diff --git a/data/03/D0/56/03D056726323FF8CFDBD17E5FC5DFCFD.xml b/data/03/D0/56/03D056726323FF8CFDBD17E5FC5DFCFD.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..18c221b54fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/03/D0/56/03D056726323FF8CFDBD17E5FC5DFCFD.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,1393 @@
+
+
+
+Late Oligocene fishes (Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes) from the Catahoula Formation in Wayne County, Mississippi, USA
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Cicimurri, David J.
+F0155EA1-F5D6-49E4-B578-7A14DBB7B902
+South Carolina State Museum, 301 Gervais Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29021, USA.
+dave.cicimurri@scmuseum.org
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Ebersole, Jun A.
+D48E2A2F-EC92-4C32-9F2A-2D39716C459E
+McWane Science Center, 200 19 Street North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203, USA.
+jebersole@mcwane.org
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Stringer, Gary L.
+4E93392A-5916-44C6-B55A-9053A4F44C76
+University of Louisiana at Monroe, Monroe, Louisiana 71209, USA.
+stringer@ulm.edu
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Starnes, James E.
+:D4E14C23-EE57-4D1D-8709-895A1345C8BA
+Office of Geology, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 700 North State Street, Jackson, Mississippi 39202, USA.
+jstarnes@mdeq.ms.gov
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Phillips, George E.
+:DFFC9021-05C6-4B56-BCD3-D54BCDE91351
+Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, 2148 Riverside Drive, Jackson, Mississippi 39202, USA.
+george.phillips@mmns.ms.gov
+
+text
+
+
+European Journal of Taxonomy
+
+
+2025
+
+2025-03-28
+
+
+984
+
+
+1
+
+
+1
+131
+
+
+
+
+https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2851/12957
+
+journal article
+10.5852/ejt.2025.984.2851
+2118-9773
+15126034
+7D8BB514-E8B7-403C-9725-B1405E214075
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Hemipristis intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+
+
+
+
+urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:25CF2AFD-3892-43EC-DE9878B39014
+Fig. 6
+
+
+
+
+Diagnosis
+
+
+
+Upper lateral teeth are the most common tooth morphology represented, and because they are more diagnostic than the lower teeth, they are utilized herein to diagnose the species. Upper lateral teeth measure up to
+2.5 cm
+in width (mesio-distal) and
+2 cm
+in height (apico-basal). These teeth have a broad, triangular crown and distally directed main cusp. The mesial cutting edge may be smooth or bear up to ten denticles and the distal cutting edge up to 12 denticles, with denticles on both edges increasing in size towards the apex. A smooth-edged cusp constitutes the apical 30%–40% of the crown. Of the fossil
+
+Hemipristis
+species
+
+we consider valid, the upper lateral teeth of
+
+H. intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+differ from those of the Eocene
+
+H. curvatus
+Dames, 1883
+
+by attaining larger overall sizes (
+2.5 cm
+wide by
+2.2 cm
+high for
+
+H. intermedia
+
+vs
+1.5 cm
+and
+1.1 cm
+, respectively for
+
+H. curvatus
+
+), by having more mesial and distal denticles (up to four and eight, respectively for
+
+H. curvatus
+
+, and up to 10 and 11, respectively, for
+
+H. intermedia
+
+), and by having mesial denticles that extend higher on the crown (two-thirds the crown height vs. one-half the crown height on
+
+H. curvatus
+
+).
+
+Hemipristis intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+upper lateral teeth differ from those of the Miocene to Early Pleistocene
+
+H. serra
+Agassiz, 1835
+
+by attaining smaller overall sizes (
+3.7 cm
+wide and
+3.6 cm
+height for
+
+H. serra
+
+), by having fewer distal denticles (up to 20 have been observed on
+
+H. serra
+
+), and by having denticles that do not extent as close to the apex, resulting in a cusp that represents more than 20% of the crown height (as opposed to 10% in
+
+H. serra
+
+). These teeth are differentiated from those of the Rupelian
+
+H. tanakai
+Tomita, Yabumoto & Kuga, 2023
+
+by having more than five mesial denticles (the maximum number reported for
+
+H. tanakai
+
+), and the apical-most mesial and distal denticles are of nearly equal height on the crown (whereas the distal denticle is generally higher in
+
+H. tanakai
+
+). Finally, the upper lateral teeth of
+
+Hemipristis intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+differ from those of the extant
+
+H. elongata
+(
+Klunzinger, 1871
+)
+
+by being mesio-distally wider, by having more conspicuous denticles, and by having a more convex upper one-half of the mesial crown edge. The number of tooth denticles of
+
+Hemipristis intermedia
+
+is greater than the maximum occurring on
+
+H. curvatus
+
+teeth but less than the maximum number known for the Miocene to Early Pleistocene
+
+H. serra
+Agassiz, 1835
+
+. The proportion of cusp to total crown height is less than in
+
+H. curvatus
+
+but greater than in
+
+H. serra
+
+. The recently named
+
+H. tanakai
+(Tomita
+et al
+. 2023)
+
+is considered herein as a nomen dubium (see below), but the tooth size of that taxon overlaps with those of
+
+H. serra
+
+and
+
+H. intermedia
+
+. Additionally, only five mesial denticles occur in
+
+H. tanakai
+
+and the mesial denticles extend closer to the crown apex compared to the distal edge.
+
+
+
+
+
+Etymology
+
+
+
+The species name refers to the transitional tooth morphology between the Eocene
+
+Hemipristis curvatus
+
+and the Miocene to Early Pleistocene
+
+H. serra
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Material examined
+
+
+
+
+
+Holotype
+
+
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+–
+
+Mississippi
+•
+
+upper left lateral tooth;
+Catahoula Formation
+;
+SC
+2013.28.73
+(Fig. 6PP–RR).
+
+
+
+
+
+Paratypes
+
+
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+–
+
+Mississippi
+•
+
+upper left anterior tooth;
+Catahoula Formation
+;
+MMNS
+VP-12037
+(Fig. 6G–I)
+•
+
+lower left anterior tooth;
+Catahoula Formation
+;
+SC
+2013.28.80
+(Fig. 6P–R)
+
+•
+
+lower right lateral tooth;
+Catahoula Formation
+;
+MMNS
+VP-12036
+(Fig. 6D–F)
+
+.
+
+
+
+Other material
+
+
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+–
+
+Mississippi
+•
+
+189 isolated teeth;
+Catahoula Formation
+;
+MMNS
+VP-464
+(
+2 teeth
+),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-6625
+(
+114 teeth
+),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-6625.1
+(Fig. 6HH–JJ),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-7243
+(
+7 teeth
+),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-7604
+(Fig. 6MM–OO),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-7691
+(
+9 teeth
+),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-8745
+,
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-12035
+(Fig. 6A–C),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-12038
+(Fig. 6J–L),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-12039
+(Fig. 6M–O),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-12040
+(Fig. 6S–U),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-12041
+,
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-12042
+(Fig. 6V–X),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-12043
+(Fig. 6Y– AA),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-12044
+(Fig. 6BB–CC),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-12045
+(Fig. 6DD–EE),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-12046
+(Fig. 6FF–GG),
+
+
+SC
+2013.28.69 to 28.72
+,
+
+
+SC
+2013.28.74 to 28.79
+,
+
+
+SC
+2013.28.81 to 28.89
+,
+
+
+SC
+2013.28.90
+(Fig. 6KK–LL),
+
+
+SC
+2013.28.91 to 28.101
+,
+
+
+SC
+2013.28.102
+(
+10 teeth
+),
+
+
+SC
+2013.28.103
+(Fig. 6SS–TT),
+
+
+SC
+2013.28.104
+(Fig. 6UU–VV),
+
+
+MMNS
+VP-7604
+(Fig. 6MM–OO).
+
+
+
+
+Stratum typicum
+
+
+Shelly, argillaceous sand of the Jones Branch fossil horizon, lower Catahoula Formation, Chattian Stage (horizon no longer accessible).
+
+
+Locus typicus
+
+
+
+Site MS.77.011, Jones Branch, tributary flowing into the Chickasawhay River, south of Waynesboro, Wayne County,
+Mississippi
+,
+USA
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Description
+
+
+Several tooth morphologies are present, including specimens with a triangular, broad-based but apically narrow, slightly distally inclined crown. In profile view (Fig.6C, R, U), the crown on these teeth is flat to weakly sigmoidal, and the labial face is weakly convex, but the lingual face is strongly convex. The crown enameloid is smooth. In profile view, the mesial cutting edge is straight, and in labial/lingual view, it may be straight or concave basally but convex apically. The distal cutting edge is straight basally but overall exhibits a convex appearance due to the distally inclined cusp. The degree of curvature on these edges varies slightly. The mesial edge may be smooth along its entirety or bear up to nine denticles along its lower one- to two-thirds (compare Fig. 6B, E, H). These denticles are apically directed and decrease in size basally, but they do not reach the cusp apex and do not extend to the crown base. The distal edge bears up to nine denticles that decrease in size basally. These denticles do not reach the apex but can extend to the crown foot. The denticles are not serrated. The uppermost one-third of the crown is developed into a triangular cusp that varies slightly in width and degree of distal inclination (compare Fig. 6D to G). The mesial and distal cutting edges of the main cusp are smooth. The root is weakly bilobate with very short and diverging lobes that are separated by a narrow and shallow U-shaped interlobe area. A robust lingual boss (i.e., Fig. 6F) is bisected by a long, shallow but wide nutritive groove.
+
+Other specimens are similar to those described above but have a broader crown that is more strongly distally curved. This broad-based and distally curved morphology is considered diagnostic of the species and a representative specimen was chosen as the
+holotype
+(Fig. 6PP–RR). The largest tooth of this type measures
+2.5 cm
+wide and
+2 cm
+in total height. In profile view, the crowns of these teeth are labially curved and labio-lingually thin. The crown enameloid is smooth. The mesial edge is elongated and can be sinuous to uniformly convex (compare Fig. 6Y to 6DD), whereas the distal edge is uniformly concave
+
+
+Fig. 6
+(page 21).
+
+Hemipristis intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+, teeth.
+A–C
+. MMNS VP-12035, lower left lateral tooth.
+A
+. Labial view.
+B
+. Lingual view.
+C
+. Mesial view.
+D–F
+. MMNS VP-12036 (
+paratype
+), lower left lateral tooth.
+D
+. Labial view.
+E
+. Lingual view.
+F
+. Mesial view.
+G–I
+. MMNS VP-12037 (
+paratype
+), upper left anterior tooth.
+G
+. Labial view.
+H
+. Lingual view.
+I
+. Mesial view.
+J–L
+. MMNS VP-12038, lower right anterolateral tooth.
+J
+. Labial view.
+K
+. Lingual view.
+L
+. Mesial view.
+M–O
+. MMNS VP-12039, lower right anterior tooth.
+M
+. Labial view.
+N
+. Lingual view.
+O
+. Mesial view.
+P–R
+.
+SC
+2013.28.80 (
+paratype
+), lower left anterior tooth.
+P
+. Labial view.
+Q
+. Lingual view.
+R
+. Mesial view.
+S–U
+. MMNS VP-12040, upper left lateral tooth.
+S
+. Labial view.
+T
+. Lingual view.
+U
+. Mesial view.
+V–X
+. MMNS VP-12042, upper left lateral tooth.
+V
+. Labial view.
+W
+. Lingual view.
+X
+. Mesial view.
+Y–AA
+. MMNS VP-12043, upper right lateral tooth.
+Y
+. Labial view.
+Z
+. Lingual view.
+AA
+. Mesial view.
+BB–CC
+. MMNS VP-12044, upper left lateral tooth.
+BB
+. Labial view.
+CC
+. Lingual view.
+DD–EE
+. MMNS VP-12045, upper left lateral tooth.
+DD
+. Labial view.
+EE
+. Lingual view.
+FF–GG
+. MMNS VP-12046, upper left lateral tooth.
+FF
+. Labial view.
+GG
+. Lingual view.
+HH–JJ
+. MMNS VP-6625, lower left symphyseal tooth.
+HH
+. Labial view.
+II
+. Lingual view.
+JJ
+. Mesial view.
+KK–LL
+.
+SC
+2013.28.90, upper right lateral tooth.
+KK
+. Labial view.
+LL
+. Lingual view.
+MM–OO
+. MMNS VP-7604, juvenile lower left anterior tooth.
+MM
+. Labial view.
+NN
+. Lingual view.
+OO
+. Mesial view.
+PP–RR
+.
+SC
+2013.28.73 (
+holotype
+), upper right lateral tooth.
+PP
+. Labial view.
+QQ
+. Lingual view.
+RR
+. Mesial view.
+SS–TT
+.
+SC
+2013.28.103, juvenile upper left postero-lateral tooth.
+SS
+. Labial view.
+TT
+. Lingual view.
+
+UU–
+VV
+
+.
+SC
+2013.28.104, juvenile upper left lateral tooth.
+UU
+. Labial view.
+
+VV
+
+. Lingual view. Scale bars: A–U, HH–JJ =
+1 cm
+; MM–OO =
+2 mm
+; V–GG, KK–LL, PP–QQ =
+5 mm
+; RR–UU =
+1 mm
+. along its length (i.e., Fig. 6T). The degree of curvature of the mesial and distal edges is variable. The mesial edge may be smooth, but it is more typically denticulated, often with 5–6 denticles, but up to ten may be present (compare Fig. 6BB, FF, PP, S). These denticles are usually medially located on the edge, but they may only occur along the lower one-third or extend up to two-thirds of the crown height. Denticles are apically directed but decrease in size basally. The distal edge often bears eight denticles, but up to 11 can occur (compare Fig. 6DD to T). Denticles are apically directed but decrease in size basally, and they extend to the crown foot. Although the distal denticles often extend higher onto the crown compared to the mesial denticles, the mesial denticles sometimes extend beyond the height of the distal ones (compare Fig. 6EE to T). The apical portion of the crown is developed into a triangular cusp that is distally inclined to varying degrees. The mesial and distal cutting edges are smooth. The root is bilobate, with very wide but short sub-rectangular lobes. These are separated by a narrow U-shaped or V-shaped interlobe area. A low lingual boss (Fig. 6AA) is bisected by a long, shallow, and wide nutritive groove.
+
+Some specimens are quite distinct from both aforementioned morphotypes, as they are very narrow mesio-distally and have a tall crown (Fig. 6HH). In profile view, the crown may be weakly sinuous, with strong lingual curvature and slight labial curvature of the crown faces (Fig. 6JJ). The labial crown face is moderately convex and the lingual face very convex, which results in a somewhat conical crown. The crown may lack or have apical cutting edges, and no denticles are developed. The root is narrow, weakly bilobate, and has a robust lingual boss bearing a conspicuous nutritive groove. A more common morphology includes teeth with a wider crown that is denticulated. In profile view, the crown is highly lingually curved, and the labial face is convex basally but flatter apically (Fig. 6L, R). The lingual face is very convex, and crown enameloid is smooth on all specimens. The mesial side of the tooth may be rounded or bear a cutting edge that does not extend to the crown foot (Fig. 6JJ). Relatively small and needle-like denticles can occur along the lower one-fourth of the mesial edge, of which up to three have been observed (Fig. 6Q). The distal edge usually bears a smooth cutting edge, which does not reach the crown foot. Two to four small and needle-like denticles occur at the lower one-third of the edge (Fig. 6M, P). The denticles on both sides of the crown are widely separated from each other and may be medially curved. The cutting edges are always smooth and may reach the level of the denticles. The denticle-free portion of the crown is a narrow and triangular cusp that is comparatively larger than those of previously described teeth. The root is bilobate with relatively short, diverging lobes, and the mesial lobe is more elongated and narrower than the distal lobe (Fig. 6H, Q). A robust lingual boss (Fig. 6O, R, JJ) is bisected by a deep but narrow nutritive groove.
