Cheilosia ( Convocheila ) laticornis Rondani, 1857
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2025.1023.3097 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:70585BDD-5981-4967-A09C-543CE5D7C717 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17442645 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F19912-AF18-FF83-FE3C-FC95F9A979C2 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Cheilosia ( Convocheila ) laticornis Rondani, 1857 |
| status |
|
Cheilosia ( Convocheila) laticornis Rondani, 1857 View in CoL
Fig. 39
Cheilosia laticornis Rondani, 1857: 160 View in CoL .
Cheilosia latifacies Loew, 1858: 593 View in CoL . Syn. by Claussen & Thompson (1996).
Cheilosia latifacies View in CoL – Stackelberg & Richter 1968: 246. — Stackelberg 1970: 58. — Peck 1988: 107. — Barkalov 1993: 712.
Cheilosia latifacies Loew, 1846 View in CoL [sic] – Gujabidze 2002: 246.
Cheilosia laticornis View in CoL – Barkalov & Mutin 2018: 484. — Mengual et al. 2020: 22. — Speight 2020a: 39.
Differential diagnosis
Cheilosia laticornis belongs to the subgenus Convocheila . One of the distinctive characters of the subgenus is the pilosity on the face: long pilose along parafacia in dorsal one third of face. In the males of Convocheila the ventral lobe of the postgonite is sickle-shaped (the male genitalia of C. laticornis are figured in Radenković et al. 2020). Within the Caucasus, the only other member of the subgenus Convocheila is C. cumanica . The male of C. laticornis can be easily distinguished from that of C. cumanica by the bare eye (eye pilose in C. cumanica ), the female has the occiput with long white pile only (besides white pile, also with few long black pile in C. cumanica ) and scutellum on posterior margin with weak yellow setae (with robust black setae in C. cumanica ).
Material examined
Species not collected.
Genetics
The DNA barcodes of C. laticornis from Europe cluster together with high support (BS = 100%).
Remarks
The name Cheilosia latifacies Loew usually appears in the literature as published in 1857. Claussen & Thompson (1996) explain the evidence to date this work in 1858 and, consequently, argue the precedence of C. laticornis Rondani as a senior synonym.
Distribution
Western and Central Europe, Caucasus ( Armenia, Azerbaijan).
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 |
|
|
SubFamily |
Eristalinae |
|
Genus |
Cheilosia ( Convocheila ) laticornis Rondani, 1857
| Bot, Sander, Mengual, Ximo, Meutter, Frank Van de & Skevington, Jeffrey H. 2025 |
Cheilosia laticornis
| Mengual X. & Bot S. & Chkhartishvili T. & Reimann T. & Thormann J. & von der Mark L. 2020: 22 |
| Speight M. C. D. 2020: 39 |
| Barkalov A. V. & Mutin V. 2018: 484 |
Cheilosia latifacies
| Gujabidze M. 2002: 246 |
Cheilosia latifacies
| Barkalov A. V. 1993: 712 |
| Peck L. V. 1988: 107 |
| Stackelberg A. A. 1970: 58 |
| Stackelberg A. A. & Richter V. A. 1968: 246 |
Cheilosia latifacies
| Loew H. 1858: 593 |
Cheilosia laticornis
| Rondani C. 1857: 160 |
