Sepedonea giovana, Marinoni & Mathis, 2006: 40

Murphy, William L., Abercrombie, Jay, González, Christian R. & Knutson, Lloyd, 2023, Overview of the Sciomyzidae (Diptera: Sciomyzoidea) of the Americas south of the United States, Zootaxa 5345 (1), pp. 1-113 : 42-44

giovana Marinoni & Mathis, 2006: 40 ,

figs. 1–10, 15, 27 (habitus, head, posterior spiracle, wing, ♂ terminalia, ♂ genitalia; spermatheca)

Sepedonea guianica of Freidberg et al., 1991: 16 [revision; in part]

( vau Abercrombie, 1970 ; unavailable name)

Note 1: Marinoni & Mathis 2006: 40 gave an incomplete citation (" Sepedonea guianica of authors, not Steyskal [misidentification]") in their list of literature.

Note 2: Marinoni & Mathis 2006: 40 erroneously cited Knutson et al. 1976 and Knutson & Valley 1978 in their list of literature. Knutson et al. 1976 recorded localities for S. guianica only from northern South America ( Colombia, Venezuela, Suriname, French Guiana), whereas Marinoni & Mathis listed S. giovana as occurring only in Brazil and Argentina. Knutson & Valley 1978 referred to S. guianica only briefly and presented no locality data.

Note 3: Marinoni & Mathis 2006 established their new species S. giovana based upon examination of adult specimens previously identified by Freidberg et al. 1991 as S. guianica . Marinoni & Mathis looked at 82 adults (60♂ 22♀) from 12 localities in five states (Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul) in central, southeastern, and southern Brazil and one province (Tucumán) in northern Argentina. Six of the 12 localities are sites where Freidberg et al. found S. guianica . Both Freidberg et al. and Marinoni & Mathis carefully and fully listed the date-locality of each of their specimens, but neither gave the locations of the specimens from which their illustrations were drawn (except for the photographs by Marinoni & Mathis of the holotype of S. giovana from 17 km N of Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais). It is impossible to say definitively if the two research groups examined the same specimens from Brazil, but it is highly likely that they did so. However, one specimen that perfectly matches each of their label descriptions is a lone male from Monteros, Tucumán, Argentina. That specimen illustrates how the two groups of researchers, examining the same specimen, came to two different conclusions. Freidberg et al. identified it as S. guianica , whereas Marinoni & Mathis determined it as S. giovana .

Note 4: Sepedonea giovana and S. guianica share many characters and are closely related to each other. Freidberg et al. 1991 described and illustrated what they called "two variations" of S. guianica (based upon where the adult specimens had been collected) and suggested that the differences represented "intraspecific variation." They wrote (p. 19): " Most [emphasis added] specimens from Brazil differ from the specimens originating farther in the north, including the holotype [from French Guiana], in having the midfemur distinctly spinose, in usually having dark lateral preapical marks on the hindfemur, in the darker and clouded wing, and in the posterior surstyli, which lack a median lobe. However, the overall similarity between the two groups of specimens, the male and female terminalia in particular, suggests that these differences merely represent intraspecific variation." Marinoni & Mathis 2006: 40–42 cited characters distinguishing S. giovana , including, among others, the spinose mid femur, the dark lateral preapical marks on the hind femur, the darker wing, and the lack of a median lobe on the posterior surstyli. They concluded (p. 51), " Sepedonea giovana and S. guianica are sister groups and are very similar morphologically." They further wrote (p. 51), "two homoplasious characters ... also define their close relationship: ... the male hindcoxal strap only bears setulae medially ... and ... the posterior margin of the male 4th sternite has two lateral processes."

Note 5: The characters of S. giovana agree well with one of the two variations of S. guianica recognized by Freidberg et al. 1991. For example, fig. 42[b] (the posterior surstylus of one of the variations of S. guianica ) of Freidberg et al. 1991: 17 compares very well with fig. 10 (the posterior surstylus of S. giovana ) of Marinoni & Mathis 2006: 42. Another example: fig. 43[a] (the posterior surstylus of the other variation of S. guianica ) of Freidberg et al. 1991: 17 compares favorably with fig. 16 (the posterior surstylus of S. guianica ) of Marinoni & Mathis 2006: 45. See additional notes under S. guianica .