+
+Specimens
+SC
+2013.28.103 (Fig. 6SS–TT) and
+SC
+2013.28.104 (Fig. 6UU–
+VV
+) are diminutive teeth that are similar to each other. Both are broad-based and sub-triangular in labial view, with
+SC
+2013.28.103 measuring
+2 mm
+in width and
+SC
+2013.28.104 just over
+3 mm
+in width as preserved. Both specimens have an elongated and convex mesial cutting edge, and a much shorter (and smooth) distal cutting edge that intersect apically to form a rather small and distally inclined cusp. Although the mesial edge of
+SC
+2013.28.104 is smooth, that of
+SC
+2013.28.103 bears a diminutive denticle medially (compare Fig. 6
+VV
+to TT). Each specimen has an oblique distal heel that bears four triangular denticles that decrease in size basally (Fig. 6SS, UU). Overall, the crown of both specimens is rather straight, with the labial face being relatively flat and the lingual face convex. The crown foot of
+SC
+2013.28.104 is not preserved, but that of
+SC
+2013.28.103 is thickened and slightly overhangs the root. The root of
+SC
+2013.28.103 is higher on the lingual side than on the labial side. The root lobes are very short, sub-rectangular, highly divergent, and separated by a very narrow U-shaped interlobe area. The lingual attachment surface is bisected by a conspicuous nutritive groove.
+
+
+Specimens
+SC
+2013.28.105, MMNS VP-7604, and MMNS VP-8745 are diminutive teeth of comparable morphology. The crowns measure
+2.5 mm
+in width and
+4 mm
+in height. Much of the crown is comprised of the main cusp, which is broad basally but rather needle-like apically. The conical cusp may lack cutting edges (Fig. 6OO) or have mesial and distal cutting edges that are sharp, smooth, and extend to the base of the main cusp. Although the cusp is somewhat distally inclined, the mesial edge is concave and the distal edge is convex, which results in an unusual mesially directed cusp apex (Fig. 6NN). The crown foot at the mesial and distal sides are formed into very short shoulders that each bear two denticles that decrease in size basally (Fig. 6MM). The labial crown foot is very convex and there is a shallow but broad U-shaped embayment. The labial and lingual faces are smooth and convex.
+
+
+
+
+
+Remarks
+
+
+
+The tooth morphology of extant
+
+Hemipristis elongata
+(
+Klunzinger, 1871
+)
+
+is quite variable, and the teeth of the extinct
+
+H. curvatus
+Dames, 1883
+
+and
+
+H. serra
+Agassiz, 1835
+
+exhibit similar variation. These taxa, as well as the Catahoula Formation
+
+Hemipristis
+
+, exhibit monognathic and dignathic heterodonty. Ontogenetic heterodonty is also evident, as small teeth in our sample are similar to a tooth that
+Cicimurri & Knight (2009
+: fig. 5j) recovered from the Chattian Chandler Bridge Formation of
+South Carolina
+. That specimen lacks mesial serrations and was identified as a juvenile upper tooth of
+
+Hemipristis
+
+. Their interpretation is consistent with our evaluation of the Catahoula Formation
+
+Hemipristis
+
+sample, where upper teeth under
+7 mm
+in width lack mesial serration. Specimens
+SC
+2013.28.103,
+SC
+2013.28.105, MMNS VP-7604, and MMNS VP-8745 are superficially like
+
+Paragaleus
+
+teeth, but our evaluation of four jaws of extant
+
+Hemipristis elongata
+
+(
+SC
+84.177.1,
+SC
+86.52.1,
+SC
+2020.53.9, MSC 42627) leads us to conclude that they are teeth of very small individuals of
+
+H. intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+Specimen
+SC
+2013.28.103 (Fig. 6SS–TT) is comparable to teeth in the postero-lateral files of
+
+H. elongata
+
+, whereas
+SC
+2013.28.105 (Fig. 6UU–
+VV
+), MMNS VP-7604 (Fig. 6MM–OO), and MMNS VP-8745 are virtually identical to teeth in the lower anterior files.
+
+
+Upper anterior teeth in the Catahoula Formation sample are identified by their triangular and rather weakly asymmetrical crown, whereas upper lateral teeth are broadly triangular with a conspicuous distally hooked appearance (compare Fig. 6G to S). Within lateral files, the amount of curvature of the mesial and distal edges, and the degree of distal cusp inclination increase towards the commissure (compare Fig. 6PP to FF). Specimens believed to be lower symphyseal or parasymphyseal (i.e., Fig. 6HH–JJ) teeth are very narrow with a roughly conical crown that lacks denticles and sometimes cutting edges. Lower anterior teeth are much narrower and bear significantly fewer denticles compared to upper anteriors, and the cusp constitutes a comparatively larger portion of the crown (Fig. 6J, P). The root of lower anterior teeth also has a more robust lingual boss compared to the upper teeth. Teeth from lateral positions are broader, have elongated cutting edges that reach the level of the mesial and distal denticles, and have up to five mesial and at least seven distal denticles. Based on our evaluation of extant
+
+H. elongata
+
+jaws (i.e.,
+SC
+84.177.1,
+SC
+86.53.1), upper anterior teeth of
+
+H. intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+are distinguished from lower lateral teeth by the greater number of mesial and distal denticles and the comparatively smaller proportion of main cusp to crown height (compare Fig. 6G to E). We chose an upper lateral tooth as the
+holotype
+specimen (Fig. 6PP–RR) for the new species because, among the various fossil
+
+Hemipristis
+
+that have been named, this morphology is often the most common and easily identified.
+
+
+The fossil record of
+
+Hemipristis
+
+extends back to the middle Eocene, with specimens of the globally widespread
+
+H. curvatus
+
+occurring as early as the Lutetian (NP15) (
+
+Ebersole
+et al.
+2019
+
+). The species is well known from North America (i.e., White 1956; Westgate 1984;
+Parmley & Cicimurri 2003
+;
+Cicimurri & Knight 2019
+;
+Perez 2022
+) and Africa (i.e.,
+
+Adnet
+et al.
+2010
+
+,
+2020
+; Underwood
+et al.
+2011), with rare records from Asia (Tanaka
+et al.
+2006; Tomita
+et al
+. 2023) and possibly Europe (Priem 1912;
+Ciobanu 1994
+).
+
+Hemipristis serra
+
+ranges from the Miocene to Early Pleistocene and was nearly globally distributed (
+Cappetta 2012
+).
+
+Hemipristis
+
+has also been reported from various Oligocene sites in the
+USA
+(
+Cicimurri & Knight 2009
+;
+
+Ebersole
+et al.
+2021
+
+;
+
+Cicimurri
+et al.
+2022
+
+) and Asia (
+
+Adnet
+et al.
+2007
+
+), with specimens having been tentatively assigned to
+
+H. serra
+
+or altogether not speciated. Although
+
+Chandler
+et al.
+(2006)
+
+indicated that there was no evidence for the existence of Paleogene and Neogene species of
+
+Hemipristis
+
+other than
+
+H. curvatus
+
+and
+
+H. serra
+,
+
+Adnet
+et al.
+(2007)
+
+
+and
+
+Ebersole
+et al.
+(2021)
+
+suggested that Oligocene teeth represent a transitional species between the two.
+
+
+Although the gross morphology of
+
+Hemipristis
+
+teeth has remained stable, even to the present day, large samples of
+
+H. curvatus
+
+teeth from the middle Eocene of
+Alabama
+(MSC collection), Bartonian of
+South Carolina
+(
+SC
+2022.27) and
+Georgia
+(
+SC
+2004.34,
+SC
+2013.44), along with samples of
+
+H. serra
+
+from the Middle Miocene (Langhian) of
+North Carolina
+(contained within accession
+SC
+98.46) and Gelasian (Early Pleistocene) of
+South Carolina
+(accessions
+SC
+89.240,
+SC
+2006.1), and jaws of extant
+
+H. elongata
+
+reveal significant differences among the various taxa. With respect to
+
+H. curvatus
+
+,
+
+H. intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+attains a larger overall size (
+2.5 cm
+wide by
+2.2 cm
+high vs
+1.5 cm
+and
+1.1 cm
+), and the latter species consistently has more extensively denticulated mesial and distal edges. Whereas the upper lateral teeth of
+
+H. curvatus
+
+exhibit fewer than four mesial and up to eight distal denticles, the teeth of
+
+H. intermedia
+
+have up to 10 mesial and 11 distal denticles. Additionally, the mesial denticles of
+
+H. curvatus
+
+are limited to the lower one-half of the crown, whereas they extend up to two-thirds of the crown height of
+
+H. intermedia
+
+. The cusp of
+
+H. curvatus
+
+teeth constitutes a larger proportion of the crown compared to
+
+H. intermedia
+
+. Variations in the number of mesial and distal denticles in
+
+H. curvatus
+
+and
+
+H. intermedia
+
+were also observed among the three jaws of
+
+H. elongatus
+
+, but the maximum number of denticles present and their distributions along the mesial and distal edges are taxonomically significant.
+
+
+
+Hemipristis serra
+
+upper lateral teeth attain a significantly larger size than those of
+
+H. intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+, with the largest specimen available to us measuring
+3.7 cm
+wide and
+3.6 cm
+in height. In contrast, the largest tooth of
+
+H. intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+in our sample measures only
+2.5 cm
+and
+2.2 cm
+in these dimensions, respectively. Additionally, the mesial and distal edges of
+
+H. serra
+
+teeth have a greater number of denticles, with at least 13 occurring on the distal side but more than 20 are common. On the mesial edge, the denticles are largest and most conspicuous along the upper one-half of the crown, but basally the edge appears more regularly serrated (serration/denticulation also consistently reaches the base of the edge). The denticles on
+
+H. serra
+
+teeth also extend closer to the apex, and the cusp comprises a very small portion of the crown compared to in
+
+H. intermedia
+
+. On the former, the cusp can represent as little as 10% of the total tooth height, whereas on the latter it represents at least 20%. Furthermore, small teeth of
+
+H. serra
+
+are as regularly serrated/denticulated as large teeth, whereas in
+
+H. intermedia
+
+these features are generally more extensive on large specimens.
+
+Upper anterior teeth of each of the Paleogene and Neogene taxa are similar in gross morphology but can be separated based on the combination of maximum tooth size, degree of mesial denticulation and location of mesial denticles, degree of denticulation of the distal edge, and size of the cusp with respect to overall tooth size. The overall trend through time is an increase in maximum tooth size and number of mesial and distal denticles and a decrease in cusp size (in relation to total crown size). We found that the morphologies of lower anterior teeth of the Paleogene and Neogene taxa overlap and are largely differentiable by crown size and robustness. These teeth are not considered to be taxonomically useful for species determination.
+
+For completeness, we also evaluated the teeth of extant
+
+H. elongata
+
+. All four
+
+H. elongata
+
+jaws we examined are of the same size and have similar tooth sizes, and none of the upper lateral teeth approach the largest
+
+H. curvatus
+
+in our sample (
+1 cm
+wide and
+0.9 cm
+high vs
+1.5 cm
+and
+1.1 cm
+in these dimensions), let alone the largest
+
+H. intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+tooth. In general, the upper lateral teeth of
+
+H. elongata
+
+are narrower and the mesial denticles (up to ten) are much less conspicuous compared to teeth of the extinct species. Additionally, the lower half of the tooth is the most convex, whereas it is most convex along the upper one-half on the fossil teeth. Interestingly, the cusp of
+
+H. elongata
+
+teeth constitutes slightly more than 20% of the total tooth height.
+
+
+The Catahoula Formation
+
+Hemipristis
+
+teeth were compared to Oligocene specimens from the southeastern Atlantic Coastal Plain and Gulf Coastal Plain of the
+USA
+, including material from the Glendon Limestone Member of the Byram Formation of
+Alabama
+(Rupelian Stage, circa 30 Ma, NP23), the Old Church Formation of
+Virginia
+(Rupelian, roughly 29 Ma), the Ashley Formation of
+South Carolina
+(Rupelian, approximately 28.5 Ma), and the Chandler Bridge Formation of
+South Carolina
+(Chattian Stage, about 24.5 Ma). The Glendon Limestone Member specimen, documented by
+
+Ebersole
+et al.
+(2021)
+
+, is a lower anterior tooth that is taxonomically uninformative beyond the generic level. Specimens from the Ashley Formation were identified as
+
+H. serra
+
+by
+Müller (1999)
+and
+
+Cicimurri
+et al.
+(2022)
+
+. The specimens shown by
+Müller (1999
+: pl. 8 fig. 9) and
+
+Cicimurri
+et al.
+(2022
+
+: fig. 5a) are both comparable in size to the Catahoula Formation teeth, and the mesial edges are more extensively denticulated compared to in
+
+H. curvatus
+.
+
+Visually, the proportion of cusp to tooth height appears to be greater than that of
+
+H. serra
+
+. We examined five teeth from the Old Church Formation of
+Virginia
+that are included within accession
+SC
+2020.43, as well as illustrations of
+four specimens
+provided by
+Müller (1999
+: pl. 8 figs 12–15). In general, the teeth are similar to those of the Catahoula Formation with respect to the number of denticles and the size of the cusp compared to overall tooth size. However,
+one specimen
+shown by
+Müller (1999
+: pl. 8 fig. 12) exhibits a large number of mesial/distal denticles and a relatively small cusp, features more consistent with
+
+H. serra
+
+. Ten teeth from the Chandler Bridge Formation contained within
+SC
+2005.2 were examined, as were
+two specimens
+identified as
+
+H. serra
+
+by
+Cicimurri & Knight (2009)
+. The Chandler Bridge Formation sample is variable and contains specimens that are similar to the Catahoula Formation teeth, as well as specimens that are comparable to
+
+H. serra
+
+(i.e.,
+Cicimurri & Knight 2009
+: fig. 5i).
+
+
+The Catahoula Formation
+
+Hemipristis
+
+teeth are comparable to
+Hemipristi
+s specimens from the Ashley Formation and, for the most part, the Old Church Formation. The Ashley and Old Church formations are slightly older than the Rupelian/Chattian Stage boundary, whereas the Catahoula Formation teeth are slightly younger than that boundary. The morphological and age similarities among the samples from these three units indicate that the
+
+Hemipristis
+
+teeth occurring in each unit are conspecific, and herein assigned to
+
+H
+.
+intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+However, the
+
+Hemipristis
+
+teeth within the Chandler Bridge Formation, roughly four million years younger than the aforementioned units, are more similar to Miocene
+
+H. serra
+
+.
+
+
+
+Adnet
+et al.
+(2007)
+
+reported a sample of 10
+
+Hemipristis
+
+teeth from the Rupelian of
+Balochistan
+that they tentatively referred to
+
+H. serra
+
+. The two teeth they illustrated (figs 6, 15–17) are larger than and have more extensive mesial denticulation compared to Eocene
+
+H. curvatus
+
+, and they are smaller than and less denticulated than Miocene and younger
+
+H. serra
+
+. Those authors indicated that the teeth could represent a transitional morphology between the two species. The two teeth illustrated by
+
+Adnet
+et al.
