labelled (1) “ THAILAND / Doi Pui, 1685m / C. Chiang Mai / 16. IX. 1975 ” [printed]; (2) “Collecter [sic] / R. Kano ” [printed]; (3) “ Bengalia ♂ / pseudovaricolor / sp. nov. / Det. H. Kurahashi,” [handwritten, except last line which is printed; a black line below second line]; (4) “ Holotype ” [printed on red label] (Fig. 113).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E88510086D4396F8E2A0765075	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E8851608704396FB69A2D05098.text	B74687E8851608704396FB69A2D05098.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia surcoufi : Senior-White 1923	<div><p>9. Bengalia surcoufi Senior-White, 1923</p><p>Figs. 119–129, 181, 194, 206.</p><p>Holotype male, India (BMNH), by original designation. For details see Type material below.</p><p>Bengalia surcoufi Senior-White, 1923a: 302 (key), 306 (main entry), Plate II (fig. 11, fore tibia; fig. 12, mid femur), Plate VIII (male genitalia). Holotype male, by original designation, India, West Bengal, Darjiling district, Mungpoo, 24.iii.1920 (BMNH). Examined.</p><p>Note. Mungpoo is spelled variously as Mangpu, Mangphu, Mugpu, and Mongpu on maps.</p><p>Bengalia surcoufi: Senior-White, 1923b: 37 . India.</p><p>Note. Senior-White here records one female from Shillong [Meghalaya] and one female from Matheran [Maharashtra] which “are probably this species, but again I hesitate to distinguish definitely in the female sex between this species and my bezzii, as separation rests only on colour”. Not seen .</p><p>Bengalia surcoufi: Senior-White, 1924: 106 . Specimens from India ( Khasia Hills [Meghalaya] (1♂ 1♀, as “a pair”) and Charapani Tehsil [?]) (1♂). Not seen.</p><p>Note. Senior-White also lists “ two ♂ from Dehra Dun [Uttar Pradesh], xi.07, (Thomson); one of which is noted by Surcouf as ‘probably varicolor F.’ …”. I have been able to examine a specimen which fits these data, although it lacks a Senior-White determination label to the effect that he identified it as surcoufi . It is a specimen of bezzii Senior-White (= varicolor Fabricius) exactly as Surcouf noted on the label. More details are given in the synonymy of Bengalia varicolor, below.</p><p>Bengalia surcoufi: Senior-White, 1926: 139 . India (Khasia Hills [Meghalaya] (cited as “Khasia Hills in Assam ”), and Matheran [Maharashtra] (cited as “ Western Ghats (Matheran)”).</p><p>Note. He also repeats the locality “Dehra Dun ” [Uttar Pradesh], but this record may be dubious (see previous entry).</p><p>Bengalia surcoufi: Senior-White et al., 1940: 101 . India (“the Himalayas (foot-hills), Assam Hills, Western Ghats”).</p><p>Bengalia surcoufi: James, 1977: 530 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Afridigalia surcoufi: Lehrer, 2005: 69 . India (Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal).</p><p>Note. I have re-examined most of Lehrer’s material, except two males from Tamil Nadu (“S. India, Burliyar, 300 ft., Coonoor Ghaut …” and “S. India, Naraikkadu, 2500-3000 ft., Tinnevelly [= Tirunelveli] …”) .</p><p>Bengalia surcoufi: Verves, 2005: 240 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Diagnosis. Male. Length: 8–10mm (n=3). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.317 –0.342 (mean 0.330, n=5). Lunula bare. Fronto-orbital plate without proclinate orbital setae. Anepimeron mostly clothed with yellow setulae, a small bundle of black setulae (3–15) on upper part just below lesser ampulla, numerous yellow ground setulae present in lower part, no black setulae reaching katepisternum. Fore tibia with two spine-like setae longer than the others, both a little shorter than tibial diameter (Fig. 181). Mid tibia without fringe of thin setae, all distal elongate setae shorter than tibial diameter (Fig.194). Hind tibia with a row of 3–5 long thin setae on av surface of apical half in addition to the strong av seta, but without typical fringe (Fig. 206).</p><p>ST5 flap broad, with concave lateral edges (Fig. 127) and a distal excavation.</p><p>Cerci almost straight in profile view, curved near tip. Surstyli with swollen tip (Fig. 126), bare below.</p><p>Distiphallus with horizontal dorsolateral wings. Antlers simple, with small basal tooth. Upper lip projecting beyond base of antlers, its anterior edge convex in dorsal view. Vertical sclerotised sheet prominent, with a straight unserrated anterior edge, and a short thick lateral finger (Fig. 129). External hypophallic lobe not folded distally, terminating below in a weakly projecting almost rounded ventral finger. Internal hypophallic lobes parallel. Parastomal sclerite a narrow and horizontal sclerite projecting forwards lateral to the ejaculatory opening (Fig. 128), in dorsal view curved (Figs. 120, 122), distally strongly sclerotised.</p><p>Female. Unknown.</p><p>Distribution. India (Himachal Pradesh,? Maharashtra [a female specimen only], Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal), Nepal, Pakistan, Vietnam.</p><p>Material examined. Type material. Bengalia surcoufi Senior-White, 1923a . All the 3 original syntypes are staged and the pins are heavily corroded. The collector is G. E. Shaw according to Senior-White (1923a: 307), but this is not stated on any labels. All are in BMNH. Holotype male, labelled (1) “3” [handwriting on stage card]; (2) “TYPE.” [red handwriting]; (3) “Holo- / type” [printed on circular white label with broad red margin]; (4) “ INDIA: / Sikkim. / Mungpoo. / 3800 ft. / 24. iii.1920 ” [handwritten, except first line which is printed]; (5) “ Bengalia / surcoufi, S.-W. / det. R. Senior White.” [handwritten, except last line which is printed]; (6) “Purchd. from / R. Senior White / B.M.1938-460” [printed]; (7) “ Afridigalia ♂ / surcoufi (S.W.) / Det. Dr. A.Z.LEHRER / 2004” [printed]; (8) “ Afridigalia ♂ / surcoufi (S.W.) / Det. Dr. A.Z.LEHRER / 2004” [printed]. The last abdominal segments have been removed. Genital slide in BMNH labelled “ Bengalia / surcoufi / S.-W. / ♂ genitalia. / Type. / 3.V.22.” [handwritten]. Paratypes. 1 male labelled: (1) “1.” [handwriting on stage card]; (2) “Para- / type” [printed on circular white label with broad yellow margin]; (3) “COTYPE” [red handwriting]; (4) “ INDIA: / Sikkim. / Mungpoo. / 1700 ft. / 14.vi.1920 ” [handwritten, except first line which is printed]; (5) “Purchd. from / R.Senior White / B.M.1938-460” [printed]; (6) “ Bengalia / surcoufi, S.-W. / det. R.Senior White.” [handwritten, except last line which is printed]. Right hind, left mid and left fore legs lost. Right fore tibia lost. Not dissected. The ST5 flap is visible, although the abdominal tip is rather mouldy. 1 male labelled: (1) “2” [handwriting on stage card]; (2) “Para- / type” [printed on circular white label with broad yellow margin]; (3) “COTYPE” [red handwriting]; (4) “ INDIA: / Sikkim. / 3800 ' / Mungpoo. / 6.iv.1920.” [handwritten, except first line which is printed]; (5) “Purchd. from / R. Senior White / B.M.1938-460” [printed]; (6) “ Bengalia / surcoufi, S.-W. / det. R.Senior White.” [handwritten, except last line which is printed]. Left fore leg lost. Not dissected. The ST5 flap is visible.</p><p>Other material. MSNM: 1 male labelled (1) “ Kasanli [Himachal Pradesh] / India / Cragg ” [handwritten, Fig. 123]; (2) “ … coufi” [white printed museum label similar to others from MSNM, but posterior half only, anterior half lost]; (3) “ Bengalia ♂ / surcoufi Senior-White / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / XII.2004 ” [printed on white label]; (4) My determination label ( surcoufi Senior-White). The specimen is in good condition with all legs intact. The genital capsule has been removed from the abdomen. The ST 5 flap and the T6 are in place and sclerotised sheet, with lateral finger. Scale = 0.25mm (Figures 119, 120, 122). Abbreviations: ej. o. = ejaculatory opening; l. f. = lateral finger; pst. scl. = parastomal sclerite; v. f. = ventral finger .