Ebenia spinosa ( Bigot 1889 ), 2024

Domingos, Marcelo, 2024, Revision of the Neotropical Obscure Genus Ebenia Macquart 1846 (Diptera, Tachinidae, Dufouriini), Neotropical Entomology 53 (4), pp. 833-853 : 848-851

Ebenia spinosa ( Bigot 1889) comb. nov.

( Figs. 9 , 10 and 11 ).

Homodexia spinosa Bigot 1889: 268 . Male holotype ( NHMUK). Type locality: Mexico. Reference. Wulp 1891: 264, diagnostic traits; close resemblance with Morinia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 sensu Wulp , i.e., Ebenia in part); Ebenia spinosa ( Bigot 1889) . Reference. Brauer (1898: 515, diagnostic traits; close to Thelairodes Wulp 1891 ); Thelairodes spinosus ( Bigot 1889) . References. Guimarães 1971: 195, catalogue); O’Hara et al. (2020: 174, checklist of World Tachinidae ).

Morinia trichopoda Wulp 1891: 261 . Mexico, Veracruz and Tabasco. Two males syntypes and a single female syntype ( NHMUK). New synonymy Ebenia trichopoda ( Wulp 1891) . References. Guimarães 1971: 109, catalogue); O’Hara et al. (2020: 93, checklist of World Tachinidae ).

Type material examined Holotype ♂ of Homodexia spinosa Bigot 1889 : “Holo-/ type”; “ E. spinosula ♂./ Homodexia id olim/ J. Bigot. Mexique”; “♂”; Homodexia / spinosa Bigot / holotype ♂/ Mexico [handwritten]/ ex.Bigot Coll: B.M.1960– 539.”; “BMNH(E) #/ 230,979”; “ NHMUK 013933633 ″ . Holotype in fair condition, slightly molded; head and wings damaged, only a single hind leg present.

Remarks. In the original description of Morinia trichopoda, Wulp 1891: 261 ) mentioned “ Six male and two female specimens”, however, at the NHMUK collection, only two males and one female could be found. These three syntypes were examined by D.M. Wood. One male presents a lectotype label and the other specimens a paralectotype label each attached by Wood in 1989. However, the lectotype designation was not published. In the interests of nomenclatural stability and to restrict the name to a single specimen, the male syntype that bears Wood’s lectotype label and the additional label “ NHMUK 013933635” is hereby designated as lectotype of Morinia trichopoda Wulp 1891 .

The current status for this species is a junior synonymy of Homodexia spinosa Bigot 1889 .

Type material examined Lectotype ♂ of Morinia trichopoda Wulp 1891 : “Lecto-/ type”; “ ♂ ”; “Teapa,/ Tabasco./ Jan. H.H.S.”; “B.C.A. Dipt.II./ Morinia / trichopoda,/ v.d. W.”; “ Central America./ Pres. by/ F.D.Godman. / O.Salvin./ 1903– 172.”; “Lectotype ♂ / of Morinia / trichopoda Wlp / designated 1989/ D. M. Wood ”; “ NHMUK 013933635 ” .

Paralectotype ♂: “Teapa,/ Tabasco./ March. H.H.S.”; “B.C.A. Dipt.II./ Morinia / trichopoda,/ v.d. W.”; “ Central America ./ Pres. by/ F.D.Godman. / O.Salvin./ 1903–172.”; “Paralectotype ♂/ of Morinia / trichopoda Wlp / designated 1989/ D. M. Wood ”.

Paralectotype ♀: “Vera,/ Tabasco./ March. H.H.S.”; “B.C.A. Dipt.II./ Morinia / trichopoda,/ v.d. W.”; “ Central America ./ Pres. by/ F.D.Godman. / O.Salvin./ 1903–172.”; “Paralectotype ♀/ of Morinia / trichopoda Wlp / designated 1989/ D. M. Wood ” .