+(2007)
+
+are both upper lateral teeth, and they fall within the range of variation we observed in the Catahoula Formation
+
+Hemipristis
+
+sample. However, as we found the dentition of the Catahoula Formation sample to be highly variable, we refrain from associating the
+Balochistan
+taxon with
+
+Hemipristis intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+until other tooth morphologies (i.e., upper anterior and lower lateral teeth) can be examined and directly compared to those of the new species.
+
+
+One additional taxon,
+
+H. tanakai
+Tomita, Yabumoto & Kuga, 2023
+
+, was recently erected based on a total of five teeth from widely disparate localities. The
+holotype
+is a complete tooth from the lower Oligocene (Rupelian) Yamaga Formation in
+Japan
+, and the
+paratype
+, a broken tooth preserved in labial view, may or may not be from the same lithostratigraphic unit and locality as the
+holotype
+. The authors also included in this species the specimens reported by
+
+Adnet
+et al.
+(2007)
+
+as well as a tooth from South Carolina. Unfortunately, this species may be considered a nomen dubium for several reasons. Firstly, one of the three criteria used to differentiate
+
+H. tanakai
+
+from other species is tooth height, which for
+
+H. tanakai
+
+is apparently at least
+1.5 cm
+. We note here that although the total height in the
+
+H. curvatus
+
+we examined measured up to
+1.2 cm
+, tooth height in
+
+H. serra
+
+can also measure
+1.5 cm
+.Another characteristic attributed to
+
+H. tanakai
+
+is that the mesial edge purportedly bears up to five denticles. This morphology is comparable to that of
+
+H. curvatus
+
+, where the mesial edge may completely lack denticulation or have up to five denticles. The Catahoula Formation
+
+Hemipristis
+
+teeth, as well as those from the Old Church and Ashley formations (
+Müller 1999
+;
+
+Cicimurri
+et al.
+2022
+
+) can have a far greater number of mesial denticles (8+), indicating that the fossils from these units are not conspecific with
+
+H. tanakai
+
+.
+
+
+As mentioned earlier, Tomita
+et al
+. (2023: fig. 3) assigned a tooth from
+South Carolina
+to
+
+H. tanakai
+
+. Unfortunately, the stratigraphic occurrence of the specimen is listed as “(Upper Oligocene) Chandler Bridge Formation, Ashley Marl.” The Ashley Formation (Rupelian Stage) and Chandler Bridge Formation (Chattian Stage) are two different lithostratigraphic units separated by approximately five million years of time. Although the authors provided color images of the specimen (Tomita
+et al.
+2023: fig. 3a–e), shark teeth from the Ashley and Chandler Bridge formations can have similar coloration (DJC, pers. obs.). Additionally, although the tooth shown has five distinct mesial denticles, there are several indistinct crenulations that could be counted as additional denticles (thereby increasing the number to at least seven and exceeding the number attributed to
+
+H. tanakai
+
+).
+
+
+Thirdly, according to Tomita
+et al.
+(2023) the apical-most denticle on the mesial cutting edge in
+
+H. tanakai
+
+is located higher on the crown compared to the distal cutting edge. Although this may be true for the
+holotype
+specimen of
+
+H. tanakai
+
+shown by Tomita
+et al
+. (2023: fig. 2), it is not the case for the
+South Carolina
+specimen illustrated in their fig. 3a–e, and the mesial edge of their
+paratype
+specimen (fig. 3j) is not preserved. We suggest that the
+South Carolina
+specimen and broken
+paratype
+specimen be excluded from the
+
+H. tanakai
+
+hypodigm, as the stratigraphic and temporal occurrence of the former is ambiguous, and the latter specimen is poorly preserved (and only exposed from the matrix in labial view). Additionally, the morphological features attributed to
+
+H. tanakai
+
+are ambiguous and based only on the upper lateral morphology. In any event, the features of
+
+H. tanakai
+
+are inconsistent with those of the Catahoula Formation taxon (i.e., greater than ten mesial denticles, apical-most denticle of the distal edge is usually located higher than that on the mesial edge of the latter) and, if considered a valid species, does not appear to be conspecific with
+
+H. intermedia
+
+sp. nov.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/03/D0/56/03D05672632BFF8FFDD5162EFC75F825.xml b/data/03/D0/56/03D05672632BFF8FFDD5162EFC75F825.xml
index 52794132b64..c7690424c8d 100644
--- a/data/03/D0/56/03D05672632BFF8FFDD5162EFC75F825.xml
+++ b/data/03/D0/56/03D05672632BFF8FFDD5162EFC75F825.xml
@@ -1,79 +1,83 @@
-
-
-
-Late Oligocene fishes (Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes) from the Catahoula Formation in Wayne County, Mississippi, USA
+
+
+
+Late Oligocene fishes (Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes) from the Catahoula Formation in Wayne County, Mississippi, USA
-
-
-Author
+
+
+Author
-Cicimurri, David J.
-F0155EA1-F5D6-49E4-B578-7A14DBB7B902
-South Carolina State Museum, 301 Gervais Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29021, USA.
+Cicimurri, David J.
+F0155EA1-F5D6-49E4-B578-7A14DBB7B902
+South Carolina State Museum, 301 Gervais Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29021, USA.
+dave.cicimurri@scmuseum.org
-
-
-Author
+
+
+Author
-Ebersole, Jun A.
-D48E2A2F-EC92-4C32-9F2A-2D39716C459E
-McWane Science Center, 200 19 Street North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203, USA.
+Ebersole, Jun A.
+D48E2A2F-EC92-4C32-9F2A-2D39716C459E
+McWane Science Center, 200 19 Street North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203, USA.
+jebersole@mcwane.org
-
-
-Author
+
+
+Author
-Stringer, Gary L.
-4E93392A-5916-44C6-B55A-9053A4F44C76
-University of Louisiana at Monroe, Monroe, Louisiana 71209, USA.
+Stringer, Gary L.
+4E93392A-5916-44C6-B55A-9053A4F44C76
+University of Louisiana at Monroe, Monroe, Louisiana 71209, USA.
+stringer@ulm.edu
-
-
-Author
+
+
+Author
-Starnes, James E.
-:D4E14C23-EE57-4D1D-8709-895A1345C8BA
-Office of Geology, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 700 North State Street, Jackson, Mississippi 39202, USA.
+Starnes, James E.
+:D4E14C23-EE57-4D1D-8709-895A1345C8BA
+Office of Geology, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 700 North State Street, Jackson, Mississippi 39202, USA.
+jstarnes@mdeq.ms.gov
-
-
-Author
+
+
+Author
-Phillips, George E.
-:DFFC9021-05C6-4B56-BCD3-D54BCDE91351
-Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, 2148 Riverside Drive, Jackson, Mississippi 39202, USA.
-george.phillips@mmns.ms.gov
+Phillips, George E.
+:DFFC9021-05C6-4B56-BCD3-D54BCDE91351
+Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, 2148 Riverside Drive, Jackson, Mississippi 39202, USA.
+george.phillips@mmns.ms.gov
-text
-
-
-European Journal of Taxonomy
+text
+
+
+European Journal of Taxonomy
-
-2025
-
-2025-03-28
+
+2025
+
+2025-03-28
-
-984
+
+984
-
-1
+
+1
-
-1
-131
+
+1
+131
-
-https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2851/12957
+
+https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2851/12957
-journal article
-10.5852/ejt.2025.984.2851
-2118-9773
-15126034
-7D8BB514-E8B7-403C-9725-B1405E214075
+journal article
+10.5852/ejt.2025.984.2851
+2118-9773
+15126034
+7D8BB514-E8B7-403C-9725-B1405E214075
@@ -114,59 +118,102 @@
+
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
–
Mississippi
•
-15 isolated teeth; Catahoula Formation;
+15 isolated teeth;
+Catahoula Formation
+;
MMNS
-VP-6623 (3 teeth),
+VP-6623
+(
+3 teeth
+),
+
+
MMNS
-VP-6623.1 (
+VP-6623.1
+(
Fig. 7D–F
-),
+),
+
+
MMNS
-VP-6623.2 (
+VP-6623.2
+(
Fig. 7J–L
-),
+),
+
+
MMNS
-VP-6623.3 (
+VP-6623.3
+(
Fig. 7M–O
-),
+),
+
+
MMNS
-VP-6623.4 (
+VP-6623.4
+(
Fig. 7P–R
-),
+),
+
+
MMNS
-VP-6623.5 (
+VP-6623.5
+(
Fig. 7S–U
-),
+),
+
+
MMNS
-VP-6623.6 (
+VP-6623.6
+(
Fig. 7V–X
-),
+),
+
+
MMNS
-VP-6623.7 (
+VP-6623.7
+(
Fig. 7Y
-–AA),
+–AA),
+
+
MMNS
-VP-6623.8 (
+VP-6623.8
+(
Fig. 7
-BB–DD),
+BB–DD),
+
+
MMNS
-VP-12047 (
+VP-12047
+(
Fig. 7A–C
-),
+),
+
+
SC
-2013.28.106 (
+2013.28.106
+(
Fig. 7G–I
-),
+),
+
+
SC
-2013.28.107,
+2013.28.107
+,
+
+
SC
-2013.28.108.
+2013.28.108
+.
+
diff --git a/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FF89FF80FDF996FAFAE32851.xml b/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FF89FF80FDF996FAFAE32851.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..761405c4a80
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FF89FF80FDF996FAFAE32851.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,992 @@
+
+
+
+A revision of the genus Sclerocoelus Marshall (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae)
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Kuwahara, Gregory K.
+2E2D313F-7249-4F76-AF5D-615516840188
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+gkuwahar@gmail.com
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Marshall, Stephen A.
+6C1C1C9E-365F-48BF-B8C7-31163EC5F3A7
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+samarsha@uoguelph.ca
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Paiero, Steven M.
+B172670C-2159-4D6B-9542-53406F315DC7
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+paieros@uoguelph.ca
+
+text
+
+
+European Journal of Taxonomy
+
+
+2025
+
+2025-03-04
+
+
+979
+
+
+1
+277
+
+
+
+
+https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2803/12807
+
+journal article
+10.5852/ejt.2025.979.2803
+2118-9773
+14980852
+F40A49A4-5DCC-491E-9D0A-7A3C2EC6D186
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus nitidistylus
+
+sp. nov.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:
+8D08C8DB-566E-4603-A1ED-8E009E135A15
+
+
+
+Figs 1A
+,
+8B
+,
+96–98
+
+
+
+
+
+Etymology
+
+
+
+This name refers to the shining outer surface of the male surstylus (from the Latin ‘
+nitidus
+’, meaning ‘shiny, polished’).
+
+
+
+
+
+Material examined
+
+
+
+
+Holotype
+
+
+
+
+COSTA RICA
+•
+♂
+;
+Puntarenas
+,
+Los Alturas trail to Cerro Chai
+;
+
+1700–2100 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+13–15 Aug. 1995
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+MNCR
+.
+
+
+
+
+Paratypes
+
+
+
+
+COSTA RICA
+–
+
+Alajuela
+
+•
+2 ♂♂
+;
+Quesada
+,
+Albergue Pozo Verde
+;
+
+1800 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+10°15′15.1″ N
+,
+84°22′18.4″ W
+;
+
+21 Apr. 2023
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+
+from refuse pile under
+
+Eciton burchellii
+
+bivouac
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+MNCR
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+,
+3 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+W. Porras
+leg.;
+MNCR
+
+. –
+
+
+Cartago
+
+•
+1 ♂
+;
+Braulio Carrillo National Park
+;
+
+500 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+10 Apr. 1985
+
+;
+L. Masner
+leg.;
+rainforest
+;
+CNCI
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Braulio Carrillo National Park
+;
+
+1400–1500 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+11 Apr. 1985
+
+;
+H. Goulet
+and
+L. Masner
+leg.;
+cool moist riverbed
+,
+Selva Premontana
+;
+CNCI
+
+. –
+
+
+Guanacaste
+
+•
+3 ♂♂
+,
+4 ♀♀
+;
+Guanacaste National Park
+,
+Cacao Field Station
+;
+
+1000–1100 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+12–15 Feb. 1996
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+carrion traps
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+700 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+13–15 Feb. 1996
+
+;
+MNCR
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+;
+Guanacaste National Park
+,
+Cacao Field Station
+;
+
+1100–1200 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+15 Feb. 1996
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+MNCR
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Guanacaste National Park
+,
+Santa Rosa Station
+;
+
+300 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+11 Feb. 1996
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+dry riverbed
+;
+MNCR
+
+. –
+
+
+Heredia
+
+•
+4 ♀♀
+;
+
+6 km
+ENE of Vera Blanca
+
+;
+10°11′ N
+,
+84°07′ W
+;
+
+2000 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+21 Feb. 2002
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+1 ♀
+;
+Moravia
+,
+near border of Braulio Carrillo National Park
+;
+
+3–4 Mar. 1996
+
+;
+L. Masner
+leg.;
+creek bed
+,
+yellow pans
+;
+DEBU
+
+. –
+
+
+Puntarenas
+
+•
+6 ♂♂
+;
+Monteverde Biological Reserve
+;
+
+1500 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+13 Jun. 2000
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+6 ♂♂
+,
+3 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+MNCR
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+M. Buck
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+9 ♂♂
+,
+3 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+11–13 Jun. 2000
+
+;
+cloud forest
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+10 ♂♂
+,
+4 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+MNCR
+
+•
+
+10 ♂♂
+,
+3 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+11 ♂♂
+,
+3 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+MNCR
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+12 Jun. 2000
+
+;
+M. Buck
+leg.;
+on dung
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+50 ♂♂
+,
+19 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+11 Jun. 2000
+
+,
+M. Buck
+leg.;
+sweep
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+51 ♂♂
+,
+19 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+MNCR
+
+•
+
+8 ♂♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+12–13 Jun. 2000
+
+;
+pans along stream
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+6 ♂♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+13–14 Jun. 2000
+
+;
+pans along stream
+;
+MNCR
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+14 Jun. 2000
+
+;
+treefall sweep and pans
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+7 ♂♂
+,
+4 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+26 May 1998
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+sweep
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+13 ♂♂
+;
+Monteverde Biological Station
+,
+lower trail
+;
+
+26 May 1998
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+MNCR
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+1 ♀
+;
+Monteverde
+;
+10°18′ N
+,
+84°48′ W
+;
+
+1539 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+24 Feb.–2 Mar. 1988
+
+;
+B. Hubley
+leg.;
+1° tropical cloud forest
+,
+pan traps
+;
+ROME
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Monteverde
+,
+Pension Queteal
+;
+10°18′ N
+,
+84°49′ W
+;
+
+24 May 1987
+
+;
+Norrbom
+and
+Max
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+2 ♀♀
+;
+Monteverde
+;
+
+1500 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+11–18 Jul. 1983
+
+;
+D.H. Lindeman
+leg.;
+fruit pitfall
+;
+CNCI
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Monteverde
+;
+
+1500 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+29 Feb. 1988
+
+;
+Mason
+and
+Wood
+leg.;
+rainforest
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+;
+Monteverde
+;
+
+1500–1800 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+24–27 Feb. 1991
+
+;
+B.J. Sinclair
+leg.;
+trail sweep
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+,
+2 ♀♀
+;
+Monteverde
+;
+
+1520 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+15–23 Jul. 1983
+
+;
+D.H. Lindeman
+leg.;
+flight-intercept trap
+;
+CNCI
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+1 ♀
+;
+Monteverde
+;
+
+23–27 Feb. 1991
+
+;
+B.J. Sinclair
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+;
+Monteverde
+,
+Finca Canada
+;
+
+1500 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+28 May–1 Jun. 1988
+
+;
+B.V. Brown
+leg.;
+treefall
+,
+Malaise trap
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+3 ♂♂
+;
+Monteverde
+;
+
+25 Feb. 1991
+
+;
+H. and A. Howden
+leg.;
+flight-intercept trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Monteverde
+;
+
+25 May 1998
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+sweep near Biological Station
+;
+DEBU
+
+. –
+
+
+San José
+
+•
+1 ♂
+;
+San Gerardo de Dota
+;
+
+2300 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+9 Aug. 1995
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+sweep along forest stream
+;
+MNCR
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+San Gerardo de Dota
+;
+9°33′ N
+,
+83°48′ W
+;
+
+2400–2600 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+8–9 Aug. 1996
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+near trail
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+San Gerardo de Dota
+,
+near Lodge
+;
+9°33′ N
+,
+83°48′ W
+;
+
+2000 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+9 Aug. 1995
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+stream in pasture
+,
+sweep
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+
+
+
+Other material examined
+
+
+
+
+COSTA RICA
+–
+
+Guanacaste
+
+•
+1 ♂
+;
+Area de Conservacion Guanacaste
+,
+Derrumbe
+;
+10°55′45″ N
+,
+85°27′51″ W
+;
+
+1220 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+12 Feb. 2015
+
+;
+D.H. Janzen
+and
+W. Hallwachs
+leg.;
+forest
+,
+Malaise trap
+;
+BIOUG32728-A03/
+GMCDQ410-17 sequenced for CO1-5’;
+BIOUG
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Description
+
+
+
+BODY
+(
+Figs 1A
+,
+96A
+). Length
+2.2–3.4 mm
+. Head dark brown, lower half of frons, gena, face, and antennae orange. Frontal width 2.3–2.4 × frontal height. Two pairs of strong interfrontal bristles surmounting a fine third pair; anterior orbital 0.4–0.5 × length of posterior. Palpus yellow. Eye very large, greatest height about 5.0× shortest genal height. Thorax brown, scutum with paler lateral edges. Two pairs of dorsocentral bristles (anterior pair distinct, 0.4× length of posterior pair) separated by 7–8 rows of acrostichal setulae; prescutellar acrostichal setulae only slightly larger than others. Membrane around prosternum bare. Legs yellowish-brown, base of fore femur paler. Fore femur with three large ventral preapical setae. Ventral surface of male mid tibia with two rows of stout setae in apical third. Wing (
+Fig. 8B
+) slightly infuscate. CS2 0.7–0.8× CS3. Halter pale brown.