</p><p>unharmed. Below the specimen there is present on the pin a white card label with three transverse black stripes at base near the pin. At the tip of this card there are some shining remains of glue, and the distiphallus is still sticking to the glue by its right antler. Judging from the extent of the glue there must once have been more genital parts attached to it. In a large plastic vial were some dry genital remains: an intact genital capsule with epandrium, cerci and surstyli, incl. bacilliform sclerites, but no aedeagal parts. In addition there was some unidentifiable debris in the vial: a few fibres and some flat pieces of unknown nature, and part of an insect leg (black) which does not belong to the specimen on the pin. Everything has now been placed in glycerol in a glass vial. This specimen appears to have been used by Lehrer (2005) for the illustration in his fig. 30B of the cerci and surstyli in profile view. Lehrer (2005: 71) miscites the label locality as “Kasanki”. 1 male labelled (1) “Ind. Mus. / [long black printed line] / Kalimpong [West Bengal], / Darjiling dist / E. Himalayas, / 600–4500 ft. / 24.IV – 10.V.15 / F. H. Gravely [transverse text along the left margin of label]” [yellowish label with black print]; (2) “surcoufi” [white museum label with black print]; (3) “ Bengalia ♂ / surcoufi Senior-White / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / XII.2004 ” [printed on white label, pinned at middle]; (4) “ Bengalia ♂ / surcoufi Senior-White / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / XII.2004 ” [printed on white label, pinned near right hand edge]; (5) My determination label ( surcoufi Senior-White). The specimen was mostly destroyed in the mail at reception. The large Lehrer type plastic vial had come loose in transit. On the pin is only the thorax and head, both in good shape. Both fore legs are in situ and in good shape, except that the right fore leg lacks the tarsus. Both mid legs have broken off. The right hind leg is in good shape and in situ, but lacks the three distal-most tarsomeres. Loose in the box were two wings, the abdomen [which had the genital capsule and the whole ST5 removed], the left hind leg [lacking the distal-most four tarsomeres], right mid leg [tarsus lost], left mid femur, left mid tibia. These parts have now been glued onto a piece of stiff paper. In the large plastic vial were the following already dissected genital parts in glycerol: ST5 + ST5 flap [a small part of ST5 broken off and present as a separate piece]; hypandrium + pre- and postgonites on both sides + phallapodeme + aedeagus [tip of right antler and its basal tooth broken off] in one piece; epandrium + two cerci + basal parts of both surstyli + bacilliform sclerites [both pieces on one side, lowermost piece lost on the other]; one loose distal surstylar piece, the other distal surstylar piece lost. The ejaculatory sclerite is absent. All the genital parts have now been placed in glycerol in a smaller glass microvial. This specimen appears to have been used by Lehrer (2005) for the illustrations in his fig. 30A, C–E.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E8851608704396FB69A2D05098	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E8850B08734396FAF7A4BE571D.text	B74687E8850B08734396FAF7A4BE571D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia taksina (Lehrer 2005)	<div><p>10. Bengalia taksina (Lehrer, 2005), comb. nov.</p><p>Figs. 130–138, 182, 195, 207.</p><p>Holotype male, Thailand (BMNH), by original designation. For details see Type material below.</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: James, 1977: 530, in part. Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Catalogue entry for Laos, Malaya, Vietnam.</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Inder Singh et al., 1979: 8 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Malaysia ( Bukit Mandul, 20km S Kuala Lumpur, “ 1.XI.1975 ”).</p><p>Note. Tentative synonymy. I have not seen the material from Malaysia, but I assume that Kurahashi considers the Malaysia material to be the same as the Thailand material (mis)identified as varicolor by Tumrasvin et al. (1979).</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Tumrasvin et al., 1979: 261, Plate 1 fig. 6 (ST5 flap), Plate 2 fig. 22 (aedeagus in profile), Plate 3 fig. 34 (cerci, surstyli, epandrium in profile), Plate 4 fig. 45 (cerci, surstyli, dorsal view). Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Thailand.</p><p>Note. Not examined, but fig. 22 in Tumrasvin et al. (1979) fits exactly the concept of taksina .</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Kurahashi &amp; Thapa, 1994: 219 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Nepal.</p><p>Note. Tentative synonymy. I have not seen material from Nepal, but I assume Kurahashi considers the Nepal material to be the same as the Thailand material misidentified as varicolor by Tumrasvin et al. (1979). The ST5 flap (Kurahashi &amp; Thapa 1994: fig. 8a) is also similar.</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Kurahashi et al., 1997: 43 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Malaysia (Bukit Mamdul [sic],</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Kurahashi &amp; Chowanadisai, 2001: 203 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Vietnam.</p><p>Note. I have examined 3 males (1 male dissected) from Vietnam listed by Kurahashi &amp; Chowanadisai as varicolor, and 1 female from Laos and 1 female from Vietnam (identified by Kurahashi as varicolor, but not published by Kurahashi &amp; Chowanadisai, see below) .</p><p>Afridigalia taksina Lehrer, 2005: 71 . Holotype male, by original designation, Thailand (Doi Chom Chang, nr. Chiengmai) (BMNH). Examined.</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Verves, 2005: 240, in part. Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Catalogue entry for Thailand, Laos, Vietnam.</p><p>Afridigalia thaisia Lehrer, 2008: 28 . Holotype male, by original designation, Thailand ( Soppong, 8km S Rt 1095, near Ban Nam Rim) (TAU). Not examined. Syn. nov.</p><p>Note. Lehrer does not state what features led him to describe thaisia as a species different from taksina . The ST5 flap of thaisia differs from the one in taksina both by being slightly asymmetric and rather short. I do not consider the asymmetry as sufficient reason for regarding it as a separate species. The ST5 flap in pseudovaricolor is also slightly asymmetric, just as in some of the specimens of taksina from Vietnam, and also in other species. The shortness must be treated as within an expected range of variation.</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Heo et al., 2008: 263 . Misidentification, not varicolor Fabricius. Malaysia (Malaya).</p><p>Note. Tentative synonymy. I have not seen this material but I assume their concept of varicolor is the same as the one of, e.g., Kurahashi et al. (1997) (cf. above), a paper cited in their work.</p><p>Diagnosis. Male. Length: 8–13mm (n=4). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.275 –0.286 (mean 0.282, n=4). Lunula bare. Fronto-orbital plate without proclinate orbital setae. 1–2 prst dc in front of main prst dc. Anepimeron with a small bundle of black ground setulae in upper two-fifths, none reaching katepisternum; densely set yellow ground setulae in the three-fifths below it; lowermost black setulae widely separated from katepisternum. All femora darkened. Fore tibia with 4–5 small and inconspicuous ventral spine-like setae in basal half (Fig. 182) [difficult to observe since 2 of 3 specimens had the fore tibia and femur closely appressed]. Mid tibia without fringe distally (Fig. 195). Hind tibia with conspicuous av fringe (Fig. 207) with short erect setae also on v side.</p><p>ST5 flap (Fig. 136) with lateral edges not diverging as much as in pseudovaricolor, distal excavation somewhat deeper. Slightly asymmetric, strongly so in a small Vietnam male in BPBM.</p><p>Cerci curved in lateral view (Fig. 134). Surstyli bare below.