Additional examined material COSTA RICA. Cartago: P.N. Barbilla, 3 km, S.F. de la Estación, 400 m, 16.xii.2000, 1 ♀, E. Rojas, Manual, L.N_216200_598100 #62,968 ( MNCR); BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: Casimiro de Abreu, Rebo União, Trilha do Buração, malaise, 1 ♀, 8.iii.2014, Eq. col., Biota Diptera Fluminense (MNRJ) , ditto, Trilha Três Pontes, 1 ♀, 27.v-27. vi.2013, Eq. col., Biota Diptera Fluminense (MNRJ) .

Diagnosis. Eyes with conspicuous setulae. Fronto-orbital plate silver pruinose. Postpedicel dark brown, but about ¼ dorsal light brown. Facial ridge with setulae present almost at the antennal insertion. Prosternum setulose. Thorax with silver pruinosity. Legs brownish to light brown. Wing hyaline; vein R 4+5 with setulae dorsally hallway to vein r-m. Costal spine poorly developed. Abdomen with silvery pruinosity on each tergite, almost reaching posterior margin.

( Figs. 9–11 here). Redescription of male.

Coloration ( Fig. 9a–b, d ): Occiput with silver pruinosity. Head with dark silver pruinosity. Scape light brown and pedicel dark brown. Postpedicel dark brown. Arista dark brown, but proximal 1/5 light brown. Palpus yellowish. Labellum light brown, prementum shiny black. Scutum brownish, but presutural region and anterodorsal portion of postsutural region with brownish-silvery pruinosity; presutural region brownish-black, with a silver pruinosy median vittae. Wing smoky on apical region. Tegula and basicosta dark brown. Calypters smoky. Halter yellowish. Posterior spiracle light-brown. Legs brownish. Upper and lower calypters hyaline. Abdomen brownish, without pruinosity.

Head ( Fig. 9a–b, d ): Vertex about 0.14 ×head width in dorsal view. Width of parafacial, measured at distance between inner margin of eye and antennal insertion, 2 × height of gena. Fronto-orbital plate with setulae throughout its length. Frontal vitta narrowed dorsally. Eye about 0.8 ×the head height. Gena about 0.16 × eye height. Labellum developed, about 0.1x as long as prementum.

Thorax ( Fig. 9a, c ): Acrostichal setae 2 + 1 (first presutural seta weak). Dorsocentral setae 1 +2. Prosternum setulose. Anepisternum with one seat on anterior upward region. Wing. Costal spine well developed. Vein R 4+5 with setulae beyond the r-m and ventrally at base. Legs. Fore femur with posterodorsal and posteroventral rows of setae; fore tibia with 7 median anterodorsal, 1 posteroventral in distal third, 5 preapicals, 2 anterodorsal, 1 lateral and 2 posteroventral setae. Mid tibia with 3 anteroventral, 3 posteroventral setae on apical third; mid femur with anterodorsal setae on apical third, 2 preapical, and 2 posteroventral setae. Hind femur with posterodorsal and posteroventral rows of setae. Hind tibia with 2 long submedian anteroventral setae and 2 short apical setae, 4 preapical, 2 anterodorsal, and 2 posteroventral setae.

Abdomen ( Fig. 9a, c ): Syntergite 1 +2 with mid-dorsal longitudinal depression extending until ½ to posterior margin. Syntergite 1 + 2 with at least 4 pairs of lateral marginal setae; tergite 3 with at least 4 pairs of lateral marginal setae and a pair of median marginal seta.

Female. Differs from male as follows ( Fig. 10 ): Head vertex about 0.21 × head width in dorsal view, with fronto-orbital plate with 1 proclinate, followed apically by 1 reclinate and other 1 proclinate pairs of setae. Frontal vittae equal length from the vertex, viewed dorsally. Legs with claws and pulvilli shorter than tarsomere 5. Abdomen shorter and broader than in the male, brownish black.