+
+
+MALE
+ABDOMEN
+(
+Figs96B–C
+,
+97
+).Dark brown, posterior edges of tergites sometimes slightly desclerotized. T2–5 and S2–4 uniformly long-setose with large posterolateral setae. S5 rectangular, 1.8× length of S4, laterally sparsely setose with a dark, narrow, ventrally projecting patch of dense setulae flanked by pale setose areas. Anterior flange of S6+7 large, 2.0× as long as wide. Sclerite A dark, unmodified; sclerite B reduced to an indistinct filament arising from posterolateral corner of sclerite A; sclerite C broad but reduced and indistinct, arising from anterolateral corner of sclerite A; sclerite D well sclerotized, Y-shaped and bent distally; sclerite E dark, elongate, and slightly curved; sclerite F large, laterally concave, left side with an elongate apicoventral process; sclerite G small, dark, narrowly separated from sclerite F; ring sclerite small, dark. Epandrium moderate, 0.3 × length of S8, height 1.4× maximum length and 0.7× maximum width, uniformly setose, posteroventral margin deeply emarginate; anal fissure rounded; perianal pads weakly developed. Pseudocercus large, bearing three setae, and fused to posteroventral corners of epandrium; halves of subepandrial sclerite strongly arched, slightly flattened dorsally, and completely separate. Subcercus large, projecting posteriorly, elongate, apically bilobed, anteriorly with a short, dark, basal lobe. Hypandrium with Y-shaped anteromedial apodeme. Surstylus large, subtriangular, laterally concave and shining, inner surface setulose along a broad medial ridge and a dark carinate anterobasal lobe. Postgonite short, apically truncate and expanded, and posterolaterally crenulate. Phallapodeme very large, thick, apex dorsoventrally flattened; basiphallus small, tapered with a distinct, triangular epiphallus; distiphallus largely membranous.
+
+
+FEMALE
+ABDOMEN
+(
+Fig. 98
+). T7 broad, slightly emarginate posteromedially; T8 divided into a small, pale dorsal sclerite and a pair of large, dark lateral sclerites, posteroventral corners pointed. Epiproct shield-like, medially pale, apically tapered and setulose. Cercus elongate, slightly tapered with long apical and dorsal setae. S7 broad, rounded, broadly and deeply desclerotized posteromedially with four large posterior setae; S8 a single small but well-developed sclerite. Three spermathecae, bulb spherical, finely striate with a small apical invagination and a deep basal invagination.
+
+
+
+
+
+Distribution
+
+
+
+Neotropical:
+Costa Rica
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Remarks
+
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus nitidistylus
+
+sp. nov.
+is similar to other members of the
+
+S. dasysternum
+
+group, but can be readily distinguished by the very shiny outer surface of the surstylus, almost beak-shaped subcercus, and the female S7 with a deep, semicircular posterior desclerotized area.
+
+Sclerocoelus nitidistylus
+
+is commonly collected in the cloud forests of
+Costa Rica
+, where it is one of four endemic Costa Rican
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+and one of the seven members of the
+
+S. dasysternum
+
+group found in
+Costa Rica
+.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FF8BFF87FD3D91A4FAE32A87.xml b/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FF8BFF87FD3D91A4FAE32A87.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..aca074a4bb3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FF8BFF87FD3D91A4FAE32A87.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,275 @@
+
+
+
+A revision of the genus Sclerocoelus Marshall (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae)
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Kuwahara, Gregory K.
+2E2D313F-7249-4F76-AF5D-615516840188
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+gkuwahar@gmail.com
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Marshall, Stephen A.
+6C1C1C9E-365F-48BF-B8C7-31163EC5F3A7
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+samarsha@uoguelph.ca
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Paiero, Steven M.
+B172670C-2159-4D6B-9542-53406F315DC7
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+paieros@uoguelph.ca
+
+text
+
+
+European Journal of Taxonomy
+
+
+2025
+
+2025-03-04
+
+
+979
+
+
+1
+277
+
+
+
+
+https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2803/12807
+
+journal article
+10.5852/ejt.2025.979.2803
+2118-9773
+14980852
+F40A49A4-5DCC-491E-9D0A-7A3C2EC6D186
+
+
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus ocellatus
+
+sp. nov.
+
+
+
+
+
+urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:
+6EB0AB11-D632-4787-B09F-A3C6886FD2DC
+
+
+
+Figs 8C
+,
+99–101
+
+
+
+
+
+Etymology
+
+
+
+This name refers to the greatly reduced eye of this species, smaller than that of any other species of
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+(from the Latin
+
+‘
+ocellatus
+
+’, meaning ‘having small eyes’).
+
+
+
+
+
+Material examined
+
+
+
+
+Holotype
+
+
+
+
+COSTA RICA
+•
+♂
+;
+San José
+,
+Cerro de la Muerte
+,
+
+20 km
+S of Empalme
+
+;
+
+2800 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+Nov.–Dec. 1989
+
+;
+P. Hanson
+leg.;
+MNCR
+.
+
+
+
+
+Paratypes
+
+
+
+
+COSTA RICA
+–
+
+Cartago
+
+•
+1 ♀
+;
+Highway 2
+,
+km 95
+;
+9°36′ N
+,
+83°44′ W
+;
+
+3200 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+1–7 Jun. 1985
+
+;
+H. Goulet
+and
+L. Masner
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+. –
+
+
+San José
+
+•
+1 ♀
+; same data as for holotype;
+MNCR
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Description
+
+
+
+BODY
+(
+Fig. 99A
+). Length 2.9–4.0 mm. Head dark brown, very bottom of frons orange; anterior half of gena orangish. Frontal width 2.2–2.3× frontal height. Three pairs of strong interfrontal bristles surmounting a fine fourth pair; anterior orbital 0.6× length of posterior. Palpus brown. Eye small, greatest height about 1.1–1.3 × shortest genal height. Thorax dark brown, scutum with paler lateral edges. Two pairs of dorsocentral bristles (anterior pair distinct, 0.6× length of posterior pair) separated by 6–7 rows of acrostichal setulae. Membrane around prosternum bare. Legs brown, mid femur slightly darker. Fore femur with four large ventral preapical setae. Wing (
+Fig. 8C
+) infuscate. CS2 subequal to CS3. Halter brown.
+
+
+MALE
+ABDOMEN
+(
+Figs 99B–C
+,
+100
+). Dark brown, posterior edges of tergites sometimes slightly desclerotized. T2–5 and S2–4 uniformly long-setose with large posterolateral setae. S5 rectangular, 1.2× length of S4, sparely setose with a dark, elongate, posteromedial patch of dense setulae flanked by long-setose, pale patches. Anterior flange of S6+7 rectangular, 1.0 × as long as wide. Sclerite A pale, setulose, and weakly fused to S6+7; sclerite B dark and strongly arched into genital pouch; sclerite C apparently absent; sclerite D dark, elongate, expanded where it articulates with left side of posteromedial lobe of S5; sclerite E dark, elongate, closely associated with sclerite D, together forming a V-shaped; sclerites F and G fused, sclerite F with an elongate posteroapical process on left side, sclerite G bulbous and setulose; ring sclerite well developed but thin. Epandrium moderate, 0.6× length of S8, height 1.4× maximum length and 0.8× maximum width, uniformly long-setose; perianal pads bulging but membranous. Pseudocercus small, fused to posterolateral corner of epandrium and overlapping base of subcercus, bearing 3 setae; halves of subepandrial sclerite strongly arched with inner arch broadened. Subcercus large, setulose, flattened posteriorly with a triangular posteroventral lobe curving inwards. Hypandrium with sinuate, evenly tapered anteromedial apodeme. Surstylus large, 1.4 × as long as deep, bulbous, long-setose along inner surface with a small, triangular, inner anterobasal lobe. Postgonite short, sinuate, apically truncate with a slight constriction about midlength and a small, tooth-like, preapical anterior lobe. Phallapodeme large, slightly sinuate, with apex dorsoventrally flattened; basiphallus large, curved with an elongate, beak-like epiphallus and expanded distally along dorsal margin of distiphallus; distiphallus short, largely membranous with an elongate dorsal sclerite and a pair of short lateral sclerites.
+
+
+FEMALE
+ABDOMEN
+(
+Fig. 101
+). T7 broad, simple; T8 divided into a large, pale, dorsal sclerite and two large, dark, lateral sclerites, posterolateral corners expanded and pointed. Epiproct large, subtriangular, entirely sparsely setulose with an additional posteromedial seta near posterior margin. Cercus elongate, apically rounded with long apical and dorsal setae. S7 broad, broadly desclerotized posteriorly and medially with four large posterior setae; S8 entirely membranous. Hypoproct with entirely densely setulae. Three spermathecae, bulb stout, subspherical, finely striate with shallow basal and subapical invaginations, both with a small, finger-like, central process.
+
+
+
+
+
+Distribution
+
+
+
+Neotropical:
+Costa Rica
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Remarks
+
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus ocellatus
+
+sp. nov.
+is easily distinguished from all other species of
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+by its small eye (1.1–1.3× genal height).
+
+Sclerocoelus ocellatus
+
+is known from a few specimens collected in high elevation forests in the mountains south of
+San Jose
+,
+Costa Rica
+. It is one of four endemic Costa Rican
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+and one of the seven members of the
+
+S. dasysternum
+
+group found in
+Costa Rica
+.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FFB1FFBFFD9293F3FD5D2A62.xml b/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FFB1FFBFFD9293F3FD5D2A62.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..6a984861e0c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FFB1FFBFFD9293F3FD5D2A62.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,2447 @@
+
+
+
+A revision of the genus Sclerocoelus Marshall (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae)
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Kuwahara, Gregory K.
+2E2D313F-7249-4F76-AF5D-615516840188
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+gkuwahar@gmail.com
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Marshall, Stephen A.
+6C1C1C9E-365F-48BF-B8C7-31163EC5F3A7
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+samarsha@uoguelph.ca
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Paiero, Steven M.
+B172670C-2159-4D6B-9542-53406F315DC7
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+paieros@uoguelph.ca
+
+text
+
+
+European Journal of Taxonomy
+
+
+2025
+
+2025-03-04
+
+
+979
+
+
+1
+277
+
+
+
+
+https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2803/12807
+
+journal article
+10.5852/ejt.2025.979.2803
+2118-9773
+14980852
+F40A49A4-5DCC-491E-9D0A-7A3C2EC6D186
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus sordipes
+(
+Adams, 1904
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Limosina sordipes
+Adams, 1904: 455
+
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Limosina evanescens
+Tucker, 1907: 102
+
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Leptocera
+(
+Scotophilella
+)
+evanescens
+
+–
+
+Spuler 1925: 160
+
+. — Richards 1965: 724.
+
+
+
+
+
+Leptocera
+(
+Limosina
+)
+sordipes
+
+–
+
+Richards 1965: 724
+
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus sordipes
+
+–
+
+Marshall 1995: 284
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Diagnosis
+
+
+
+Externally almost indistinguishable from
+
+S. parasordipes
+
+sp. nov.
+but differs as follows: male S5 with a very large medial pale area, dark lateral lines almost reaching anterior margin (cf.
+Marshall 1995
+: fig. 9); surstylus with a convex anterobasal edge (cf.
+Marshall 1995
+: figs 1–3); postgonite narrowly constricted without an anterolateral lobe in the apical third (cf.
+Marshall 1995
+: fig. 5).
+
+
+
+
+
+Material examined
+
+
+
+
+CANADA
+
+–
+Manitoba
+
+•
+1 ♂
+;
+Winnipeg
+,
+University of Manitoba campus
+;
+
+29 Jun.–2 Aug. 1984
+
+;
+R.E. Roughley
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+.
+–
+
+
+New Brunswick
+
+•
+2 ♀♀
+;
+Saint Andrews
+,
+Gibson Lake
+;
+
+10 Jul. 1978
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+carrion pitfall traps
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+11 Aug. 1978
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Saint Andrews
+;
+
+20 May 1978
+
+;
+A. Konecny
+leg.;
+old [wrack] bed
+,
+pan trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Saint Andrews
+;
+
+6 May 1978
+
+;
+Marshall
+and
+Konecny
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+3 ♂♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+20 May 1978
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+26 May 1978
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+12 May 1978
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+3 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+22 May 1978
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+1 ♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+26 May 1978
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+30 May 1978
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Saint Andrews
+;
+
+28 May 1978
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+26 May 1978
+
+;
+old [wrack] bed
+,
+pan trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+6 Jun. 1978
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+15 Aug. 1979
+
+;
+dead seagull
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Kent Co.