</p><p>Distiphallus with horizontal dorsolateral wings. Antlers simple, with a very small basal tooth, sometimes minute. Upper lip not projecting beyond base of antlers. Distal edge of upper lip straight in dorsal view. Vertical sclerotised sheet prominent, without (holotypes of taksina and thaisia) or with (Vietnam male dissected) a depression in the anterior edge above the lateral finger; the latter is bent laterally at the tip. External hypophallic lobe folded in anterior part and forming an almost transverse forwardly facing wall with a strongly projecting pointed ventral finger. Internal hypophallic lobes strongly converging. Parastomal sclerites (Figs. 131, 132, 137) long, originating close together just below upper lip, curved, with concavity facing forwards, a small forward projection present slightly above middle.</p><p>Female. Length: 12mm (n=1). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.283 –0.300 (mean 0.292, n=2), thus quite narrow for a female. Anepimeron with a small bundle of black ground setulae in upper third, none reaching katepisternum; densely set yellow ground setulae in the two-thirds below it; lowermost black setulae widely separated from katepisternum. ST2, ST3, ST4 each with a pair of strong erect marginal setae. ST5 broad distally without marginal setae.</p><p>Discussion. Bengalia taksina is obviously very closely related to B. pseudovaricolor, both having a very narrow frons and a similar distiphallus in the male. The ST5 flap in B. taksina differs slightly from the one in B. pseudovaricolor, but may not be diagnostic when more specimens are studied. The latter species has no ventral spine-like setae on fore tibia (despite the description by Kurahashi &amp; Tumrasvin to the contrary), whereas B. taksina has a few inconspicuous ones. The best characters to distinguish the two species seem to be the presence of a conspicuous fringe on the hind tibia in the male B. taksina, and the large number of long yellow ground setulae below the bundle of black ones on the anepimeron. In B. pseudovaricolor there are 0.25mm (Figures 130, 131, 132, 138). Abbreviations: d. o. = dorsal opening; l. f. = lateral finger; pst. scl. = parastomal sclerite (arrow points to its lower end); v. f. = ventral finger.</p><p>Distribution. Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam.</p><p>Material examined. Type material. Afridigalia taksina Lehrer, 2005 . Holotype male, in BMNH, labelled (1) “HOLO- / TYPE” [printed on round white label with red margin] (2) “ HOLOTYPUS ” [printed on red label]; (3) “N. Siam: / Doi Chom Chang, / nr. Chiangmai. / 10.IV.1921. / Dr. M. E. Barnes / 1921.393.” [handwritten on yellowish label]; (4) “ Afridigalia ♂ / taksina Lehrer n. sp. / Det. Dr. A.Z. LEHRER / 2005” [printed] (Fig. 133). Dissected by Lehrer; dissected parts transferred from large opaque plastic vial to glass microvial by K. R.</p><p>Other material. BPBM: 3 males labelled (1) “ VIET NAM: Dalat / 6 km S., 1400–1500m / 9.VI— 7.VII.1961 ” [printed]; (2) “ N. R. Spencer / Collector” [printed]; (3) “ Bengalia ♂ / varicolor / (Fab., 1805) / Det. H. Kurahashi ” [printed]; (4) My determination label ( taksina Lehrer). One of the males dissected by K. R. T1–5 glued to card on pin; ST1–5 and dissected genitalia in glass microvial; ST5 flap lost by accident . 1 female labelled: (1) “ LAOS: / Vientiane Prov. / Ban Van Eue / 15.III.1966 ” [printed]; (2) “ Malaise Trap ” [printed]; (3) “Native Collector / BISHOP MUS.” [printed]; (4) “ Bengalia ♀ / varicolor / (Fab., 1805) / Det. H. Kurahashi ” [printed]; (5) My determination label ( taksina Lehrer). [Not published by Kurahashi &amp; Chowanadisai (2001)] . 1 female labelled (1) “ VIET NAM. Dak Song / 76 km SW of / BanMe Thuot, 870m / 19–21.V.1960 ” [printed]; (2) “ L. W. Quate / Collector” [printed]; (3) “ Bengalia ♀ / varicolor / (Fab., 1805) / Det. H. Kurahashi ” [printed]; (4) My determination label ( taksina Lehrer). Dissected by Kurahashi. Abdomen with ovipositor in glass vial on pin with cork stopper. [Not published by Kurahashi &amp; Chowanadisai (2001)] .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E8850B08734396FAF7A4BE571D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E8850808754396FC71A30857CE.text	B74687E8850808754396FC71A30857CE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia unicolor Seguy 1946	<div><p>11. Bengalia unicolor Séguy, 1946</p><p>Figs. 139–148, 183, 196, 208.</p><p>Holotype male, Pakistan (MNHN), by monotypy. For details see Type material below.</p><p>Bengalia unicolor Séguy, 1946: 85 . Holotype male, fixed by monotypy, Pakistan (Karachi) (MNHN). Examined.</p><p>Note. Séguy did not explicitly state that he based his species on one specimen only, nor did he use the word “ Holotype ” or “Type” or similar expression in the published text, but only one specimen is present in MNHN fitting the information that Séguy published about the material before him, and I take the specimen to be a holotype fixed by monotypy. The specimens bears a Séguy “TYPE” label (Fig. 143). Séguy (1946: fig. 1a) illustrated the ST5 flap .</p><p>Bengalia unicolor: James, 1977: 530 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Bengalia unicolor: Kurahashi &amp; Afzal, 2002: 221 . Pakistan (Baluchistan, Khuzdar). Single female specimen, not seen by me.</p><p>Note. Kurahashi &amp; Afzal cite the holotype male in MNHN to be among “Type material examined”. But their citation of the museum depository is preceded by a question mark (“…? (MNHN).”) which seems to indicate that they did not examine the specimen, but only suggested that it was possibly housed in that museum .</p><p>Bengalia unicolor: Verves, 2005: 240 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Diagnosis. Male. Length: 11.5mm. Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.321 (n=1). Lunula with a pair of setulae. Anepimeron with long thin yellow setulae only, no black setulae. Fore tibia with a number of ventral spine-like setae in basal half, at least two of these much stronger than the other spine-like setae and about as long as tibial diameter (Fig. 183). A distinct fringe distally on mid tibia, setae about twice as long as tibial diameter (Fig. 196). Hind tibia also with a strong fringe, occupying distal three fourths of the tibia (Fig. 208). Basal segment of hind tarsus with an av row of delicate setae a little longer than segment diameter. Mid femur with the pv ctenidium of short stubby spine-like setae continuing mediad slightly beyond middle of femur; about 15–18 spine-like setae in all, 4–5 longer pv setae basad.</p><p>ST5 flap rectangular, slightly longer than broad (Fig. 146), the distal corners are somewhat bent dorsally so they appear slightly too short in the figure.</p><p>Cerci strongly curved in lateral view. Surstylus narrow, blunt distally, bare below. Process of the bacilliform sclerite strongly pointed.</p><p>upper lip (Fig. 139). Upper lip projecting beyond base of antlers, distal edge almost straight in dorsal view. Two dark lines apparent in dorsal and ventral views of upper lip (Figs. 140, 141) mark the insertion from below of two supporting vertical walls. These are seen in lateral view as triangular flanges, very weakly sclerotised, the anterior edge (almost invisible in Fig. 142) passing from tip of lip to a point lateral to the ejaculatory opening. Lateral finger thin, slightly curved and smooth, a few denticles at tip only (Fig. 147). Internal hypophallic lobes converging. External hypophallic lobes folded distally and end in two spatula-like projections proceeding forwards and ventrally (Figs. 140, 142). Strongly sclerotised flaps on each side of the ejaculatory opening (Figs. 140, 142, 148).</p><p>Female. Unknown.</p><p>Distribution. Pakistan.