Terminalia ( Fig. 11b ): Tergites 6–7 and sternites 6–7 as a subrectangular plate with setae posteriorly. Tergite 8 fused with sternite 8, forming a cone shape (posteriorly facing) structure. Sternite 9 well-developed and long. Sternite 10 long, rod-shaped, with setulae along its structure. Cercus subovalate with setulae posteriorly. Spermatheca ( Fig. 11a ): two narrow, subovalate and one ovalate, broader; slightly rugose with a pore apically.

Biology. Unknown.

Distribution. Mexico (Tabasco); Costa Rica (Cartago, new record); Brazil (Rio de Janeiro, new record).

Remarks. Jacques-Marie-Frangile Bigot (1818–1893) was a French dipterist who accumulated an exceptionally rich collection of material from the Neotropical region over the years. Mexico was frequently cited for type localities, enabling the description of numerous new species. However, there are two main problems with his species: (1) because of Bigot’s brief and uninformative descriptions, “…without reference to the type specimens it is virtually impossible to recognize any of the genera and species which Bigot described…” ( Crosskey 1971: 293) and (2) for his careless regard for nomenclature and orthography (see, e.g., Verrall 1889). The holotype of this species is a fine example of Bigot’s procedure. One can read at the original label of the holotype male ( Fig. 9D ), by the handwriting of Bigot himself, “ Homodexia id olim ”; “id.” meaning idem and “olim” for formerly, i.e., equal to the formerly genus. In addition, Bigot wrote “ E. spinosula ”, and not Homodexia spinosa . Thus, Bigot, since the original description, probably had changed his mind and preferred to consider this species as belonging to Ebenia and not Homodexia , as Brauer (1898) noted. Additionally, Wulp 1891: 264) considered Homodexia spinosa with a close resemblance with Morinia (= Ebenia in part, sensu Wulp). On the other hand, Brauer (1898) considered that the characters of this species agree with the genus Thelairodes Wulp 1891 . Probably following Brauer (1898), Guimarães (1971) placed this genus as belonging to Thelairodes , a placement followed by O’Hara et al. (2020). Herein, I could confirm Bigot’s change of mind as seen in his label by showing that Homodexia spinosa is indeed a species pertaining to Ebenia as the diagnostic characters above shows.

Additional complexities for anyone studying Bigot’s material are that his type-specimens are normally only known to the country and he never cites the names of the collectors. Most of the insects collected in Mexico, especially for the nineteenth century, were acquired in Europe through professional collectors, who explored Mexico for many years, visiting almost every state of the country. Thus, Papavero (1971) considered very likely that Bigot studied the collections gathered in Mexico by Louis Pilate (1816–1852), a French naturalist; by three naturalists that belonged to a Belgian commission charged by the government to undertake a scientific exploration that included Mexico: August Boniface Ghiesbreght (1810–1893), a Belgian zoologist; Jean Jules Linden (1817–1898), a Belgian botanist, and Nicholas Funck (1817–1896) a Luxembourgish, the artist of the expedition. Additionally, the naturalists, that are also known for sending part of their collections to Luigi Bellardi (1818–1889) in Italy, could also have been used by Bigot in his works: Auguste Sallé (1820–1896) a French traveler, Adrien Jean Louis François Sumichrast (1828–1882) a Swiss naturalist and professional collector, Henri Louis Frédéric de Saussure (1829–1905), a Swiss mineralogist and entomologist, and Adolphe Boucard (1839–1905) a French ornithologist and collector. Thus, it is virtually impossible to state a precise locality for E. spinosa without at least the information of who, among those distinguished travelers and naturalists that visited different regions of Mexico, was the one that collected this specimen.

Figures

Fig. 9 Ebenia spinosa (Bigot 1889), holotype male (NHMUK). A. Dorsal habitus. B. head, frontal view. C. labels. D. lateral habitus

Fig. 10 Ebenia spinosa (Bigot 1889), female from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (MNRJ). A. Dorsal habitus. B. head, frontal view. C. lateral habitus

Fig.11 Ebenia spinosa (Bigot 1889), Cartago, Costa Rica (MNCR). A. Spermathecae. B. female terminalia. Abbrevia- tions: C=cercus; S=sternite; T=tergite