+,
+Kouchibouguac National Park
+;
+
+18 May 1977
+
+;
+B. Cooper
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+25 Jun. 1977
+
+;
+J.R. Vockeroth
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+.
+–
+
+
+Nova Scotia
+
+•
+1 ♂
+;
+Blomidon
+;
+
+27 Aug. 1989
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+moss in small stream
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+4 ♂♂
+,
+1 ♀
+;
+Cape Breton Highlands National Park
+,
+Lone Shieling
+;
+
+11 Jul. 1983
+
+;
+Borkent
+leg.;
+maple forest
+,
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Cape Breton Highlands National Park
+,
+Mackenzie Mountain
+;
+
+300 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+29 Aug. 1983
+
+;
+
+
+Picea
+–Betula
+
+
+,
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Cape Breton Highlands National Park
+;
+Mackenzie Mountain
+;
+
+300 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+4 Jul. 1983
+
+;
+J.R. Vockeroth
+leg.;
+mixed forest
+,
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+18 ♂♂
+,
+22 ♀♀
+;
+Cape Breton Island
+,
+South Harbour
+;
+
+12 Jul. 1983
+
+;
+J.R. Vockeroth
+leg.;
+mixed forest
+,
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Kejimkujik National Park
+,
+Grafton Lake
+;
+44°22′59″ N
+,
+65°12′7″ W
+;
+
+103 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+3 Aug. 2009
+
+;
+forest
+,
+pitfall trap
+;
+BIObus 2009
+leg.;
+09BBEDI-2416/BBDEE453-10
+sequenced for CO1-5’;
+BIOUG
+
+. –
+
+
+Ontario
+
+•
+1 ♀
+;
+
+6 km
+S of Perth
+
+;
+
+28 Aug. 1987
+
+;
+J.R. Vockeroth
+leg.;
+marshy stream shore
+,
+sweep
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+5 ♂♂
+,
+6 ♀♀
+;
+
+11.3 km
+E of Griffith
+
+;
+
+8 Jul. 1989
+
+;
+B.E. Cooper
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Algonquin Provincial Park
+,
+Swan Lake Station
+,
+Scott Lake survey
+;
+
+23–30 Jun. 1994
+
+; A
+5 shore
+,
+pans
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+18–31 Jul. 1994
+
+;
+C1 shore
+,
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+26 Jul.–5 Aug. 1994
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+C5 shore
+,
+pans
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Blair
+,
+RARE
+,
+Cruickston Creek
+;
+43°22′40″ N
+,
+80°20′58″ W
+;
+
+20–23 Jun. 2006
+
+;
+Cheung
+and
+Bergeron
+leg.;
+yellow pans in woodchips
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Blair
+,
+RARE
+,
+The Dells
+;
+43°22′55″ N
+,
+80°20′32″ W
+;
+
+20 Jun.–17 Jul. 2006
+
+;
+Bergeron
+and
+Cheung
+leg.;
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Burlington
+,
+Bronte Creek Provincial Park
+;
+
+1–5 Jun. 1983
+
+;
+Brown
+and
+Marshall
+leg.;
+Malaise trough
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Caliper Lake Provincial Park
+;
+49°03′26″ N
+,
+93°54′49″ W
+;
+
+25 Jun. 2001
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Chaffey’s Lock
+,
+Queens University Biological Station
+;
+
+1–5 Sep. 1985
+
+;
+S. Peck
+leg.;
+fields and forest
+,
+evening car netting
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+3 ♂♂
+,
+8 ♀♀
+;
+Cumberland
+;
+
+Jul. 1975
+
+;
+L. Ling
+leg.;
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Dorcas Bay
+;
+
+6 Nov. 1998
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Dunks Bay
+;
+45°14′59″ N
+,
+81°38′27″ W
+;
+
+27 Jul. 1997
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Dunks Bay
+;
+
+5–12 Jul. 1999
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+dune
+,
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Fathom Five National Marine Park
+,
+Bears Rump Island
+;
+
+23 Jun.–26 Jul. 1995
+
+;
+T. Woodcock
+and
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+juniper moss
+,
+pan trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Fathom Five National Marine Park
+,
+Flowerpot Island
+;
+
+12–30 May 1995
+
+;
+T. Woodcock
+and
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+dry cedar duff
+,
+pan trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Fergus
+;
+
+12 May 1992
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+black composter
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+12–15 Jun. 1992
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Gooderham
+,
+Burnt River
+;
+
+16 Jun. 1993
+
+;
+E.R. Barr
+leg.;
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Guelph
+,
+University of Guelph Dairy Bush
+;
+
+30 Jun. 1993
+
+;
+D.C. Caloren
+leg.;
+vegetation sweep
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+3 ♂♂
+,
+3 ♀♀
+;
+Guelph
+,
+University of Guelph Dairy Bush
+;
+
+30 Oct. 1984
+
+;
+B.V. Brown
+leg.;
+leaf litter
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+1 ♀
+;
+Haliburton
+;
+
+1 Jul. 1990
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+newly bulldozed road
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+1 ♀
+;
+Hamilton
+;
+
+28 Jun. 1980
+
+;
+M Sanborne
+leg.;
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+19 Jul. 1980
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+3 ♂♂
+,
+5 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+31 Jul. 1980
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+2 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+14 Aug. 1980
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+4–18 Aug. 1980
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+,
+1 ♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+28 Aug. 1980
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+2 ♀♀
+;
+Hilton Beach
+;
+
+6–27 Jun. 1987
+
+;
+J.E. Swann
+leg.;
+cedar swamp
+,
+pan traps
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+2–15 Aug. 1987
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Hilton Beach
+;
+
+18 Aug. 1992
+
+;
+J.E. Swann
+leg.;
+field
+,
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Hilton Beach
+;
+
+6 Oct. 1992
+
+;
+J.E. Swann
+leg.;
+Malaise trap at edge of hardwood forest of field
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+3 ♀♀
+;
+Icewater Creek watershed
+,
+
+12.7 km
+NNE of Searchmont
+
+,
+Whitman Dam Road
+,
+mile 10.5
+;
+
+21–28 Jul. 1986
+
+;
+riparian meadow-alder thicket
+,
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+,
+9 ♀♀
+;
+Icewater Creek watershed
+;
+46°53′42″ N
+,
+84°03′24″ W
+;
+
+10–24 Jul. 1998
+
+;
+K.N. Barber
+leg.;
+
+moist depression in mixed forest
+
+Thalictrum
+/Eupatorium
+
+
+,
+pitfalls
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Long Point Provincial Park
+;
+
+21–30 Jul. 1983
+
+;
+Carlson
+and
+Marshall
+leg.;
+Malaise head
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+,
+6 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+30 Jul.–5 Aug. 1983
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Manester Track
+,
+
+6 km
+NNW of St. Williams
+
+;
+
+8 Jun. 2001
+
+;
+M. Buck
+leg.;
+forest
+,
+dung pans
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+,
+2 ♀♀
+;
+Middleville to White Lake Road
+;
+
+27 Apr. 1986
+
+;
+S. and J. Peck
+leg.;
+evening car netting
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Nepean
+;
+
+26 Oct. 1989
+
+;
+L. Masner
+leg.;
+flight-intercept trap near log pile
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Ottawa
+,
+Hôpital Montfort Woods
+;
+
+Aug. 1993
+
+;
+J.R. Vockeroth
+leg.;
+yellow pans
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+3 ♂♂
+,
+4 ♀♀
+;
+Ottawa
+,
+near Uplands Airport
+;
+
+25 Jul. 1987
+
+;
+J.M. Cumming
+leg.;
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+Ottawa
+;
+
+19 Jun. 1989
+
+;
+J.R. Vockeroth
+leg.;
+
+swept over bare path in
+
+Acer
+
+wood
+
+, at dusk (1800 hr
+EST
+);
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Ottawa
+;
+
+19 Apr. 1990
+
+;
+J.R. Vockeroth
+leg.;
+
+damp ditch in
+
+Acer
+
+wood
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+2 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+24 Aug. 1991
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+2 ♀♀
+;
+Ottawa
+;
+
+Jul. 1990
+
+;
+J.R. Vockeroth
+leg.;
+bus shelter
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Ottawa
+;
+
+Oct. 1990
+
+;
+J.R. Vockeroth
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+4 ♂♂
+,
+5 ♀♀
+;
+Point Pelee National Park
+;
+41°59′ N
+,
+82°27′ W
+;
+
+20–25 Jul. 1999
+
+;
+A. Tesolin
+leg.;
+Malaise and pan trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+4 ♂♂
+,
+2 ♀♀
+;
+Point Pelee National Park
+;
+
+10 Aug. 1999
+
+;
+O. Lonsdale
+leg.;
+wooded area by W beach
+,
+Malaise/pan traps
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+11 ♂♂
+,
+15 ♀♀
+;
+Point Pelee National Park
+,
+Visitor Centre
+;
+
+10–15 May 2000
+
+;
+O. Lonsdale
+leg.;
+Malaise trap and pans
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+8 ♂♂
+,
+17 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+15–22 May 2000
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+22–29 May 2000
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+3 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+16–23 Jun. 2000
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+23 Jun.–4 Jul. 2000
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+2 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+22–30 Jul. 2000
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+26 Sep.–10 Oct. 2000
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+10–18 Oct. 2000
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Rideau Ferry
+,
+Big Rideau Lake
+;
+
+24 Aug. 1985
+
+;
+S. and J. Peck
+leg.;
+forest and field
+,
+evening car netting
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+3 ♂♂
+,
+3 ♀♀
+;
+Rondeau
+;
+
+25 Jun. 1982
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+St. Joseph Island
+;
+
+9 Aug. 1992
+
+;
+J.E. Swann
+leg.;
+forest edge
+,
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Thousand Islands National Park
+;
+
+31 May 1983
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+Malaise head
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Tobermory
+,
+Spring Cove and vicinity
+;
+
+14 Jul. 1996
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Windsor
+,
+
+1.5 km
+S of Ojibway Prairie
+
+;
+
+22 Sep. 2001
+
+;
+S.M. Paiero
+leg.;
+forest-prairie edge
+,
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+3 ♀♀
+;
+Windsor
+,
+Ojibway Prairie
+;
+
+30–31 Jul. 2002
+
+;
+M. Buck
+leg.;
+white pans
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Windsor
+;
+
+19–26 Jul. 1982
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+Malaise trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+. –
+
+
+Quebec
+
+•
+1 ♂
+;
+Montebello
+;
+
+18 Aug. 1987
+
+;
+J.R. Vockeroth
+leg.;
+dry streambed
+,
+sweep
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+–
+
+
+Saskatchewan
+
+•
+1 ♀
+;
+Grasslands National Park
+,
+Val Marie
+;
+
+23 Aug. 1997
+
+;
+Marshall
+and
+Finnamore
+leg.;
+prairie dog raised emergence trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+
+
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+
+–
+Arkansas
+
+•
+3 ♂♂
+,
+2 ♀♀
+;
+Polk Co.
+,
+
+20.9 km
+NW of Mena
+
+,
+Rich Mountain
+;
+
+850 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+1–3 Jun. 1979
+
+;
+S.
+and
+J. Peck
+leg.;
+mesic oak-hickory
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+–
+
+
+Georgia
+
+•
+1 ♀
+;
+Forsyth
+;
+
+2 Jun. 1970
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+–
+
+
+Illinois
+
+•
+1 ♂
+,
+1 ♀
+;
+Cook Co.
+,
+Willow Springs
+;
+
+18 Oct. 1942
+
+;
+H.S. Dybas
+leg.;
+forest floor
+,
+among leaves
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+–
+
+
+Indiana
+
+•
+1 ♂
+,
+2 ♀♀
+;
+Lawrence Co.
+,
+Hoosier National Forest
+,
+Donaldson trail
+;
+
+19 May 1991
+
+;
+J.E. Swann
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Lawrence Co.
+,
+Hoosier National Forest
+;
+
+12 Jul. 1989
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+sweeps in forest
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+26 ♂♂
+,
+21 ♀♀
+;
+Orange Co.
+,
+Pioneer Mothers Memorial Forest
+;
+
+12 Jul. 1989
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+sweep near open ant nest
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+–
+
+
+Kentucky
+
+•
+1 ♀
+;
+Laurel Co.
+,
+
+24 km
+W of London
+
+;
+
+4–30 Jun. 1984
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.; oak,
+flight-intercept trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+–
+
+
+New Hampshire
+
+•
+3 ♀♀
+;
+Coos Co.
+,
+
+1.6 km
+NE of East Inlet Dam
+
+;
+
+12–24 Jun. 1986
+
+;
+D.S. Chandler
+leg.;
+flight-intercept trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+6 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+10–24 Jul. 1986
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+4 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+25 Jul.–7 Aug. 1986
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+,
+4 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+8–21 Aug. 1986
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♀
+;
+Coos Co.
+,
+Norton Pool
+,
+
+4.8 km
+NE of East Inlet Dam
+
+;
+
+27 May–11 Jun. 1986
+
+;
+D.S. Chandler
+leg.;
+flight-intercept trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+12–24 Jun. 1986
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+25 Jun.–9 Jul. 1986
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+10–24 Jul. 1986
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+,
+5 ♀♀
+;
+Rockingham Co.
+,
+
+1.6 km
+SW of Durham
+
+;
+
+11–18 Jun. 1987
+
+;
+D.S. Chandler
+leg.;
+flight-intercept trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+,
+1 ♀
+;
+Strafford Co.
+,
+
+1.6 km
+SW of Durham
+
+;
+
+27 Apr.–11 May 1987
+
+;
+D.S. Chandler
+leg.;
+flight-intercept trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+3 ♂♂
+,
+7 ♀♀
+;
+Strafford Co.
+,
+Spruce Hole
+,
+
+4.8 km
+SW of Durham
+
+;
+
+29 Jul.–6 Aug. 1987
+
+;
+D.S. Chandler
+leg.;
+flight-intercept trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+6 ♂♂
+,
+22 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+25 Sep.–14 Oct. 1987
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+19 ♂♂
+,
+46 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+15–17 Oct. 1987
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+16 ♂♂
+,
+11 ♀♀
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+8–14 Nov. 1987
+
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Strafford Co.
+,
+Spruce Hole Bog
+;
+
+22–25 Jun. 1986
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+pan trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+–
+
+
+New York
+
+•
+1 ♂
+;
+Albany Co.
+,
+Clarkesville
+,
+Onesquethaw Cave
+;
+
+6 Nov. 1982
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+14 ♂♂
+,
+40 ♀♀
+;
+Greene Co.
+,
+Cairo
+;
+
+1 Jul. 1980
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+decaying grass
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+;
+Suffolk Co.
+,
+Riverhead
+,
+Long Island
+“
+Veg. Res. Fm.
+”;
+
+30 Aug. 1988
+
+;
+CNCI
+
+.
+–
+
+
+North Carolina
+
+•
+2 ♂♂
+;
+Bladen Co.
+,
+Singletary Lake Sate Park
+;
+34°35′00″ N
+,
+78°27′30″ W
+;
+
+14–18 May 2001
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+near water
+,
+sweep slash pile
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+,
+1 ♀
+;
+Jackson Co.
+,
+Cullowhee
+,
+Cane Creek
+;
+
+670 m
+a.s.l.