</p><p>Material examined. Type material. Bengalia unicolor Séguy, 1946 . Holotype male, in MNHN, labelled (1) “MUSEUM PARIS / KURRACHEE [= Karachi] / (Août – Sept.) / MAINDRON 133-96” [yellow label with black print]; (2) “TYPE” [red label with black print]; (3) “ Bengalia / unicolor / ♂ TYPE. Seg. / E. Séguy vid. 46” [white label in Séguy’s black handwriting, except “E. Séguy vid.” which is printed; a printed black line present along the lower edge of label]. Dissected by K. R. The specimen is somewhat teneral as evident from the protruding ptilinium and the slightly wrinkled abdomen. The abdomen had large black spots on each side of the anterior half of T4, slightly intruding on T3, but they disappeared after boiling in KOH. T1+2 had a very faint and narrow band, and T3 and T4 a broader black marginal band, but no black bands remained in the dissected abdomen. T1–5 (as a unit), ST1–5 including ST5 flap (as a unit), and genitalia are kept in glycerol in a glass vial on the pin.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E8850808754396FC71A30857CE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E8850E087C4396FC06A1EE55B9.text	B74687E8850E087C4396FC06A1EE55B9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia varicolor (Fabricius 1805)	<div><p>12. Bengalia varicolor (Fabricius, 1805)</p><p>Figs. 149–161, 184, 185, 197, 209.</p><p>Holotype male, India (Tamil Nadu) (ZMUC), by monotypy. For details see Type material below.</p><p>Musca varicolor Fabricius, 1805: 296 . Holotype male, fixed by monotypy, India (Tamil Nadu province, Tarangambadi [as “ Habitat Tranquebariae ” (Fig. 161)]) (ZMUC). Examined and dissected.</p><p>Note. Zimsen (1964) recorded only one specimen from the Sehested and Tønder Lund collection in ZMUC, and I regard it as highly unlikely that more than one specimen was ever before Fabricius. Thus I treat it as a holotype and not a lectotype. It fits well with the original description (Figs. 159, 161) .</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Bezzi, 1913: 78, “… ich habe vor mir ein Männchen aus Trichinopoly [now Tiruchchirāpalli in Tamil Nadu], Südindien, 1911 (F. Cajus).” India.</p><p>Note. This specimen in Bezzi’s collection carries a handwritten determination label (with three ruled lines inside a black frame) reading: “ B. varicolor ♂, comparée au type ” (“au” not “avec”, as rendered by Lehrer 2005: 29). The handwriting is definitely not by Bezzi, but most likely by Surcouf. Surcouf (1920: 36) writes that he is in the possession of “quatre exemplaires de Bengalia provenant de Trichinopoly et de Madras ...” and even though he also writes that “… ces exemplaires ont été nommés B. jejuna par P r Bezzi …”, Bezzi himself (1913: 74, 78) mentions only two specimens from Trichinopoly, both Caius leg., one under jejuna, and one under varicolor . [The remaining two Surcouf specimens may be the types of chromatella Séguy, 1946 and pallidicoxa Séguy, 1946 in MNHN, see below]. I suggest that Bezzi received these specimens from Surcouf, perhaps as a return favour for allowing him to examine Bezzi’s collection (Surcouf 1920: 27, 31, 45) for his monograph on the “ Muscidae Testaceae”. Surcouf (1920: 27, 31, 39) also states that he examined material sent to him “... du Musée de Copenhague, dont le directeur W. LUNDBECK a bien voulu nous communiquer les types precieux de FABRICIUS et de WIEDEMANN, ...”. This makes it very likely that (1) Surcouf studied the type of Musca varicolor Fabricius, and (2) that it was Surcouf who compared the Trichinopoly specimen now in Bezzi’s collection with the Fabrician type and subsequently wrote a determination label to this effect in French. However, we can of course never be certain as to exactly which features of the Trichinopoly specimen he found to agree with the varicolor type, as he never communicated any thoughts he might have had on this matter. In any case he was spot on in the interpretation of the Fabrician species.</p><p>This specimen is one of the three that Lehrer (2005: 28–29) examined for his treatment of bezzii Senior-White, but his figures of the genitalia (figs. 9A–E) must have been prepared from one of the two specimens from Laos, as the and such a nick is present in Bezzi’s Trichinopoly specimen in MSNM. Bezzi (1913: 74) describes the ST5 flap: “… untere Lamelle breit und stumpf”. This fits very well with this specimen .</p><p>Bengalia variicolor [sic]: Villeneuve, 1914: 255, “… B. variicolor F. … que j’ai reçue en 7 exemplaires capturés dans l’ìle Formose. – B. variicolor ♂ ... l’écaille préanale, étalée en arriere, est non ou étroitement échancrée”. Taiwan.</p><p>Note. I have seen a male from “ Koshun / Formosa / Sauter VII 08” (in SDEI) identified by Villeneuve as “ Bengalia / varicolor F. / Villeneuve det.” (in Villeneuve’s handwriting) which possibly is one of these 7 specimens. I have dissected it. It has a ST5 flap that fits the given description and external and genital features indicate without any doubt that it belongs to varicolor . So Villeneuve’s identification of this particular specimen was correct .</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Surcouf, 1920: 39 .</p><p>Bengalia bezzii Senior-White, 1923a: 306 . Holotype male, fixed by original designation, Sri Lanka (Suduganga) (BMNH). Genitalia in Canada balsam on separate slide. Examined. Syn. nov.</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: Senior-White, 1923b: 37 . India (Bihar).</p><p>Note. Senior-White states to have identified from “… the Pusa collection a ♂ from Pusa … 3 ♂ from Chapra … a ♂ from Dumraon …”. Not seen .</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: Senior-White, 1924: 105 . India (Bombay, Sidapur, Chhat in Punjab), Pakistan (Cherat). Not seen.</p><p>Bengalia surcoufi: Senior-White, 1924: 106 . India (specimen from Dehra Dun [Uttar Pradesh] only). Misidentification, not surcoufi Senior-White.</p><p>Note. Senior-White mentions to have identified as surcoufi “… two ♂ from Dehra Dun, xi.07, (Thomson); one of which is noted by Surcouf as ‘probably varicolor F.’; …”. This may be the specimen re-identified by Lehrer (2006a: 7) as bezzii . I have been able to examine this specimen and it is labelled (1) “Dehra Dun. / U.P. / India / Nov. 1907. / Lt.-Col. F. W. Thomson / I.M.S. / 1908—21.” [printed]; (2) “Probablement B. varicolor Fab. ” [handwritten in Surcouf’s hand]; (3) “ Afridigalia ♂ / bezzi [sic] (Senior-White) / Det. Dr. A.Z.Lehrer / 2005” [printed]. The genitalia have been dissected by Lehrer. I have transferred them to a glass microvial. ST5 flap is of usual shape, but without a nick in the hind margin.</p><p>Again, Surcouf has identified the specimen correctly as varicolor, having previously seen the Fabrician type (see above). However, it is very strange that Senior-White has misidentified his own bezzii (= varicolor) as his own surcoufi, in view of the widely different ST5 flaps. But it should be noted that there is no direct evidence (e.g., from a determination label) that it is the same specimen that Senior-White (1924: 106) mentions under surcoufi .</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: Senior-White, 1926: 139 . India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka.</p><p>Bengalia latro: Malloch, 1927: 410, figs. 17a, 17b, 17c. Specimens from India (Coimbatore) only. Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. [Specimens from the Philippines belong to lyneborgi James, see above under that species; also below.]</p><p>Note. The ST5 flap shown in fig. 17c and the aedeagus figured in fig. 17b are definitely not from any specimen(s) of latro . The male Java specimen from 1909 mentioned by Malloch, which is one of two overlooked syntypes of latro de Meijere in USNM, has of course been examined by Malloch, but is not dissected and therefore cannot be the source for his figs. 17a and 17b. On inspection the ST5 flap of the Java 1909 specimen has a much broader base than the one shown in fig. 17c, an even and gently curved hind edge without a notch in the middle and with rounded distal corners as usual in latro . The general shape and the indentation present in the hind margin of the ST5 flap in Malloch’s fig. 17c suggests that this figure most likely has been made from one of the Coimbatore specimens, of which Malloch says he had a large series before him. Almost all the USNM specimens from Coimbatore, which I have examined, some or all of which may have been seen by Malloch, have such a notch in ST5 flap clearly visible without dissection and resemble his fig. 17c by having a narrow base and less rounded distal corners. All belong to bezzii Senior-White (now = varicolor Fabricius).