HT: ♂ “ BRAZIL: Minas Gerais: 17 km N of Belo Horizonte [43°56’W, 19°45’S] C.O. Berg 18–23.VII.1964.” USNM, unnumbered

PT: 46♂ 19♀ Brazil (Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Paraná, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul). The paratypes were collected in 1964, 1966, and 1967, with the earliest recorded collection occurring on 1.V in Paraná and the latest on 27.VII in S ã o Paulo. DZUP, USNM

DIST: ARGENTINA (Tucumán). BRAZIL (Minas Gerais; Paraná; Rio Grande do Sul; Santa Catarina; S ã o Paulo). Maps: Marinoni & Mathis 2006, Ciprandi Pires et al. 2008, Ciprandi Pires & Marinoni 2010

Note 6: We are unable to provide a fully accurate distribution list based on available information. Marinoni & Mathis 2006 provided our most complete understanding of the distribution of S. giovana . However, their data displayed inconsistencies and gaps. On p. 43 of their paper, Marinoni & Mathis listed localities of specimens they had examined and showed these localities by small black circles on the map (fig. 41, p. 50). On p. 43, they listed four localities in Paraná where S. giovana had been collected, but their map (fig. 41, p. 50) showed only three localities in Paraná. They also listed one locality on p. 43 for Rio Grande do Sul, but their map (fig. 41, p. 50) showed two localities in Rio Grande do Sul. Marinoni & Mathis included locality records of S. giovana from Mello & Bredt 1978a (as S. vau ) from Goiás, Distrito Federal, and Minas Gerais but stated (p. 43), “ ... we did not have access to these specimens to verify determinations of species.” Marinoni & Mathis did not map the Goiás record from Mello & Bredt on their distribution map, but they did map three other records of Mello & Bredt’s (two in Distrito Federal and one in Minas Gerais), indicating those localities by small black stars instead of circles (fig. 41, p. 50). Ciprandi Pires et al. 2008 greatly expanded the range of S. giovana as detailed by Marinoni & Mathis 2006. Ciprandi Pires et al. stated that the species is “widely distributed” (p. 23) and that the “geographical distribution of S. giovana ... ranges from northeastern Brazil to northern Argentina ” (p. 32). They plotted (fig. 2i, p. 24) an individual track for S. giovana that extended from northeastern Brazil to northern Argentina with a sidetrack into central Brazil, but their track did not include Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil’s two southernmost states [states from which Marinoni & Mathis 2006 identified type material of S. giovana ]. Unfortunately, Ciprandi Pires et al. 2008 provided no date-locality information to support their data.

FIGS: Marinoni & Mathis 2006 (habitus, head, posterior spiracle, wings, ♂ sternites 4 and 5, distiphallus, posterior surstylus; ♀ synsternum, spermatheca), this paper (fore femur)

Note 7: In Marinoni & Mathis 2006, figs. 14 and 15 (posterior view of posterior surstyli) are transposed; fig. 14, “ S. giovana ," is S. guatemalana , and fig. 15, " S. guatemalana ," is S. giovana . See additional notes under S. guatemalana .

BIOL: Abercrombie 1970 (as S. vau ), 2000 (as S. guianica ). BG: 11; PG: 6

HOSTS/PREY OF LARVAE: Aplexa marmorata , Biomphalaria glabrata , Galba humilis , Gyraulus parvus , Helisoma trivolvis , Physella gyrina , Planorbella duryi , Pseudosuccinea columella , Stagnicola palustris , and Tarebia granifera

IMMATS: Freidberg et al. 1991 (E, L1–L3, P) (as S. guianica ). Freidberg et al. 1991 based their descriptions of immature stages on laboratory-reared specimens from adults captured almost exclusively at Praia do Leste, Paraná, Brazil —adults determined by Marinoni & Mathis to be S. giovana . Marinoni & Mathis 2006: 38 wrote, “the descriptions of immatures published by Freidberg et al. (1991) for S. guianica are actually of the new species described [ S. giovana ] ... “ See additional notes under S. guianica .