+
+;
+
+6–17 Jun. 1984
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+Malaise/pan trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+–
+
+
+Ohio
+
+•
+2 ♀♀
+;
+Champaign Co.
+,
+Cedar Bog Nature Preserve
+;
+
+6–20 Jun. 1980
+
+;
+L. Watrovs
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+8 ♂♂
+,
+3 ♀♀
+;
+Lawrence Co.
+,
+Wayne National Forest
+,
+Vesuvius Recreational Area
+;
+
+13 Jul. 1989
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+sweep in forest
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+;
+Morgan Co.
+,
+Wayne National Forest
+,
+Wildcat Hollow
+;
+
+14 Jul. 1989
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+wet grass clippings
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+1 ♂
+; same data as for preceding;
+
+17 Jul. 1989
+
+;
+floodplain
+,
+sweep
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+–
+
+
+South Carolina
+
+•
+1 ♂
+;
+Barnwell Co.
+,
+Barnwell
+;
+
+10–18 Apr. 1989
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+mushroom traps in oak forest
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+–
+
+
+Tennessee
+
+•
+1 ♂
+;
+Blount Co.
+,
+Great Smoky Mountains National Park
+,
+Middle Prong Little River
+;
+35°38′24″ N
+,
+83°41′42″ W
+;
+
+25 Jul. 1999
+
+;
+J. Cooper
+leg.;
+light trap
+;
+DEBU
+
+•
+
+2 ♂♂
+;
+Sevier Co.
+,
+Great Smoky Mountains National Park
+,
+western tributary of Porter’s Creek
+,
+
+0.8 km
+SW of access gate
+
+;
+
+22 Jul. 1999
+
+;
+J. Cooper
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+–
+
+
+Virginia
+
+•
+1 ♂
+;
+Giles Co.
+,
+New River
+;
+
+17 May 1997
+
+;
+S.A. Marshall
+leg.;
+DEBU
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Distribution
+
+
+
+Nearctic:
+Canada
+,
+United States of America
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Remarks
+
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus sordipes
+
+is externally very similar to
+
+S. parasordipes
+
+sp. nov.
+(from western North America), from which it differs only in the features described above. Females of these two species are indistinguishable externally and were associated with conspecific males on the basis of collecting localities.
+
+Sclerocoelus sordipes
+
+is a common eastern Nearctic species, found from Manitoba to Nova Scotia and south to
+Georgia
+. We have collected it most often on moist decaying plant material, including lawn clippings and leaf piles in forested areas.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FFB4FFBEFD8C9363FD6D2FF3.xml b/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FFB4FFBEFD8C9363FD6D2FF3.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..6155388007a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FFB4FFBEFD8C9363FD6D2FF3.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,222 @@
+
+
+
+A revision of the genus Sclerocoelus Marshall (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae)
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Kuwahara, Gregory K.
+2E2D313F-7249-4F76-AF5D-615516840188
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+gkuwahar@gmail.com
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Marshall, Stephen A.
+6C1C1C9E-365F-48BF-B8C7-31163EC5F3A7
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+samarsha@uoguelph.ca
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Paiero, Steven M.
+B172670C-2159-4D6B-9542-53406F315DC7
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+paieros@uoguelph.ca
+
+text
+
+
+European Journal of Taxonomy
+
+
+2025
+
+2025-03-04
+
+
+979
+
+
+1
+277
+
+
+
+
+https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2803/12807
+
+journal article
+10.5852/ejt.2025.979.2803
+2118-9773
+14980852
+F40A49A4-5DCC-491E-9D0A-7A3C2EC6D186
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus subbrevipennis
+(
+Frey, 1954
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Limosina subbrevipennis
+Frey, 1954: 35
+
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Leptocera
+(
+Limosina
+)
+subbrevipennis
+
+–
+
+Richards 1980: 620
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus subbrevipennis
+
+–
+
+Marshall 1997: 104
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Diagnosis
+
+
+
+Body length
+2.2 mm
+. Membrane around prosternum bare. Male S5 rectangular, posteromedially pale, bilobed, and covered in short, flattened setulae (cf.
+Marshall 1997
+: figs 54, 56); perianal pads well developed and dark; surstylus subtriangular with a rectangular anteroventral lobe bearing a posteroventral patch of thickened setae (cf.
+Marshall 1997
+: figs 52–53); postgonite very narrow and strongly sinuate (cf.
+Marshall 1997
+: fig. 55). Female S8 hourglass-shaped, lateral margins curved outwards into two prominent ridges (cf.
+Marshall 1997
+: fig. 59).
+
+
+
+
+
+Material examined
+
+
+
+
+TRISTAN DA CUNHA
+–
+
+Inaccessible Island
+
+•
+1 ♂
+;
+SW of Denstone Hill
+;
+37°02′ S
+,
+12°12′ W
+;
+
+14 Oct. 1989
+
+;
+H.M. Barber
+leg.;
+albatross nest
+;
+DEBU
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Distribution
+
+
+
+South Atlantic:
+Tristan
+de
+Cunha
+(Inaccessible Island, Nightingale Island)
+
+
+
+
+
+Remarks
+
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus subbrevipennis
+(Frey)
+
+is the only unequivocal
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+with a distribution outside the New World, and one of only four species found outside the Neotropical region. The close relationship between
+
+S. subbrevipennis
+
+and Neotropical members of the
+
+S. galapagensis
+
+group was documented by
+Marshall (1997)
+and we are confident that the species is correctly placed. Although undoubtedly a
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+, it is clearly distinct from all other species we have examined so there is no evidence that it is secondarily introduced to
+Tristan da Cunha
+. Some of the
+type
+specimens were collected in bird nests and in rotting vegetation.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FFDFFFC6FDE690D1FAF72E6B.xml b/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FFDFFFC6FDE690D1FAF72E6B.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..50a603730ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FFDFFFC6FDE690D1FAF72E6B.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,2501 @@
+
+
+
+A revision of the genus Sclerocoelus Marshall (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae)
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Kuwahara, Gregory K.
+2E2D313F-7249-4F76-AF5D-615516840188
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+gkuwahar@gmail.com
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Marshall, Stephen A.
+6C1C1C9E-365F-48BF-B8C7-31163EC5F3A7
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+samarsha@uoguelph.ca
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Paiero, Steven M.
+B172670C-2159-4D6B-9542-53406F315DC7
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+paieros@uoguelph.ca
+
+text
+
+
+European Journal of Taxonomy
+
+
+2025
+
+2025-03-04
+
+
+979
+
+
+1
+277
+
+
+
+
+https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2803/12807
+
+journal article
+10.5852/ejt.2025.979.2803
+2118-9773
+14980852
+F40A49A4-5DCC-491E-9D0A-7A3C2EC6D186
+
+
+
+
+
+Genus
+
+Sclerocoelus
+Marshall, 1995
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus
+Marshall, 1995: 283
+
+
+(masculine).
+Type
+species:
+
+Limosina sordipes
+Adams, 1904
+
+, original designation.
+
+
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+–
+
+Marshall 1997: 97
+
+[diagnosis, phylogeny, key, illustrations]. —
+
+
+Roháček
+et al.
+2001: 248
+
+
+[world catalog].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Diagnosis
+
+
+
+Almost all
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+exhibit the following combination of characters: (1) very broad lunule; (2) very broad alula; (3) a proximal posterodorsal seta on the mid tibia; (4) well-developed postsutural intra-alar bristle; and (5) complex male genital pouch composed of several additional sclerites. Other diagnostic characters include (6) a midventral seta on the female mid tibia (absent in males) and (7) costa terminating at the end of R 4+5. Some species lack the proximal posterodorsal mid tibial seta (
+
+S. mandibulum
+
+sp. nov.
+and
+
+S. argentinensis
+
+sp. nov.
+), however all other diagnostic characters are present in these species. One of the brachypterous species of
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+(
+
+S. aduncus
+
+sp. nov.
+) has a small alula but has all other diagnostic characters of the genus (the other brachypterous species have a very broad alula).
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus inornatus
+
+sp. nov.
+and
+
+S. lutosus
+
+sp. nov.
+lack the distinctively sclerotized male genital pouch that characterizes other
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+, but they do have the other defining characters of
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+as listed above (with the possible exception of the dimorphic mid tibia in
+
+S. inornatus
+
+, as no females are known). A morphological phylogeny (
+Fig. 2
+) suggests that the relatively simple genital pouch of these species represents a character reversal rather than a plesiomorphic trait, however neither species was available for sequencing.
+
+
+
+
+
+Redescription
+
+
+
+BODY
+. Colour yellow to dark brown. Length
+1.8–5.3 mm
+.
+
+
+HEAD
+. Brown, variable portion of frons orange; face, gena, and antennae orange to brown; frontal vitta, interfrontal plate and orbital plate subshining, indistinctly microtomentose. Frontal width 2.2–2.4 × frontal height. Two or three pairs of strong interfrontal bristles usually surmounting a very fine third or fourth pair; two strong lateroclinate orbital bristles, anterior orbital 0.4–0.7 × length of posterior; ocellar bristle large and diverging; postocellar bristle small; inner and outer vertical bristles large; inner and outer occipital bristles large. Vibrissa large, vibrissal angle with one subvibrissal seta; gena with an enlarged anteroventral seta and several smaller setae. Palpus yellow to brown, clavate, with two large preapical ventral setulae. Lunule usually broad, bulging and prominent, always broader in female than male; face slightly excavated and usually short, medially about 0.3–1.5× as tall as lunule, medial keel short and usually only slightly developed. Antennae divergent; pedicel with long marginal setae; postpedicel ovoid, somewhat flattened on outer surface; arista long-pubescent. Eye variable but usually large, greatest height 1.1–5.0× shortest genal height, posteroventral corner concave from broadened gena.
+
+
+THORAX
+. Brown, scutum paler laterally. One or two (usually) distinct postsutural dorsocentral bristles, anterior pair sometimes reduced, 0.3–0.7 × length of posterior (prescutellar) pair, separated by 4–12 rows of acrostichal setulae. Two postpronotal bristles, outer bristle large and inner bristle small; two notopleural bristles, anterior slightly larger than posterior; two strong supra-alar bristles; postalar and intrapostalar bristles large; prescutellar acrostichal setulae usually enlarged (3.0–4.0 × length of anterior setulae). Prosternum linear, membrane around prosternum usually bare but sometimes with additional setulae-bearing sclerites. Katepisternum with a very fine anterior setula and a large posterior bristle. Scutellum subtriangular, 1.3× as wide as long, with four long marginal bristles in usual positions.
+
+
+LEGS
+. Brown to yellow. Fore femur with 3–5 large ventral preapical setae. Dorsal surface of mid tibia with three (one small and one large anterior and one small posterior) proximal setae and three (one small and one large anterior and one large posterior) distal setae except in male
+
+S. mandibulum
+
+sp. nov.
+Ventral surface of male mid tibia with an apicoventral bristle and two rows of stout setae in apical quarter to two-thirds, mid femur with two corresponding rows of stout proximal setae; ventral surface of female mid tibia with strong midventral bristle and long apicoventral bristle. Mid basitarsus with distinctly enlarged basal ventral setula. Hind tibia with stout apicoventral seta.
+
+
+WING
+. Hyaline to infuscate. CS2 0.6–1.0 × CS3. R
+2+3
+sinuate, basal curve almost straight and distal curve strong; R
+4+5
+slightly sinuate, ending just before wing tip; costa ending at or extending just beyond end of R 4+5 (1–3× costal width). M 1 extending to wing tip as distinct sinuate crease. M 4 extending past dm-m 1.1–1.3 × length of dm-m. CuA+CuP sinuate, almost reaching wing margin. Alula almost always large, ovoid. Halter pale brown to brown.
+
+
+MALE
+ABDOMEN
+. Dark brown, posterior edges of tergites usually slightly desclerotized. T2–5 and S2–4 long-setose with large posterolateral setae. S5 highly variable, usually rectangular; posteromedial chaetotaxy variable. Genital pouch including multiple sclerites, most of which seem to be derived from the ventral part of S6+7 (sclerites A–E, as defined in Materials and Methods). Epandrium variable, usually wedge-shaped, and uniformly long-setose; perianal pads usually weakly developed and membranous, but sometimes sclerotized and enlarged. Cercus usually weakly differentiated from epandrium, usually widely separated but sometimes entirely or partially fused medially to form subanal plate; pseudocercus usually small and separated from epandrium, sometimes fused to inner ventral corners of epandrium or entirely absent; when present, almost always with three setae. Halves of subepandrial sclerite usually strongly arched and joined medially. Subcercus usually large and complex. Hypandrium usually large; anteromedial hypandrial apodeme elongate but usually shorter than phallapodeme; lateral hypandrial arm strongly arched, separate from anteroventral corner of epandrium and usually separate from anteromedial hypandrial apodeme (fused to anteromedial apodeme in
+
+S. punensis
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. paranebulosus
+
+sp. nov.
+and
+
+S. penai
+
+sp. nov.
+). Surstylus variable, usually larger than subcercus. Postgonite variable. Phallapodeme large, curved, sometimes dorsoventrally flattened apically; basiphallus variable, often stout with a neck-like distal part, epiphallus variably developed; distiphallus usually small, largely membranous, and supported by numerous sinuate sclerites.
+
+
+FEMALE
+ABDOMEN
+. Dark brown, edges of preabdominal sclerites, especially sternites, usually desclerotized. T2–6 and S2–6 uniformly long-setose with longer posterolateral setae. T7 broad, rectangular; T8 either desclerotized dorsomedially, appearing as two large lateral sclerites, or divided into pale dorsal sclerite and two dark lateral sclerites, posteromedial corners of lateral sclerites usually expanded posteriorly. Epiproct usually large, shield-like and often desclerotized along midline, appearing as two separate sclerites, usually densely setulose, almost always with pair of large dorsal setae. Cercus variable, usually elongate, always densely setulose, usually with large apical and dorsal setae. S7 broad, often pointed posteromedially, long-setose with 4–6 distinctly enlarged, preapical, posterior setae; S8 usually highly reduced, often divided into two small, lateral sclerites each with two minute sensory setulae, though sometimes with only a single large, medial sclerite or entirely membranous/absent. Hypoproct large, broad, U-shaped, densely setulose posteriorly with 5–16 distinct setae. Three or (rarely) two spermathecae, bulb various, sometimes spherical or cylindrical but asymmetrically bean-shaped in one major clade, often with 1–2 invaginations, invaginations sometimes with a finger-like, central process pointing outwards; paired spermathecae (when present) smaller than single spermatheca; ducts short.
+
+
+
+
+
+Similar and related genera
+
+
+
+Marshall & Dong (2008)
+noted superficial similarities between the widespread southern hemisphere genus
+
+Parasclerocoelus
+
+and some species of
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+, including a large intra-alar bristle, sinuate R
+2+3
+, almost straight R
+4+5
+, a double row of stout setae on the apicoventral surface of the mid tibia, large S6–8, pruinose thorax and similar female terminalia. However,
+
+Parasclerocoelus
+
+has a narrow alula, a small lunule and no posterior proximal seta on the mid tibia. Its male genital pouch includes an arm of S6 that extends across the anterior face of the genital pouch but lacks the multiple genital pouch sclerites that define
+
+Sclerocoelus
+.
+
+
+
+The only species of the high Andean genus
+
+Paramosina
+
+is also externally similar to sympatric species of
+
+Sclerocoelus
+.
+
+Marshall & Yau (2014)
+noted the broad lunule and broad alula as similarities, but noted the simple male genital pouch, complete subanal plate, well-developed cerci and epiproct in the female as significant differences between the two genera. The male S6 is divided into two ventral lobes in
+
+Paramosina
+
+, but it does not break into separate pieces ventrally as in
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+.
+
+Paramosina
+
+also differs from
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+in lacking the posterior proximal seta on the mid tibia in both sexes and in lacking the midventral mid tibial bristle in females. Nine species of
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+were collected along with the
+type
+series of
+
+Paramosina hirsuta
+Marshall, 2014
+
+at
+3600 m
+a.s.l. (Quebrada Mishahuaycu,
+Ecuador
+).
+
+
+Males of the small African genus
+
+Parapoecilosomella
+Papp, 2008
+
+have a large genital pouch superficially similar to some
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+, but the two species of
+
+Parapoecilosomella
+
+differ so widely from
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+in wing venation and other features it seems unlikely that there is a close relationship.
+
+
+Marshall (2000)
+suggested
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+as a possible sister group to the mostly Neotropical genus
+
+Chespiritos
+
+, with which it shares a broad lunule and well-developed intra-alar bristles.
+Kuwahara &
+Marshall (2020) pointed out further similarities between the basal species of
+
+Chespiritos
+
+and
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+in the
+
+S. galapagensis
+
+species group.
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+can be easily distinguished from
+
+Chespiritos
+
+by the broad alula, four scutellar bristles, single proximal posterodorsal seta on the mid tibia, male mid tibia without a midventral bristle, costa ending near the tip of the wing at its junction with R
+4+5
+, and complex genital pouch.
+
+
+
+Phylogeny
+
+
+
+Phylogenetic trees were generated from the matrix using TNT with New Technology search (sectorial search and tree-fusing). Analysis of the entire character state matrix (
+Table 1
+) yielded four equally parsimonious trees (length = 196, consistency index = 0.20, retention index 0.69). The preferred tree (
+Fig. 2
+) places the very similar species
+
+S. flavus
+
+sp. nov.
+and
+
+S. meridensis
+
+sp. nov.
+as sister species. Four distinctive branches of this tree are here treated as named species groups: the
+
+S. dasysternum
+
+species group, the
+
+S. galapagensis
+
+species group, the
+
+S. regularis
+
+species group, and the
+
+S. sordipes
+
+species group. Seven relatively plesiomorphic species are treated as ‘basal lineages’, and 22 other species are not placed in named species groups.
+
+
+The
+
+S. dasysternum
+
+species group (
+
+S. costaricensis
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. dasysternum
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. grandicercus
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. latibarbus
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. masneri
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. nitidistylus
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. ocellatus
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. recurvatus
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. rostrum
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. synorios
+
+sp. nov.
+, and
+
+S. vulgatus
+
+sp. nov.
+) is characterized by a dense, rectangular patch of posteromedial setulae on the male S5, relatively short surstyli, and usually large sclerite F. Most species in the
+
+S. dasysternum
+
+species group have male S5 asymmetrically developed (reduced on the left or right posterior corners, sometimes both). This group is largely Central American though
+
+S. masneri
+
+is known only from
+Venezuela
+,
+
+S. synorios
+
+ranges into the
+United States
+, and the range of
+
+S. vulgatus
+
+extends to
+Peru
+.
+
+
+The
+
+S. galapagensis
+
+species group (
+
+S. andensis
+Marshall, 1997
+
+,
+
+S. binus
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. brasilensis
+Marshall, 1997
+
+,
+
+S. caligarius
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. caribensis
+Marshall, 1997
+
+,
+
+S. copiosus
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. elephas
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. galapagensis
+Marshall, 1997
+
+,
+
+S. hemorrhoidalis
+Marshall, 1997
+
+,
+
+S. subbrevipennis
+(
+Frey, 1954
+)
+
+, and
+
+S. tantus
+
+sp. nov.
+) is characterized by the presence of additional sclerites in the membrane beside the prosternum. A smaller clade within the
+
+S. galapagensis
+
+species group is characterized by an elephant trunk-like epiphallus on the basiphallus. The
+
+S. galapagensis
+
+species group is the most widespread species group (
+Mexico
+to northern
+Argentina
+and throughout the Caribbean), and includes the only unequivocal
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+with a distribution outside of the New World (
+Tristan da Cunha
+).
+
+
+The
+
+S. regularis
+
+species group (
+
+S. dominicensis
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. irregularis
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. pararegularis
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S. regularis
+(
+Malloch, 1914
+)
+
+, and
+
+S. turpis
+
+sp. nov.
+) is characterized by a relatively small body size (
+1.8–3.1 mm
+), yellow legs, large, mitt-shaped surstyli (height 2.0× length), and flattened, shield-like subcerci. The
+
+S. regularis
+
+species group occurs from
+Mexico
+south to northern
+Argentina
+, with one species (
+
+S. dominicensis
+
+) known only from
+Dominica
+.
+
+
+The
+
+S. sordipes
+
+species group is a small group made up of two of the three Nearctic species of
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+, the very similar
+
+S. sordipes
+(
+Adams, 1904
+)
+
+and
+
+S. parasordipes
+
+sp. nov.
+This group is recognized by a characteristically pigmented male S5 with a large setulose medial patch.
+
+
+CO1 sequence analyses (barcode trees)
+
+
+
+
+
+Results
+
+
+
+Figures 3
+and
+4
+show the NJ and ML trees, respectively, for the CO1 dataset including
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+,
+
+Parasclerocoelus
+
+,
+
+Chespiritos
+
+, and
+Archiceropter
+a. On the NJ tree, but not the ML tree,
+
+Parasclerocoelus
+
+comes out within
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+, where it is recovered in the same branch as some of the relatively plesiomorphic
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species.
+
+Three of the four named
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+groups recognized in the morphological analysis (
+
+S. dasysternum
+
+,
+
+S. sordipes
+
+, and
+
+S. regularis
+
+species groups) were recovered as single branches in both trees. The
+
+S. galapagensis
+
+species group, however, was recovered in two places in both trees, suggesting that the species newly added to the group herein might render it a paraphyletic group:
+
+S. andensis
+
+,
+
+S. caribensis
+
+and
+
+S. brasilensis
+
+come out as closer to the
+
+S. regularis
+
+group than to the newly described species
+
+S. elephas
+
+sp. nov.
+and
+
+S. copiosus
+
+sp. nov.
+on the ML tree, but on the NJ tree
+
+S. elephas
+
+and
+
+S. copiosus
+
+are closer to the
+
+S. regularis
+
+group.
+
+Sclerocoelus binus
+
+sp. nov.
+is next to the latter two species on the NJ tree but next to
+
+S. andensis
+
+,
+
+S. caribensis
+
+and
+
+S. brasilensis
+
+on the ML tree.
+
+
+
+
+
+Discussion
+
+
+
+The compelling morphological synapomorphies for
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+suggest that it is monophyletic, but if the NJ tree topology is correct then the two ‘S
+clerocoelus
+’ branches recognized on that tree would instead be a broadly defined
+
+Parasclerocoelus
+
+(including the species here treated as unplaced or plesiomorphic
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+) and a more narrowly defined
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+including all previously named
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+and the four named species groups of
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+. Similarly, the
+
+S. galapagensis
+
+group is readily recognizable on the basis of morphological characters and the definition of the group remains unchanged despite the conflicting CO1 trees.
+
+
+The most interesting apparent conflict between the morphological and molecular trees is the consistent division of the genus into two separate branches in the molecular trees, in contrast to the morphological tree that identifies a paraphyletic series of ‘basal lineages’ associated with very high elevations or temperate latitudes. Both the ML and NJ trees recover one branch with both of the putatively basal species sequenced and also including most of the sequenced species currently unplaced to species group (and, in the case of the NJ tree, also including
+
+Parasclerocoelus
+
+). The morphological and molecular trees thus represent two different competing hypotheses about the history of the group, one positing a south temperate/high Andean origin with successive speciation events in extreme environments prior to the origin of a single large clade now most diverse in cloud forests, the other involving an early division of the genus into a single high Andean/southern South American clade and a second clade with a more northern distribution.
+
+
+The CO1 analyses may benefit from additional taxon sampling (
+
+Heath
+et al
+. 2008
+
+) as only 25 of the 58 species considered here are included in the molecular tree. The findings may also be a result of a poor phylogenetic signal strength in CO1 barcode region compared with other genes (
+
+Ekrem
+et al
+. 2010
+
+;
+
+Maddison
+et al
+. 2014
+
+), but the availability of CO1 data and ease in getting additional material sequenced provided us an opportunity to compare the data with the main morphological study. Some studies in acalyptrate
+Diptera
+have found CO1 contains some measure of phylogenetic signal by itself (e.g.,
+Lindsay & Marshall 2023
+) but many studies have found that CO1 is best used in conjunction with other genes (e.g.,
+
+Winkler
+et al
+. 2009
+
+;
+
+Ekrem
+et al
+. 2010
+
+;
+
+Kekkonen
+et al
+. 2015
+
+;
+Han & Ro 2016
+). This study’s development of the
+
+Sclerocoelus
+CO
+
+1 dataset will aid future multi-gene studies in examining the relationships both within
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+and with other
+Limosininae
+genera.
+
+
+
+
+
+Biology
+
+
+
+Larval
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+remain unknown, but several specimens of
+
+S. copiosus
+
+sp. nov.
+and
+
+S. nitidistylus
+
+sp. nov.
+, emerged from a refuse pile under an
+
+Eciton burchellii
+Westwood, 1842
+
+bivouac in
+Costa Rica
+, and a number of
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+have been found in or near nests of leafcutter ants and army ants. The common and very widespread species
+
+Sclerocoelus copiosus
+
+was the most numerous sphaerocerid in and around the aforementioned
+
+Eciton burchellii
+
+midden in
+Costa Rica
+, with
+24 specimens
+collected, but
+nine specimens
+of
+
+S. nitidistylus
+
+and a single
+
+S. vulgatus
+
+sp. nov.
+were also collected in or around the refuse pile (along with about 20
+
+Leptocera hexadike
+Buck, 2009
+
+, some
+
+Pterogramma
+Spuler, 1924
+
+, and a few
+
+Boreantrops talamanca
+Kits & Marshall, 2015
+
+). Other possibly ant-associated
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+include
+
+S. costaricensis
+
+sp. nov.
+, which we have swept over nests of
+
+Atta
+Fabricius, 1805
+
+, swept over columns of
+
+Eciton
+Latreille, 1804
+
+and collected in raised emergence traps over
+
+Atta
+
+nests;
+
+S. vulgatus
+
+, which we have swept over
+
+Atta
+
+nests and swept over
+
+Eciton
+
+raids; and
+
+S. caribensis
+Marshall, 1997
+
+which we have swept over
+
+Atta
+
+nests.
+
+
+Although most of the specimens examined are from cloud forests between 1500 and
+2000 m
+a.s.l., collecting records for the relatively plesiomorphic species are almost all high Andean, mostly from
+2900 m
+a.s.l. or above and in many cases only from alpine habitats at
+3500 m
+a.s.l. or higher.
+
+
+
+
+
+Distribution
+
+
+
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+occur from southern
+Canada
+(
+49°54′ N
+) to central
+Chile
+(
+32°51′ S
+), and throughout the Caribbean. The only definite
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+known from outside of the New World is
+
+S. subbrevipennis
+
+, apparently endemic to
+Tristan da Cunha
+.
+
+Sclerocoelus clarae
+(
+Papp, 1973
+)
+
+, from
+Mongolia
+, is almost certainly misplaced in
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+and is excluded from the species key below (see discussion below under species incertae sedis).
+
+
+Ecuador
+, with 25
+
+Sclerocoelus
+species
+
+including eight apparent endemics, appears to be a center of diversity for the genus, as are
+Venezuela
+(19 species, five endemic),
+Costa Rica
+(18 species, four endemic),
+Bolivia
+(18 species, three endemic), and
+Peru
+(14 species, none known to be endemic). These numbers, however, correspond closely to directed collecting efforts in appropriate habitats in those countries. The high diversity in
+Ecuador
+undoubtedly reflects the rich fauna and habitat diversity of the country, but it also reflects the second author’s extensive collecting efforts there as well as our long-term collaboration with Ecuadorian colleagues. On the other hand, the apparent low diversity of some South American countries is certainly an artefact, in part caused by the difficulty of obtaining permits and other obstacles to fieldwork in those countries. We are confident that many species of
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+remain to be discovered throughout the neotropics.
+
+
+Most species of
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+are known from only one to three countries, but seven species are known from more than six countries (
+
+S. caribensis
+
+from 15,
+
+S. rectangularis
+
+and
+
+S. vulgatus
+
+sp. nov.
+from eight, and
+
+S. brasilensis
+
+,
+
+S. copiosus
+
+sp. nov.
+,
+
+S.
+regularis
+
+, and
+
+S. tantus
+
+sp. nov.
+from seven). Several species are known from the same collection events. For example, Volcán Tenorio (
+Costa Rica
+) 2000, Monteverde Biological Reserve (
+Costa Rica
+) 1986 and 2000, Tapantí National Park (
+Costa Rica
+) 1999, Baeza (
+Ecuador
+) 1987, near Tandayapa (
+Ecuador
+) 1999, trout farm ‘San José’ (Nanegalito,
+Ecuador
+) 1999, Cock-of-the-Rock Lodge (
+Peru
+) 2006 and 2007, Laguna de Lucerdo (
+Venezuela
+) 1995, and Henri Pittier National Park (
+Venezuela
+) 1994 each yielded more than four species per collection event. Nine species are known only from the second author’s collections.
+
+
+The morphological phylogeny suggests that the origin of the genus was in the high Andes of southern South America with multiple speciation events in South American alpine environments before part of the genus apparently split into derived clades. One of the derived clades is characteristic of forested habitats in
+Mexico
+, the Caribbean or Central America and one is associated mostly with South American cloud forests. The latter clade also includes species from the Galapagos
+and Tristan da Cunha
+and the former includes a pair of North American species and one species found in
+Mexico
+and North America. A few species in each of the larger derived species groups have widespread Neotropical-Caribbean distributions.
+
+Sclerocoelus vulgatus
+
+sp. nov.
+, for example, is a member of the mostly Central American clade but ranges from
+Mexico
+and Central America south to
+Peru
+.
+
+Sclerocoelus copiosus
+
+sp. nov.
