Cyrtodiopsis whitei ( Curran, 1936 )

Feijen, Hans R., Feijen, Cobi & O., P., 2019, An annotated catalogue of the stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) of India with description of new species in Megalabops Frey and Teleopsis Rondani, Israel Journal of Entomology (Oxford, England) 49 (2), pp. 35-72 : 41-42

Cyrtodiopsis whitei ( Curran, 1936)

( Figs 6, 7)

Diopsis whitei Curran, 1936: 1 (♂ holotype, ♀ paratype from India, Jharkhand, Saranda forest, Chota Nagpur plateau, ca. 22°02'N 85°34'E, 2.v.1935 (AMNH)).

Cyrtodiopsis whitei (Curran) : Shillito 1940: 159; Steyskal 1972: 4, 1977: 33.

Cyrtodiopsis? whitei (Curran) : Shillito 1940: 159, fig. 1c; Burkhardt & de la Motte 1983: 408; Datta & Chakraborti 1985: 245; Wilkinson et al. 1998: 277; Baker et al. 2001: 90; Földvári et al. 2007: 40; Dutta Saha et al. 2012: 534; Jamalabad 2014: 22 (picture); Agarwala 2018: 12038. In many more non-taxonomic papers is referred to C. whitei sensu Burkhardt & de la Motte from Peninsular Malaysia.

Distribution: India: Jharkhand. Cyrtodiopsis from Tripura ( Agarwala 2018) and from Asom (Assam), Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya require detailed study of the genitalia and comparison with specimens from Jharkhand to be confirmed as C. whitei . Steyskal (1972) tentatively reports the species also from Maharashtra. Dutta Saha et al. (2012) mentioned the presence of Cyrtodiopsis in this state, but they probably based their opinion on Steyskal (1972); it also remains to be confirmed whether it refers to C. whitei .

Remarks: Shillito (1940) presented a revision of Cyrtodiopsis . As far as C. whitei concerns, he correctly transferred this species from Diopsis to Cyrtodiopsis . Shillito stated that here is “nothing to add to the complete description given by Curran”. However, he presented a picture of a wing from a Cyrtodiopsis from Ganhati, Assam, which he had identified as C. whitei . Shillito had no access to the type specimens in AMNH and did not study the genitalia, so confirmation of his identification is pending. In his key, Shillito separated C. whitei from C. dalmanni by the “Dorsum brown pollinose; inner orbital bristle on a strong tubercle” for C. whitei and the “Dorsum glossy, not pollinose; inner orbital bristle on a weak tubercle” for C. dalmanni . However, the difference in size of the tubercle of the IVS is simply not there. Curran’s description of the pollinosity pattern is a bit confusing: “Thorax shining dark brown, the mesonotum with brownish pollen, leaving the sides very broadly shining behind the humeri.” All flies of the C. whitei complex examined by us have a characteristic pollinose scutum with a pair of glossy spots posteriorly ( Fig. 6). In the C. dalmanni- like species a large section of the posterior scutum is glossy. Another characteristic of the C. whitei complex, as compared to the C. dalmanni complex, is the small apical wing spot ( Fig. 7).

In the last 36 years the name C. whitei has, by a number of authors, been applied to flies from Peninsular Malaysia. However, this concerns, in all likelihood, a wrong use of the specific name whitei . The problem started with a publication by Burkhardt and de la Motte (1983), who studied behaviour and vision of a Malaysian Cyrtodiopsis . Shillito helped them with the identification by cursorily comparing their specimens with unconfirmed “ C. whitei ” in BMNH (Burkhardt in correspondence with Shillito, and pers. comm.). From that start, the Malaysian C. whitei sensu Burkhardt & de la Motte entered a long range of important publications (e.g. Burkhardt & de la Motte 1985; Wilkinson et al. 1998; Baker et al. 2001; Földvári et al. 2007). As indicated in the literature overview, the contribution by Agarwala (2018) also requires confirmation whether his material was really conspecific with specimens from the type locality. Feijen (2011) discussed the status of Cyrtodiopsis as a valid genus. From the above, it is also clear that a taxonomic revision of the genus is required. However, it should be pointed out that Cyrtodiopsis is one of the most difficult genera in the Diopsidae .