Microphorella sinuosa, Brooks & Cumming, 2025
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5661.4.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F9498ECE-DED3-46F1-A7D3-1E726D1D11A0 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16605954 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039A87AB-FFC4-FFC7-FF42-FF7D251DF551 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Microphorella sinuosa |
status |
sp. nov. |
Microphorella sinuosa sp. nov.
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:BB526468-87E3-47EC-9532-A798162EB0C4
( Figs 47–55 View FIGURES 47–51 View FIGURES 52–55 , 102 View FIGURES 102–103 )
Type material. HOLOTYPE, ♂ ( Fig. 47 View FIGURES 47–51 ) labelled: “ Malaise Trap | Lily Pond [37°56'N 122°38'W], 1500'[ft.]| Alpine Lk., Marin| Co., Cal. 6| VII.70”; “ HOLOTYPE | Microphorella | sinuosa | Brooks & Cumming” [red label] ( UCDC). See Remarks GoogleMaps . PARATYPES: USA: California: Contra Costa County: Briones Reg. Park at Alhambra Valley Rd [37°57'N 122°08'W], 20.iii.1978, D.D. Wilder (1♂, CAS). Mendocino County : Hopland Field Station [39°00'N 123°04'W], Kelsey Cab. Orch. Area , 2600–2800 ft., 1.v.1982, N. Stone, EMEC 1188818 About EMEC (1♂, EMEC). Monterey County : Horse Bridge, 1.5 air mi. SW Arroyo Seco Grd Sta. [36°14'N 121°28'W], 3–8.v.1975, E. Rogers, EMEC 1188815 About EMEC (1♂, EMEC); same data except, EMEC 1188491 About EMEC , CNC1155836 View Materials (1♂, EMEC). Sacramento County : Elk Grove [38°24'N 121°22'W], 18.iv.1952, E.C. Carleson (4♂, 6♀, UCDC); same data except, CNC1155829 View Materials , CNC1155830 View Materials (2♂, UCDC). Santa Barbara County : Los Prietos [34.5416°N 119.8020°W], 14.iii.1967, Ceanothus, J. Powell, EMEC 1189165, CNC1155835 View Materials (1♂, EMEC). Santa Clara County : creek along Sanborn Rd, 2.7 km SE Congress Springs Rd [37°13'N 122°03'W], ca. 440 m, 14.iv.1974, P.H. Arnaud, Jr (1♂, USNM) GoogleMaps .
Diagnosis. Males of this species can be distinguished from other members of the M. acroptera species group by the following combination of characters: acrostichal setae well-developed, biserial; hind basitarsus without basiventral spur-like seta; halter dark brown ( Fig. 51 View FIGURES 47–51 ); hind trochanter with cylindrical tubercle; face with sides subparallel; hypandrium large and bulbous ( Figs 52, 53 View FIGURES 52–55 ); dorsal lobe of surstylus with pair of prensisetae (1 disc-like, 1 blade-like, Figs 52, 53 View FIGURES 52–55 ); cercus with digitiform lateral lobe ( Fig. 55 View FIGURES 52–55 ).
Description. Male ( Figs 47–55 View FIGURES 47–51 View FIGURES 52–55 ): Wing length 2.4–2.8 mm. Similar to M. acroptera except as follows: Head ( Fig. 47 View FIGURES 47–51 ): Face and clypeus slightly broader, about 2.25× width of anterior ocellus. Thorax: Acrostichals biserial, with well-developed rows extending to prescutellar depression; 7–8 dorsocentrals; area laterad dorsocentrals usually more extensively covered with small setae. Legs: Hindleg: Trochanter tubercle with spine-like seta shorter with sharply pointed tip ( Figs 48, 51 View FIGURES 47–51 ). Wing: As in description of M. acroptera . Abdomen ( Figs 49–51 View FIGURES 47–51 ): Sternite 5 with broad ventral bilobate projection ( Figs 49–51 View FIGURES 47–51 ), with elongate, digitiform, spiny lateral lobes. Hypopygium ( Figs 49, 51–55 View FIGURES 47–51 View FIGURES 52–55 ): Left epandrial lamella ( Fig. 52 View FIGURES 52–55 ) slightly shorter than hypandrium; ventral epandrial process with bifurcate apex and pair of small setae borne on tubercles, bifurcation variable, with processes similar in size and adjacent to each other ( Fig. 54 View FIGURES 52–55 ), or of different sizes and divergent ( Figs 51 View FIGURES 47–51 , 52 View FIGURES 52–55 ). Dorsal lobe of left surstylus with broad, truncate dorsolateral lobe bearing 2 prominent prensisetae (upper one disc-like, lower one blade-like) and 1 long posterior seta; medioventrally with tubercle bearing sinuous seta and broad adjacent lobe. Ventral lobe of left surstylus slightly longer than dorsal lobe, with shallowly bilobate apex (best seen in posterior view), outer lobe bearing 2 setae, inner lobe bearing 3 setae (one of which is branched apically). Right epandrial lamella ( Fig. 53 View FIGURES 52–55 ) with ventral margin mostly distinct, fading into hypandrium anteriorly. Dorsal lobe of right surstylus broad and truncate (similar to left side), bearing 2 prominent prensisetae (upper one disc-like, lower one blade-like), 1 lateral setae posterior to ventral prensiseta and 1 seta medially. Ventral lobe of right surstylus as long as dorsal lobe, medially curved at base with apex projecting dorsally and expanded, with several setae on posterior surface. Phallus ( Figs 52, 53 View FIGURES 52–55 ) long and convoluted, basal portion tubular with S-shaped double curve, followed by inflated and protruding apical portion which gradually tapers to tip, with small dentiform process near base of inflated portion and second process preapically. Cercus ( Figs 52, 53, 55 View FIGURES 52–55 ) with digitiform lateral lobe projecting dorsally from cercal base.
Female. Similar to male except as follows: Head: Face and clypeus apparently slightly broader, broader than 2.5× width of anterior ocellus. Legs: Hindleg: Trochanter without tubercle bearing apical spine-like seta; femur without prominent anteroventral row of setae. Abdomen: As in description of M. acroptera .
Distribution and seasonal occurrence. This new Californian species is known from southern Mendocino County south to Monterey County and east to Sacramento County ( Fig. 102 View FIGURES 102–103 ). Specimens were collected from March to July.
Etymology. This species is named for the sinuous basal part of the phallus, a characteristic feature of the M. acroptera lineage.
Remarks. This species appears to be closely related to M. bifida sp. nov., with which it shares very similar hypopygial morphology, especially in the structure of the dorsal surstylar lobes, phallus and cercus ( Figs 25–28 View FIGURES 25–28 , 52–55 View FIGURES 52–55 ).
The holotype ( Fig. 47 View FIGURES 47–51 ) is a well-preserved critical point dried specimen in excellent condition, but lighter in colouration than the paratypes, presumably as a result of storage in ethanol for some time prior to drying.
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |