Physocephala pilitarsis, Krober, 1936

Stuke, Jens-Hermann & Clements, David K., 2019, New conopid records from the Afrotropical Region (Diptera) - Part 3: Physocephalini, Bonn zoological Bulletin 68 (2), pp. 209-273 : 258

Key 7 – Identification of the Physocephala pilitarsis species-group

1. Reddish-brown species, scutum with three black stripes, scutellum reddish-brown, abdomen mainly reddish-brown; ♀ fore tarsi wide and bare, lacking any long setulae which are curled apically [based on the original description only] .................................... ............................................. P. rufa ( Camras, 2001)

– Black to brown species, scutum mainly black, lacking distinct stripes, scutellum black, abdomen with at most tergites 1–3 orange-brown; ♀ fore tarsi often with unusual characters such as curled setulae ................................................................................. 2

2. Basal cell and basal medial cell dark and completely covered with microtrichia ( Fig. 118 ); radial-medial crossvein sometimes quite short and the hyaline area posterior to vena spuria in cell r 4+5 sometimes indistinct ( Fig. 118 ); ♀ fore tarsus and middle tarsus with long setulae which are curled apically ( Figs 114, 116 ); ♀ theca triangular and adpressed to abdomen ( Fig. 115 ); ♀ sternite 6 with broad field of black setae which is concave posteriorly ( Fig. 115 ) ........... .......................................... P. pilitarsis Kröber, 1936

– Basal cell and basal medial cell hyaline, and at least partly lacking microtrichia; radial-medial crossvein sometimes quite short but the hyaline area posterior to vena spuria in cell r 4+5 is always distinct; ♀ fore tarsus may have long setulae but these are not curled apically; ♀ theca and ♀ sternite 6 different ............ 3

3. Pulvilli spine-like ( Fig. 120 ) ..................................... ....................................... P. spinipes ( Camras, 2001)

– Pulvilli not spine-like, but normally developed ...... 4

4. Cells r 1 and r 2+3 completely dark brown, costal cell never hyaline but sometimes paler than cell r 1 ( Fig. 113 ); ♀ fore tarsus and middle tarsus not obvious widened and lacking outstandingly long setulae ( Fig. 109 ); ♀ hind tibia with extremely short tarsomeres ( Figs 111, 112 ); ♀ theca shown in Fig. 110 .............. ............................................ P. nitida ( Kröber, 1915)

– Cells r 1 and r 2+3 more or less hyaline, never both completely tinged dark brown, costal cell sometimes hyaline; ♀ fore tarsus with or without long setulae; ♀ hind tibia, hind tasomeres and theca different......... 5

5. Costal cell pigmented but slightly paler than cell r 1; cells r 2+3 and r 4+5 apically hyaline, with base contrasting darker; ♀ fore and middle tarsi obvious shorter than tibiae; fore tarsus with characteristic long setulae: at apex with one pair of forward-directed and strongly incurved setulae, and basally with two pairs of strongly back-curved setulae; ♀ sternite 6 with a broad field of black, dispersed setae............... ................................. P. tetratarsata ( Camras, 2001)

– Wing with different markings; ♀ fore and middle tarsi different; ♀ sternite 6 different........................ 6

6. Cell r 1 completely dark brown, cell r 2+3 mostly dark brown and only slightly paler apically; abdomen completely black; ♀ theca with two patches of 6–7 strong black setae; sternite 6 with two distinct lateral fields of dense black setae and on each sits a pair of very close-set, long and strong black setae; ♀ fore tarsus not obviously widened, and lacking long setulae which equal the tarsus width......................... ................................. P. basilewskyi (Camras, 1962)

– Cell r 1 mainly hyaline, cell r 2+3 at most slightly infuscated dark brown ( Fig. 125 ); tergites 2–3 at least partly orange-brown ( Fig. 122 ); ♀ theca and sternite 6 lacking any fields of setae or long strong setae, but with a large plate which has sparse fine setulae ( Fig. 124 ); ♀ fore tarsus obviously widened and with long black setulae which equal the tarsus width ( Fig. 123 )............ P. vitripennis Curran, 1928

Figures

Figs 114–118. Physocephala pilitarsis Kröber, 1936 (♀, Kakamega forest). 114. ♀ fore tarsus, ventral view; 115. ♀ postabdomen, ventral view; 116. ♀ middle tarsus, lateroventral view; 117. Radial-medial crossvein, dorsal view; 118. Wing, dorsal view.

Figs 119–121. Physocephala spinipes (Camras, 2001) (♀, Kakamega forest). 119. ♀ hind tibia and tarsi, lateral view; 120. Middle tarsi, dorsal view; 121. Wing, dorsal view.

Figs 108–113. Physocephala nitida (Kröber, 1915) (♀, Kloto forest). 108. ♀ abdomen, dorsal view; 109. ♀ fore tarsi, dorsal view; 110. ♀ theca, ventral view; 111. ♀ hind tibia and hind tarsi, lateral view; 112. ♀ hind tarsi, dorsal view; 113. Wing, dorsal view.

Figs 122–125. Physocephala vitripennis (Curran, 1928). 122. ♀ abdomen, dorsal view (♀, w Kabala); 123. ♀ fore tarsi, dorsal view (♀, w Kabala); 124. ♀ theca, ventral view (♀, w Kabala); 125. Wing, dorsal view (♀, Ibadan).