</p><p>The source for figs. 17a and 17b, which show dissected genitalia, is obscure, the problem being that none of the Coimbatore specimens in USNM that Malloch might have seen have been dissected (one male has subsequently been dissected by me, see below for details).</p><p>It should be mentioned that Malloch also refers to specimens of his “ latro ” from Philippine Islands. I received from USNM several specimens of Bengalia lyneborgi James from the Philippines of which some must have been seen by Malloch. A female carried an identification label reading “Ochromyia / latro / de Meij. / Det. J.R. Malloch”. Some of the males had been dissected (dry genitalia were glued to labels or cards). But the aedeagus of these dissected males does not fit figure 17b at all. Several very characteristic features of the lyneborgi aedeagus should have been present in the drawing had this species served as basis for the figures, particularly the large bulge at the ventral part of the distal aedeagal opening so typical of lyneborgi in profile view, and the central strong pointed hook/tooth (the upper lip) above the distal aedeagal opening.</p><p>From these considerations I conclude that figs. 17a, b have been made from the same Coimbatore specimen that served as basis for fig. 17c, i.e., from a dissected specimen of bezzii, now possibly lost or returned to Mr. Y.</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: Senior-White, 1930: 70 . India (“ Chakhadapore, Chota Nagpur ” [Madhya Pradesh]) (1 female). Not seen.</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Townsend, 1931: 371 . Description of the examined male type of Musca varicolor Fabricius.</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: Senior-White et al., 1940: 99 . Records from Ceylon and India only.</p><p>Note. The record of “ bezzii ” from Philippines in Senior-White et al. is based only on the dissected holotype of Bengalia inermis Malloch, synonymised erroneously under bezzii . The latter species (now varicolor) is not known from the Philippines (Kurahashi &amp; Magpayo 2000).</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Hennig, 1941: 180, in part. Two males and three females Villeneuve det. and Baranoff det. in SDEI, see below under Material examined. Taiwan.</p><p>Bengalia chromatella Séguy, 1946: 84 . Holotype female, fixed by monotypy, India (Tamil Nadu, Chennai [= Madras]) (MNHN). Examined. Syn. nov.</p><p>Note. A modest number of black setulae present on the anepimeron. A pair of black setae on ST2–4. The specimen is possibly from Surcouf’s collection, cf. his statement to the effect that he is in the possession of “quatre exemplaires de Bengalia provenant de Trichinopoly et de Madras ...” (Surcouf 1920: 36). The three others, all from Trichinopoly, are two specimens in MSNM and the holotype of pallidicoxa Séguy, see below .</p><p>Bengalia pallidicoxa Séguy, 1946: 84 . Holotype female, fixed by monotypy, India (Tamil Nadu, Tiruchchirāpalli [as “ Trichinopoly ”]) (MNHN). Examined. Syn. nov.</p><p>Note. This specimen is possibly also from the same series as the Bezzi (1913) specimen of varicolor, above, as it carries an identical locality label. A modest number of black setulae on anepimeron. A pair of black setae on ST2–4, otherwise only yellow ground setulae. [Séguy (1946) always cites Caius’s name with the initial “P.”, whereas Bezzi (1913) and Surcouf (1920: 53) cite the name with the initial “F.”. All the labels I have seen with the Caius name on it also have an unmistakable “F.” as the single initial. I take “F. Caius” as the correct name.]</p><p>Musca varicolor: Zimsen, 1964: 489 . Entry no. 770 in list of Fabrician types of Diptera in ZMUC.</p><p>Bengalia latro: Fan, 1965: 191, fig. 752. Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. China (Hainan, Zhejiang).</p><p>Note. Fan’s fig. 752, clearly shows a nick in the hind margin, which is never present in the ST5 flap of latro . Fan included Taiwan citing Hennig (1941), but Hennig’s records of “ latro ” from Taiwan are all based on misidentified specimens of emarginata .</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: James, 1966: 469, fig. 5. India (Coimbatore).</p><p>Bengalia latro: Kurahashi, 1967: 257, fig. 1. Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. Japan (Ryukyu Is.).</p><p>Note. Kurahashi’s fig. 1 on p. 258 clearly shows a nick in the hind margin, never present in the ST5 flap of latro . [There is an error of omission in the description of the tibiae on p. 258, compare with the corresponding text in Kano &amp; Shinonaga, 1968: 100, which has the complete text].</p><p>Bengalia latro: Kano &amp; Shinonaga, 1968: 99, Plate XVI fig. 31. Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. Japan (Ryukyu Is).</p><p>Note. The ST5 flap is shown without a conspicuous indentation in the hind margin, a feature shown occasionally in varicolor, and which makes the ST5 flap very similar to the one in latro, but the aedeagus figured is definitely not from latro .</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: James, 1977: 528 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Bengalia chromatella: James, 1977: 528 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Bengalia pallidicoxa: James, 1977: 529 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: James, 1977: 530 . Catalogue entry. Applies only to type locality of Musca varicolor Fabricius.</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: Tumrasvin et al., 1979: 260, Plate 1 fig. 4 (ST5 flap), Plate 2 fig. 23 (aedeagus in profile), Plate 3 fig. 31 (epandrium, cerci and surstyli in profile), Plate 4 fig. 44 (cerci, surstyli, dorsal view) [legend to this figure by error (some luck!) given as “ Bengalia varicolor ” on p. 267]. Thailand.</p><p>Note. Tumrasvin et al. illustrated a very important feature, namely the very dense vestiture on the underside of the distal section of the surstylus (Plate 3 fig. 31), but did not mention this feature anywhere in the text.</p><p>Bengalia latro: Maschwitz &amp; Schönegge, 1980 . Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. Sri Lanka (Anuradhapura).</p><p>Note. One of Maschwitz &amp; Schönegge’s specimens is in SMNS. See below for details.</p><p>Bengalia latro: Fan, 1992: 532, fig. 1107i. Misidentification, not latro de Meijere. China (Hainan, Sichuan, Zhejiang).</p><p>Note. Fan again included Taiwan citing Hennig (1941), but Hennig’s records of “ latro ” from Taiwan are all based on misidentified specimens of emarginata .</p><p>Musca varicolor: Thompson &amp; Pont, 1994: 131 . Entry in database of Musca names, given the annotation “ Calliphoridae, Bengalia varicolor Fabricius ”.</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: Kurahashi &amp; Thapa, 1994: 216 . [In key only, no records from Nepal.]</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: Kurahashi et al., 1997: 40 . Malaysia (Malaya).</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: Fan 1997: 449, figs. 138e, 138i. China (Fujian, Guangdong, Hainan, Sichuan, Zhejiang), Taiwan.</p><p>observed in latro .</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: Kurahashi &amp; Chowanadisai, 2001: 201 . Vietnam.</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: Kurahashi &amp; Afzal, 2002: 220 . Pakistan.</p><p>Afridigalia bezzi [sic]: Lehrer, 2005: 28. India, Laos.</p><p>Note. For a discussion of the specimens examined by Lehrer, see above under entry for Bezzi (1913).