Microphorella gilaensis, 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.16606034 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039A87AB-FFF9-FFFC-FF42-FCA823B7F0A9 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Microphorella gilaensis |
status |
sp. nov. |
Microphorella gilaensis sp. nov.
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:F6C662D7-E2DA-493F-8AA1-FF1B553A7DB4
( Figs 110, 111 View FIGURES 110–111 , 115 View FIGURE 115 )
Type material. HOLOTYPE, ♂ labelled: “Globe Ariz| 13 Apr. 35| ALMelander”; “ALMelander| Collection| 1961”; “ CNC | 1155803”; “ HOLOTYPE | Microphorella | gilaensis | Brooks & Cumming” [red label] ( USNM) . PARATYPES: USA: Arizona: Gila County: same data as holotype [33°23'59"N 110°46'54"W] (4♀, USNM) GoogleMaps .
Diagnosis. Males of this species can be distinguished from other members of the M. arcana species group by the following features: mid femur with cluster of 6 long basiventral setae (similar to Fig. 106 View FIGURES 106–109 ), hind femur with posterior patch of setae relatively sparse and not brush-like (similar to Fig. 107 View FIGURES 106–109 ), abdominal sternite 5 without transverse row of long curved setae, abdominal sternite 6 without bulbous projection, hypopygium with dorsal surstylus lacking claw-like process adjacent to cercus and hypandrium not strongly produced posteriorly ( Figs 110, 111 View FIGURES 110–111 ).
Description. Male ( Figs 110, 111 View FIGURES 110–111 ): Wing length 1.8 mm. Similar to M. ovata sp. nov. except as follows: Head: Antenna with arista-like stylus longer, about 3× length of postpedicel. Thorax: Acrostichal setae absent; 5 dorsocentrals; scutellum of holotype with setae broken off. Legs: Hindleg: Femur with setae of anteroventral row subequal to femur width, posterior surface without mound-like swelling, cluster of setae less dense, basiventral surface below and proximal to cluster with fewer and shorter setae. Wing: As in description of M. acroptera . Abdomen: Hypopygium ( Figs 110, 111 View FIGURES 110–111 ): Left epandrial lamella ( Fig. 110 View FIGURES 110–111 ) with ventral epandrial process longer, narrower in middle portion, with short dorsal setae closer to base, apex enlarged and bifurcate. Dorsal lobe of left surstylus digitiform with strong apical seta, dorsal margin with weak setulose bump adjacent to cercus, lacking claw-like process. Ventral lobe of left surstylus with upper medial prensiseta flared apically and lacking bifurcation, lower medial prensiseta with flared, truncate apex. Right epandrial lamella ( Fig. 111 View FIGURES 110–111 ) with ventral epandrial process narrowed apically, tip not laterally flattened. Dorsal lobe of right surstylus broad with rounded apical margin bearing 2 setae (upper one missing in unique holotype), dorsal margin broadly hump-like posterior to cercus, lacking claw-like process. Hypandrium ( Figs 110, 111 View FIGURES 110–111 ) smaller, not strongly produced posteroventrally, with only short projection posterodorsally. Phallus ( Fig. 110 View FIGURES 110–111 ) trifurcate, with large curved acuminate process about 2/3 as long as distal portion of phallus and shorter spine-like process. Hypoproct with lobes large, rounded and strongly projected dorsally. Cercus small, short and rounded with several setae, left and right lobes symmetrical.
Female. Similar to male except as follows: Head: Face broader, tapered ventrally to about 3× width of anterior ocellus. Thorax: Acrostichal setae present, sparse and irregular, or biserial; 2–3 notopleurals; scutellum with 1 long seta and 1 small outer seta per side. Legs: Midleg: Femur unmodified, without cluster of long basiventral setae. Hindleg: Femur without cluster of setae on posterior surface. Abdomen: As in description of M. acroptera .
Distribution and seasonal occurrence. This new species is known only from Globe, Gila County, Arizona, where the type series was collected in April of 1935 ( Fig. 115 View FIGURE 115 ).
Etymology. This species is named after Gila County in Arizona.
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 |