</p><p>Bengalia bezzii: Verves, 2005: 238 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Bengalia chromatella: Verves, 2005: 238 . Catalogue entry.</p><p>Bengalia pallidocoxa [sic]: Verves, 2005: 239. Catalogue entry.</p><p>Bengalia varicolor: Verves, 2005: 240 . Catalogue entry. Applies only to locality listed as “ India: … Tamil Nadu ”, which must be referring to the type locality of Musca varicolor .</p><p>Bengalia bezzi [sic]: Rognes, 2006: 460, 464, 465, 468. Thailand.</p><p>Afridigalia bezzi [sic]: Lehrer, 2006a: 6. Material identified from India (numerous localities cited: Coimbatore, Jeypore, Nilgiri Hills, Anamalaia Hills, Dehra Dun, Delhi Canton, Jubblepore, Tulsi, Luchnow), Indonesia (Java), Japan (Ryukyu Is.), Laos, Malaysia, Singapore [listed in error among Indian localities by Lehrer (2006a)], Taiwan.</p><p>Note. A male from Dehra Dun in BMNH re-examined. For details and comments, see above under entry for “ Bengalia surcoufi: Senior White 1924 ”, and under Material examined below.</p><p>Diagnosis. Male. Length 9–11mm (n=14). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.317 –0.358 (mean 0.333, n=14). Fronto-orbital plate without proclinate orbital setae. Lunula bare. Anepimeron mostly clothed with yellow hairs, less than 12–15 (down to 1–2) black setulae in a bundle on the upper posterior part, elsewhere with yellow setulae only. Fore tibia with a number of small ventral spine-like setae in basal half, two of them stronger than the others, but not as long as tibial diameter (Figs. 184, 185). No pv fringe distally on mid tibia, setae in this region shorter than diameter of mid tibia (Fig. 197). Hind tibia usually with a weak av fringe (Fig. 209), though occasionally elongated and erect setulae may extend on to v and pv side.</p><p>ST5 flap concave laterally, much narrower in basal than distal half, posterolateral corners usually rather acute, distal margin slightly convex and usually (but not always) with a small pronounced notch at middle (Fig. 155).</p><p>Cerci curved in lateral view (Fig. 153). Surstylus with a dense cover of yellow setulae on underside (Fig. 158). Process of the bacilliform sclerite squarish with a pointed tip.</p><p>Distiphallus with prominent upturned dorsolateral wings (Figs. 152, 157) and broad backwardly curved antlers, with a strong basal tooth (Figs. 149, 152). Upper lip large, strengthened in middle, distal edge convex in dorsal view, and lip concave below as seen from in front (Fig. 157). Lateral finger small and hardly projecting beyond lateralmost point of external hypophallic lobe (Fig. 150). Internal hypophallic lobes not converging. External hypophallic lobe short, folded in its distal part, a shelf present (Fig. 156). Ventral finger a rounded structure in lateral view (Figs. 152, 156) not or hardly projecting beyond midventral wall of distiphallus. Anterior end of midventral wall level with middle of dorsolateral wings in profile view (Fig. 152), thus giving the distiphallus a strongly “receding lower jaw” impression.</p><p>Female. Length 9–10mm (n=5). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.317 –0.350 (mean 0.340, n=5). ST2– 4 with strong erect marginal setae. Ovipositor and spermathecae figured by Kano &amp; Shinonaga (1968, as B. latro). A female from Taiwan has very few black setulae on anepimeron, 0 on left, 1 on right side (SDEI: “ Tainan / <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-0.35&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=0.317" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -0.35/lat 0.317)">Formosa</a> …”) .</p><p>Distribution. China (Fujian, Guangdong, Guizhou, Hainan, Sichuan, Yunnan, Zhejiang), India, Indonesia (Java), Japan (Ryukyu Is.), Laos, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam.</p><p>Material examined. Type material. Musca varicolor Fabricius, 1805 . Holotype male, in ZMUC, labelled (1) “M: varicolor / e Tranqueb: Daldorff” [in black script] (Fig. 160); (2) “TYPE” [red label, black print], (3) “ ZMUC / 00503992” [white label, black print]. Dissected by K. R. Musca varicolor was described by Fabricius (1805: 296) from “Habitat Tranquebariae Dom. Daldorff Mus. Dom. de Sehestedt” (Fig. 161). A single male, regarded as holotype, is present in the Sehested and Tønder Lund collection in ZMUC as indicated by Zimsen (1964: 489) and Thompson &amp; Pont (1994: 131). It has previously been examined by</p><p>Surcouf (1920; see above) and Townsend (1931: 371). It is in good condition (Fig. 159) and fits the description (Fig. 161). It lacks the fore right tibia and tarsus and the right first flagellomere, including the arista. Some dorsal abdominal setae are also lacking, and parts of the erect pale vestiture on the abdominal sternites are rubbed off. The pin is rather thick and the fly is very low on the pin. Tranquebar is the present day city of Tarangambadi in the province of Tamil Nadu in India.</p><p>153. Cerci and surstyli, dorsal view. 154. Cerci and surstyli, left lateral view. 155. ST5 flap. 156. Lateral finger, enlarged. 157. Upper lip and antlers, from in front. 158. surstylus, from below. Scale = 0.25mm (Figures 149, 150, 152). Abbreviations: d. o. = dorsal opening; l. f. = lateral finger.</p><p>Bengalia bezzii Senior-White, 1923 . Holotype male, in BMNH [staged], labelled (1) “ Holo-type ” [printed on circular white label with red rim]; (2) “ CEYLON: / Suduganga / 20.i.1920 / among grass” [handwritten, except first two lines which are printed]; (3) “ Bengalia / bezzii, S.-W. / det. R.Senior White ” [handwritten, except last line which is printed]; (4) “TYPE.” [red handwriting]; (5) “Purchd. from / R.Senior White / B.M.1938-460.” [printed]; (6) “genitalia / on slide” [handwritten]. Slide (also in BMNH) is labelled “ Bengalia / bezzii S.-W. / ♂ genitalia. / 30.iv. 22 Type ” [handwritten]. Paratypes (all in BMNH): 1 female [staged] labelled (1) “Para-type” [printed on circular white label with yellow rim]; (2) “COTYPE” [red handwriting]; (3) “ CEYLON: / Suduganga / 7.xii.1921 / among grass” [handwritten, except first two lines which are printed]; (4) “ Bengalia / bezzii, S.-W. / det R.Senior White ” [handwritten, except last line which is printed]; (5) “Purchd. from / R.Senior White / B.M.1938-460.” [printed]. 1 female [staged], labelled (1) “Para-type” [printed on circular white label with yellow rim]; (2) “COTYPE” [red handwriting]; (3) “ CEYLON: / Suduganga / 10.xi.1918 / In garden” [handwritten, except first two lines which are printed]; (4) “ Bengalia / bezzii, S.-W. / det R.Senior White ” [handwritten, except last line which is printed]; (5) “Purchd. from / R.Senior White / B.M.1938-460.” [printed].</p><p>Bengalia chromatella Séguy, 1946 . Holotype female, in MNHN [staged], labelled (1) “Cragg / Guindy / Madras.” [printed]; (2) “TYPE” [printed on red label]; (3) “ Bengalia sp. incerta n o 2 Bezzi / probablement v. de varicolor” [handwritten in Surcouf’s hand]; (3) “ Bengalia / chromatella / ♀ Seg. TYPE / E. Séguy vid. 46” [handwritten in Séguy’s hand, except “ E. Séguy vid.” which is printed].</p><p>“ Bengalia / pallidicoxa / ♀ TYPE Séguy / E. Séguy vid. 46” [handwritten in Séguy’s hand, except “E. Séguy vid.” which is printed].</p><p>Other material. BMNH: 1 male labelled (1) “Dehra Dun. / U.P. [Uttar Pradesh] / India / Nov. 1907. / Lt.- Col. F. W. Thomson / I.M.S. / 1908—21.” [printed]; (2) “Probablement B. varicolor Fab. ” [handwritten in Surcouf’s hand]; (3) “ Afridigalia ♂ / bezzi [sic] (Senior-White) / Det. Dr. A. Z. Lehrer / 2005” [printed]; (4) My determination label ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). The genitalia have been dissected by Lehrer. I have transferred them to a glass microvial. ST5 flap of usual shape, but without nick in hind margin. Again, Surcouf has identified the specimen correctly, having previously seen the Fabrician type (see above). CDPCAG: 1 male labelled (1) “Center for Disease Prevention and Control Anshun City, Guizhou / Longgong, Anshun City, 1200 m / Wei Lianmeng et al leg. / 19 September 1991 ” [In Chinese]; (2) “C080 … [Chinese name for B. bezzii] / Bengalia bezzii / Senior-White, 1923 / ♂ ” [print on white label, male symbol in red]; (3) My determination label ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). 1 male labelled (1) “Entomological Institute of Guizhou University, Guizhou, China / Yunnan, Xiaguan, Erhai / 1959 m / Yang Zaihua leg. / 24 August 2006 ” [In Chinese]; (2) “C080 … [Chinese name for B. bezzii] / Bengalia bezzii / Senior-White, 1923 / ♂ ” [In Chinese, male symbol in red]; (3) My determination label ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). Dissected by Wei Lianmeng, genitalia in alcohol in plastic vessel with lid, numbered “190”. MSNM: 1 male labelled: (1) “ INDE MÉRIDIONALE / TRICHINOPOLY / F. CAIUS 1911” [printed on yellowish label]; (2) “ B. varicolor ♂. / comparée au type.” [handwritten in Surcouf’s hand; label with black frame and three thin black ruled lines]; (3) “varicolor” [printed museum label]; (4) “ Bengalia ♂ / bezzi [sic] Senior-White / Det. Dr. A.Z.LEHRER / XII.2004 ” [printed]; (5) “ Bengalia ♂ / bezzi [sic] Senior-White / Det. Dr. A.Z.LEHRER / XII.2004 ” [printed]; (6) My determination label ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). The eyes, mouthparts and much of the front part of thorax have been eaten away. The right mid leg and also the tibia and tarsus on the left mid leg are lost. The genitalia are in an exerted position and the cerci, surstyli, aedeagus and ST5 flap are all clearly visible and in a well preserved condition. NHRM: 1 male labelled (1) “ INDIA Kottayam / Malaise trap / 26–29.III.1990 / B. Gustafson” [printed]; (2) “ Bengalia ♂ / bezzii / Sen.-White, 1923 / Det. H. Kurahashi” [printed]; (3) “NRM STHLM / Loan 1707/08 [printed on green label]; (4) My determination label ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). Kottayam is in Kerala. All legs missing except right hind femur and tibia. SDEI: 1 male labelled (1) “Kankau (Koshun) / Formosa / H. Sauter 1912” [printed]; (2) “7. VII.” [printed]; (3) “coll. Oldenberg” [printed]; (4) “det. Baranoff” [printed]; (5) “ Bengalia / varicolor / Fabr.” [handwritten]; (6) My determination label ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). ST5 flap visible. 1 male labelled (1) “Koshun / Formosa / Sauter VII 08” [printed, except “VII 08” which is handwritten]; (2) “ Bengalia / varicolor F. / Villeneuve det.” [handwritten in Villeneuve’s hand, except last line which is printed]; (3) “Villeneuve det.” [printed]; (4) My determination label ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). Dissected by K. R. Abdominal T1–5 glued to card on pin, genitalia in glycerol in vial on pin. Both males have a very weakly developed fringe on hind tibia. 1 female labelled (1) “Kankau (Formosa) / H. Sauter VII. 1912 ” [printed]; (2) “Townsend det.” [printed]; (3) My determination label ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). 1 female labelled (1) “Kankau (Koshun) / Formosa / H. Sauter 1912” [printed]; (2) “7. VII.” [printed]; (3) “coll. Oldenberg” [printed]; (4) “det. Baranoff” [printed]; (5) “ Bengalia / varicolor / Fabr.” [handwritten]; (5) My determination label ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). 1 female labelled (1) “Tainan / Formosa” [handwritten in weak ink]; (2) “Sauter / 4. 1910” [handwritten]; (3) “coll. Oldenberg” [printed]; (4) “det. Baranoff” [printed]; (5) “ Bengalia / varicolor / Fabr.” [handwritten]; (6) My determination label ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). Lunula bare. SMNS: 1 male labelled (1) “ Bengalia / latro Meij. / B. Herting det.” [handwritten, except last line which is printed]; (2) “Ceylon / Maschwitz” [handwritten in Herting’s hand]; (3) My determination label ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). A very dark specimen. Thorax and abdomen dark grey, also femora, but humeral and postalar callus yellow. Tibia, tarsi and ST1–3 yellow. About 15 black setulae on anepimeron. Appears to have been dried from alcohol. ST5 flap without nick. USNM: 1 male labelled (1) “11.vii.17 / COIMBATORE / Praying on / ant pupae / ISAAC COLL.” [handwritten, except lines 2 and 5 which are printed]; (2) “ B. bezzii . Wetlands / Resting in grass / A. A. COLL: 1.XI.21” [handwritten, except lines 1 and 4 which are printed]; (2) “ USNM / 2047114” [printed]; (3) My determination labels ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). 2 males labelled (1) “COIMBATORE / resting on grass / 2.XI.21 / A. A. COLL:” [handwritten, except lines 1 and 4 which are printed]; (2) “ USNM / 2047114” [printed]; (3) My determination labels ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). One male dissected by K. R. ZMUC: 1 male labelled (1) “ THAILAND, Chieng Mai Province / Doi Inthanon N. P.: Huai Sai / Luang 10–1100 m, 14.x.1981 / Zool. Mus. Copenhagen leg.” [printed]; (2) “ Bengalia ♂ / bezzii / Sen.-White, 1923 / Det. H. Kurahashi” [printed]; (3) “Dissected / January 2006 / by Knut Rognes” [printed]; (4) My determination label ( varicolor Fabr. = bezzii S.-W.). Genitalia in vial on pin, T1–5 glued to card on pin.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E8850E087C4396FC06A1EE55B9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
B74687E8850708014396FDDBA5455650.text	B74687E8850708014396FDDBA5455650.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bengalia weii Rognes 2009	<div><p>13. Bengalia weii sp. nov.</p><p>Figs. 162–172, 186, 198, 210.</p><p>Holotype male, China (Yunnan province: Xishuangbanna tropical rain forest, Menglun) (CDPCAG), here designated. For details see Type material below.</p><p>Etymology. The species-group name “weii” is a proper noun in the genitive case, derived from the surname of the collector Dr. Wei Lianmeng, CDPCAG.</p><p>Diagnosis. Male. Length: 11mm (n=1). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 0.338 –0.342 (mean 0.340, n=2). Fronto-orbital plate without proclinate orbital setae. Lunula bare. Anepimeron only with yellow setulae, no black setulae at all. Fore tibia with a group of 7–8 short ventral spine-like setae in proximal half of which 1–2 are longer than the others; the longest spine-like seta shorter than diameter of tibia and situated about in the middle of the group; distally with slight v and pv fringe, longest setae about as long as tibial diameter (Fig. 186). Mid tibia with a v and pv fringe in distal 2/5, longest setae in fringe 1.5–2.0x diameter of tibia (Fig. 198). Hind tibia with a delicate av, v, and pv fringe in distal half (Fig. 210).</p><p>The ST5 flap is very characteristic, with lateral edges converging slowly distally, a V-shaped depression present in distal edge (Fig. 168).</p><p>Cerci slightly curved in profile view (Fig. 167). Surstylus almost bare below, a few pale scattered setulae present close to apex. Process of bacilliform sclerite with a strong base and short tip.</p><p>Distiphallus with rather low dorsolateral wings and broad antlers; latter curving backwards and with several small tines at tip (Figs. 162, 163, 165). Basal tooth strong. In dorsal view upper lip strongly convex with a weak central sclerotisation; in lateral view projecting far beyond base of antlers (Fig. 165). Lateral finger small, not projecting beyond lateral edge of external hypophallic lobe in ventral view (Figs. 162, 163). Above the base of the lateral finger, the anterior edge of the vertical sclerotised sheet has a right-angled toothed projection (Fig. 169). Internal hypophallic lobes converging in their distal part. External hypophallic lobe short, folded distally, presenting a forwardly directed transverse wall. Ventral finger proceeds downwards, inwards and forwards, in lateral view projecting well beyond lower edge of midventral wall; its front edge is slightly denticulate (Fig. 169).</p><p>Female. Length: 11mm (n=1). Frons at vertex / head width ratio: 41/120 = 0.342 (n=1). ST2, ST3 and ST4 with a pair of widely set marginals, on ST4 one of the pair is absent.</p><p>Description. Measurements, see Diagnosis above.</p><p>Male. Head. Yellow ground colour, except for frontal vitta which is light brown and fronto-orbital plate which is greyish brown. Frontal vitta with black ground setulae in anterior two-thirds, in holotype lacking along the posterior half of the frontal row of setae. 5–6 frontal setae on each side, one reclinate seta in front of the well developed outer and inner verticals. No proclinate orbital setae. Fronto-orbital plate narrow. Frontoorbital plate, parafacial and area above vibrissae with black setulae, weak on the parafacial. A shifting greyish spot at the junction of the parafacial and the fronto-orbital plate and outside of the two foremost frontal setae. 1 pair of weak postocellars of about the same size; the pair is situated on the uppermost part of the occiput a little behind an imaginary line connecting the inner verticals. Lunula bare. Scape and pedicel reddish brown, first flagellomere dark, except proximal to level of insertion of arista, about 5x longer than wide. Tip of first flagellomere not reaching level of vibrissa. Arista long plumose. Anterior margin of clypeus reddish and not projecting beyond lower facial margin. Palpus yellow with a bundle of very short setae at tip, 2–4 long setae below in distal half, and a row of 3–5 very long setae on a sclerite at its base.</p><p>Thorax. Brownish yellow dorsally, with pale brownish dusting; in some lights with much paler lateral areas, these encompassing lateral edge of scutellum, lateral area of dorsum carrying the ia, sa, prst and ph setae and the humeral callus. Darker mid-dorsal part with narrow dark vittae just inside of the dc rows of setae. Ground setulae of scutum black, except on anterior surface of the humeral callus where they are yellow. 0+1 acr (just in front of scutellum); 1+4 dc (postsutural dc becoming stronger backwards); 0+1 ia, 1 prst; 1 ph; 2 h; 1 strong setae (dc?) present on each side very far forward on scutum just inside the anteromedial corner of the humeral callus; 3 scutellar marginals, no discals. 2 npl (close together). Pleura yellow with irregularly darkened parts and covered with yellowish dusting. Proepisternal depression bare. Proepisternal (anterior) and 1 proepimeral (posterior) setae. A few black setulae above the proepimeral seta. Anterior spiracle yellow. Anepisternum with 5–6 strong marginals, covered with black ground setulae in hind and upper part. Long pale setae behind marginal row of strong setae. Anepimeron with yellow ground vestiture only, no black setulae. Lesser ampulla blackish in anterior half with whitish dusting. Katepisternum with yellow ground vestiture except in the upper part between the 1+1 kepst setae where some small black setulae may be present. In extreme lower end of the katepisternum strong setae present in front of mid coxa. Meron with about 6–8 meral setae. No coxopleural streak. Katatergite bare. Anatergite with only pale ground vestiture, no black setulae below lower calypter. Metakatepisternum with pale setulae. Metasternal area with pale and black setae. Postalar wall pale setose. Prosternum pale setose.</p><p>Wing. Tegula, basicosta and subcostal sclerite yellow; wing veins all yellow; costa hairy below all the way to junction with R 4+5. Lower calypter with inner margin converging with long axis of fly, more than twice as long as upper. Both calypteres with white fringe hairs, except the inner half of the upper calypter where they are brownish. Halter yellow.</p><p>Legs. Tarsi yellow, coxae and trochanters yellow. Fore tibia with 3 ad, 1 pv; ad, d, and pv preapicals in increasing size; slight v and pv fringe, longest fringe setae about as long as tibial diameter; tibia yellow. In proximal third is a group of 7–8 short spine-like setae of which 1–2 are longer than the others. The longest spine-like seta is shorter than diameter of tibia and situated about in the middle of the group of spine-like setae. Fore femur yellow with pv setae of different size: 8–9 distal ones strong, situated in distal half; proximal pv setae weak and thin; d row of 6 weak setae, ad row of 7 weak setae. Mid tibia yellow with 1 ad, 2 p; v and pv fringe in distal 2/5, longest setae in fringe 1.5–2.0x diameter of tibia. Mid femur yellow with some darkening on a side; 2 strong a at middle, 2 a preapicals; 2 p preapicals; row of pv setae delicate and weak; pv ctenidium with 8 short flattened spine-like setae in distal 2/5. Hind tibia yellow with 1 av at distal sixth, 2 ad of which the strongest at middle; fringe of long thin av, v, and pv setae in distal half; ad and d preapicals. Hind femur yellow with some darkening on a side; 4–5 widely spaced ad setae; dense vestiture of thin long setulae on av, v and pv side, these setulae about 3/4 of femoral diameter; rows of long thin weak av and pv setae about as long as femoral diameter. Hind coxa with pale ground setulae on posterior surface.</p><p>Abdomen. Tergites brownish yellow; dusted white in shifting pattern; with narrow black hind margins about 1/5 to 1/6 of tergite length, at middle marginal bands drawn out into pointed triangles pointing forward. Hind margin of basal excavation of T1+2 very far from hind margin. T1+2 with a bundle of 2–5 strong lateral medial and lateral marginals; no lateral discals on T4. T5 with 6 strong marginal setae and 1 pair of discal setae, latter slight more distant than the mid marginals of T4. ST1–3 yellow. ST4 yellow but darkened in hind part. ST5 darkened at base and laterally, area close to flap and flap yellow. Ground vestiture yellow. ST2 with a pair of long median marginals. ST3 with a pair of shorter median marginals plus weaker marginals on each side. ST4 with a pair of median marginals. ST5 flap shaped as in Fig. 168. Epandrium dark blackish brown dulled by thin layer of dust.</p><p>Male genitalia. See under Diagnosis, above.</p><p>Female. Similar to male, except as follows. Legs: no fringes on any legs. Mid tibia with a v seta. Hind tibia with 2 smaller av setae above the strong distal av. Abdomen: T1–5 as in male, but T3 without lateral discals. ST1–5 (those visible) yellow. ST2, ST3 and ST4 with a pair of widely set marginals, on ST4 one of the pair is absent. ST1 and ST2 with yellow ground vestiture. ST2 with some black setulae in extreme posterolateral corners. ST3–5 with black ground vestiture laterally.</p><p>Biology. Captured in tropical rain forest.</p><p>Distribution. China (Yunnan).</p><p>[ Chinese name for Bengalia varicolor] / Bengalia varicolor / ( Fabricius, 1805) ♂ ” [male symbol in red]; (3) My red holotype label ( weii n. sp.). Dissected by K. R. Abdominal T1–5, right mid leg and right hind leg glued to card on pin, genitalia in glycerol in vial on pin. Paratypes. 1 male labelled: (1) “Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Anshun City, Guizhou, China / Xishuangbanna 700m / Wei Lianmeng et al. leg. / 25 June 1993 ” [In Chinese]; (2) “C083 … [Chinese name for Bengalia varicolor] / Bengalia varicolor / (Fabricius, 1805) ♂ ” [male symbol in red]; (3) My red paratype label ( weii n. sp.). Dissected by Wei Lianmeng; genital capsule and some sternites removed, genitalia not present; drawings of genitalia received in digital form 16 January 2009. 1 female labelled: (1) “Xishuangbanna, Menglun 540m / 25. VI. 1993 / Wei Lianmeng leg.” [In Chinese]; (2) “C083 … [Chinese name for Bengalia varicolor] / Bengalia varicolor / (Fabricius, 1805) ♀ ” [female symbol in red]; (3) My red paratype label ( weii n. sp.) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B74687E8850708014396FDDBA5455650	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Rognes, Knut	Rognes, Knut (2009): Revision of the Oriental species of the Bengalia peuhi speciesgroup (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Zootaxa 2251 (1): 1-76, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2251.1.1