+, a commonly collected member of the South American cloud forest clade, is found from
+Bolivia
+north to
+Costa Rica
+. Most of the Mesoamerican and Central American species belong to the
+
+S. dasysternum
+
+group, although the more plesiomorphic
+
+S. regularis
+
+group also includes Mexican, Caribbean and widespread Central American species. The
+
+S. galapagensis
+
+group
+sensu
+Marshall (1997)
+now includes several South American cloud forest species as well as species from the Galapagos
+and Tristan da Cunha
+. The
+
+S. sordipes
+
+group, comprising just two Nearctic species, is weakly supported as the sister group to the
+
+S. galapagensis
+
+group.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Key to the species of
+
+Sclerocoelus
+
+
+
+
+
+The following three letter country codes are used in the key: ARG (
+Argentina
+), BLZ (
+Belize
+), BOL (
+Bolivia
+), BRA (
+Brazil
+), CAN (
+Canada
+), CHL (
+Chile
+), CRI (
+Costa Rica
+), CUB (
+Cuba
+), DMA (
+Dominica
+), DOM (
+Dominican Republic
+), ECU (
+Ecuador
+), GRD (
+Grenada
+), GTM (
+Guatemala
+), GUF (
+French Guiana
+), GUY (
+Guyana
+), HND (
+Honduras
+), JAM (
+Jamaica
+), KNA (
+Saint Kitts & Nevis
+), LCA (
+Saint Lucia
+),
+MEX
+(
+Mexico
+), NIC (
+Nicaragua
+), PAN (
+Panama
+), PER (
+Peru
+), PRI (
+Puerto Rico
+), PRY (
+Paraguay
+), SHN (
+Saint Helena
+,
+Ascension & Tristan da Cunha
+), SLV (
+El Salvador
+), TTO (
+Trinidad and Tobago
+),
+USA
+(
+United States of America
+), VEN (
+Venezuela
+).
+
+
+
+
+
+1. Brachypterous species (as in
+Fig. 11A
+) with wing never extending past posterior margin of T4. Cerci fused basally to form subanal plate and projecting ventrally but not divided to form separate subcercus (as in
+Fig. 11B
+). Surstylus broad, mitt-like (
+Figs 11C
+,
+55C
+,
+75C
+,
+90C
+)........................... 2
+
+
+
+
+– Macropterous species (as in
+Fig. 1A
+) with wing fully developed, extending past apex of abdomen. Cercus and surstylus of various forms............................................................................................... 5
+
+
+
+
+
+2. Interfrontal bristles in three large pairs surmounting a fourth smaller pair. Mid tibia with five dorsal setae in distal half .............................................................................................................................. 3
+
+
+– Interfrontal bristles in two large pairs surmounting a third smaller pair. Mid tibia with 2–3 dorsal setae in distal half .............................................................................................................................. 4
+
+
+
+
+
+3. Head and legs yellow. Male S5 with dense patches of setae flanking posteromedial desclerotized area (
+Fig. 56B
+). Subcercus short, less than half length of surstylus (
+Fig. 55D
+). Postgonite curved and evenly tapered...............................................................................................
+
+S. flavus
+
+sp. nov.
+(VEN)
+
+
+
+
+– Head and legs brown. Male S5 with only scattered setae flanking dark posteromedial lobe (
+Fig. 91B
+). Subcercus elongate, at least half length of surstylus (
+Fig. 90B
+). Postgonite sinuate and almost parallel-sided.........................................................................................
+
+S. meridensis
+
+sp. nov.
+(VEN)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+4. Eye height 3.0× genal height. Male S5 with a single row of stout setae along posterior margin, interrupted by posteromedial lobe (
+Fig. 76B
+). Ventral process of cercus with a posterior bulge about midlength (
+Fig. 75C
+). Postgonite broad basally, narrow at apex........
+
+S. limbus
+
+sp. nov.
+(BOL, PER)
+
+
+
+
+– Eye height 5.0 × genal height. Male S5 with setae mostly restricted to posteromedial emargination (
+Fig. 12B
+). Ventral process of cercus smoothly concave, without a prominent posterior bulge (
+Fig. 11C
+). Postgonite almost uniform in width .......................................
+
+S. aduncus
+
+sp. nov.
+(ECU)
+
+
+
+
+
+5. Interfrontal bristles in two large pairs and a third smaller pair.......................................................... 6
+
+
+– Interfrontal bristles in three large pairs with or without a fourth smaller pair................................. 13
+
+
+
+
+6. Two pairs of postsutural dorsocentral bristles, anterior pair large, distinct from surrounding acrostichal setulae.............................................................................................................................. 7
+
+
+– Anterior postsutural dorsocentral bristle not distinct from surrounding acrostichal setulae, thus apparently only one (prescutellar) dorsocentral pair ....................................................................... 10
+
+
+
+
+
+7. Legs yellow to pale brown. Male S5 with a dark posteromedial patch of dense setae (
+Figs 43B
+,
+97B
+) .................................................................................................................................................. 8
+
+
+
+
+– Legs dark brown. Male S5 uniformly setose or with a posteromedial row of slightly thickened setae, without a dense posteromedial patch (
+Figs 54B
+,
+73B
+) ...................................................................... 9
+
+
+
+
+
+
+8. Eye height 3.5× genal height. Male S5 with a medial patch of thick setae above dark, posteromedial patch of setulae (
+Fig. 43B
+). Outer surface of surstylus densely setulose (
+Fig. 42C
+). Female hypoproct large and deeply cleft anteromedially (
+Fig. 44B
+) ................................................................................ ...................................................................
+
+S. dasysternum
+
+sp. nov.
+(CRI, GTM, HND, PAN, TTO)
+
+
+
+
+– Eye height 5.0× genal height. Male S5 with only an elongate, dark, posteromedial patch of setulae (
+Fig. 97B
+). Outer surface of surstylus bare (
+Fig. 96C
+). Female hypoproct small and deeply cleft posteromedially (
+Fig. 98B
+)...........................................................
+
+S. nitidistylus
+
+sp. nov.
+(CRI, PAN)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+9. Male S5 uniformly setose in posterior two-thirds. Genital pouch (
+Fig. 54B
+) sclerite A elongate, densely setulose, and partially separated from S6+7; sclerite F large, with its posterior apex sharply bent to the left. Subcercus strongly curved posteriorly, simple, blade-like (
+Fig. 53B–C
+). Surstylus short, bilobed ventrally. Postgonite evenly tapered ..................................
+
+S. espeletia
+
+sp. nov.
+(VEN)
+
+
+
+
+– Male S5 with setae restricted to a posteromedial row and the right side. Genital pouch (
+Fig. 73B
+) sclerite A small, rounded, and not separated from S6+7; sclerite F small and simple. Subcercus gently curved anteriorly, wedge-shaped with a small, preapical, posterior lobe (
+Fig. 72B–C
+). Surstylus stout, subtriangular. Postgonite apically expanded and truncate......
+
+S. lazulita
+
+sp. nov.
+(BOL, ECU, VEN)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+10. Eye height 3.5× genal height; gena and face dark brown, contrasting with orange antennae. CS2 subequal to CS3. Male S5 with a narrow, T-shaped, largely bare, posteromedial lobe (
+Fig. 148B
+). Subcercus with a membranous ventral part (
+Fig. 149C
+). Female S7 pointed posteriorly; halves of S8 triangular................................................................
+
+S. xynos
+
+sp. nov.
+(ARG, BOL, ECU, PER, VEN)
+
+
+
+
+– Eye height 4.5× genal height; gena and face similar in colour to antennae. CS2 shorter than (0.7– 0.9 ×) CS3. Male S5 with a dark posteromedial patch of dense setae (as in
+Fig. 38B
+). Subcercus various, but never with a membranous ventral part. Female S7 rounded or truncate posteriorly; halves of S8 subquadrate or rounded................................................................................................11
+
+
+
+
+
+
+11. Gena dark brown. Male mid tibia with double row of ventral setae in apical half. Genital pouch (
+Fig. 88B
+) sclerite A rounded and bulging, with dense setulae. Pseudocercus small and separated from epandrium (
+Fig. 87B
+). Surstylus ventrally concave. Posteroventral corner of female T8 rounded ......................................................................................................
+
+S. masneri
+
+sp. nov.
+(VEN)
+
+
+
+
+– Gena orange-brown. Male mid tibia with double row of ventral setae in apical third at most. Genital pouch (
+Figs 38B
+,
+62B
+) sclerite A elongate and bare (without setulae). Pseudocercus large, flattened, and fused to epandrium (
+Figs 37B
+,
+61B
+). Surstylus ventrally convex. Posteroventral corner of female T8 pointed ...................................................................................................................................... 12
+
+
+
+
+
+
+12. Large species (
+3.3–4.6 mm
+). Male S5 with an elongate (1.8–1.9× longer than wide) posteromedial patch of dense setulae, anterior margin of S5 straight (
+Fig. 62B
+). Postgonite broadly expanded and rounded apically. Female S7 widely desclerotized posteriorly; halves of S8 well separated (
+Fig. 63B
+); spermathecae spherical (
+Fig. 63D
+) .....................................................
+
+S. grandicercus
+
+sp. nov.
+(CRI)
+
+
+
+
+– Small species (
+1.9–2.6 mm
+). Male S5 with a stout (1.4× wider than long) posteromedial patch of dense setulae, anterior margin of S5 deeply excised (
+Fig. 38B
+). Postgonite almost parallel-sided and gently tapered apically.Female S7well-sclerotized posteriorly; halves of S8connected by a desclerotized band (
+Fig. 39B
+); spermathecae asymmetrically bean-shaped (
+Fig. 39D
+) ..
+
+S. costaricensis
+
+sp. nov.
+(CRI)
+
+
+
+
+
+13. Membrane beside prosternum with 1–5 sclerites, each bearing one or more setulae...................... 14
+
+
+
+– Membrane beside prosternum bare, without sclerites, or with a dark, semi-sclerotized, non-setulose patch (some
+
+S. rectangularis
+
+and
+
+S. chilensis
+
+, see couplet 24)........................................................ 22
+
+
+
+
+
+14. Anterior (postsutural) dorsocentral bristle small, not distinct from surrounding acrostichal setulae ............................................................................................................................................. 15
+
+
+– Anterior dorsocentral bristle at least 0.4× length of posterior seta and distinct from surrounding acrostichal setulae............................................................................................................................ 19
+
+
+
+
+15. Eye height 5.0× genal height........................................................................................................... 16
+
+
+– Eye height 3.0–3.5 × genal height.................................................................................................... 17
+
+
+
+
+
+16. Acrostichal setulae in 7–8 rows between anterior dorsocentral bristles. Male S5 3.0× length of S4, largely bare except for a large, dark, densely setulose posteromedial patch flanked by desclerotized areas (
+Fig. 51B
+). Surstylus emarginate ventrally with a sinuate, tapered anterobasal inner lobe and two very thick, sinuate, ventral inner setae (
+Fig. 50B
+). Basiphallus with an elongate, curved, trunk-like epiphallus. Female epiproct setulose only medially; cercal setae elongate and sinuate .....................................................................................
+
+S. elephas
+
+sp. nov.
+(BOL, ECU, VEN)
+
+
+
+
+– Acrostichal setulae in 9–10 rows between anterior dorsocentral bristles. Male S5 1.0 × length of S4, densely setose laterally with a pair of very long setae flanking a small posteromedial lobe (
+Fig. 24B
+). Surstylus with a constriction in apical third, dividing it into a large basal section and a small apical section (
+Fig. 23C
+); basal section densely setulose on outer surface, apical section with several large inner setae. Basiphallus simple, without epiphallus. Female epiproct entirely setulose; cercal setae stout and straight......................................................
+
+S. binus
+
+sp. nov.
+(BOL, CRI, ECU, PER, VEN)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+17. Wing hyaline. Acrostichal setulae in 9–10 rows between anterior dorsocentral bristles. Head dark brown, with very little to no orange........................................................
+
+S. caligarius
+
+sp. nov.
+(BOL)
+
+
+
+– Wing at least slightly infuscate. Acrostichal setulae in 7–8 rows between anterior dorsocentral bristles. Head paler, at least gena and face orange to orange-brown............................................... 18
+
+
+
+
+
+18. Fore femur with 5–6 enlarged ventral setae; male mid tibia with double row of ventral setae in apical fifth. Male S5 posteromedially emarginate with rows of marginal setae (cf.
+Marshall 1997
+: fig. 34). Posterior third of epandrium smooth, without transverse groove (cf.
+Marshall 1997
+: fig. 37); perianal pads strongly developed. Female epiproct with only four setae; S8 with two prominent, dark, posterolateral processes ...............
+
+S. galapagensis
+Marshall, 1997
+
+(ECU –
+Galapagos Islands
+)
+
+
+
+
+– Forefemurwiththreeenlargedventralsetae;malemidtibiawithdoublerowofventralsetaeinapicalthird. Male S5 with a dark, trapezoidal, densely setulose, posteromedial patch flanked by desclerotized areas (
+Fig. 137B
+). Epandrium with a transverse groove in posterior third (
+Fig. 136C
+); perianal pads bulging slightly but weakly developed. Female epiproct entirely setulose with two larger setae; S8 reduced to a pair of minute lateral sclerites ...
+
+S. tantus
+
+sp. nov.
+(ARG, BOL, BRA, ECU, PER, PRY, VEN)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+19. Male S6+7 broken into small, dark sclerites posterior to S5. Perianal pad with a narrowed ventral part articulating with posterior arm of outer part of subcercus (cf.
+Marshall 1997
+: fig. 14). Posteroventral epandrial seta shorter than epandrium. Female S8 strongly differentiated into almost vertical lateral parts and concave ventral part ............................................................................................................ ........................................
+
+S. brasilensis
+Marshall, 1997
+
+(BOL, BRA, CRI, ECU, GUF, PAN, PER)
+
+
+
+– Pocket-like genital pouch well developed and S5 sometimes with two dark, posteromedial lobes, but no small, separate, dark sclerites behind posteromedial part of S5. Perianal pads broad ventrally. Posteroventral epandrial seta longer than epandrium. Female S8 relatively simple, without prominent lateral parts....................................................................................................................................... 20
+
+
+
+
+
+20. Two prominent, bare, dark lobes arising behind posteromedial part of male S5 (cf.
+Marshall 1997
+: fig. 2). Posterior arm of surstylus with relatively small bristles .......................................................... ..............................................................
+
+S. andensis
+Marshall, 1997
+
+(ARG, BOL, ECU, PER, VEN)
+
+
+
+
+– Area behind posteromedial part of male S5 simple (cf.
+Marshall 1997
+: figs 24, 46). Posterior arm of surstylus with 3–6 prominent, short, stout setae.............................................................................. 21
+
+
+
+
+
+
+21. Acrostichal setulae in 7–8 rows between anterior dorsocentral bristles. Fore femur with 4–5 enlarged ventral setae. Male S5 short, shorter than genital pouch and 0.5 × length of S4, with posteromedial and posterolateral areas of long setae (cf.
+Marshall 1997
+: fig. 24). Genital pouch prominent, heavily sclerotized ..........................................................................
+
+S. caribensis
+Marshall, 1997
+
+(CRI, CUB, DMA, DOM, ECU, GRD, GTM, GUY, HND, JAM, KNA, LCA,
+MEX
+, PER, PRI, SLV, VEN)
+
+
+
+
+– Acrostichal setulae in 9–10 rows between anterior dorsocentral bristles. Fore femur with 7–8 enlarged ventral setae. Male S5 longer than genital pouch and 1.0× length of S4, with two setose posteromedial lobes, setosity of posterolateral area sparse (cf.
+Marshall 1997
+: fig. 46). Genital pouch well developed, but relatively small and lightly sclerotized....
+
+S. hemorrhoidalis
+Marshall, 1997
+
+(CRI, ECU, VEN)
+
+
+
+
+
+22. Membrane around prosternum with dark, semi-sclerotized, non-setulose patches ......................... 23
+
+
+– Membrane around prosternum entirely white and bare................................................................... 24
+
+
+
+
+
+23. Distal half of mid tibia with three dorsal setae (two anterior, one posterior). CS2 0.7–0.8 × CS3. Male S5 with a very deep posteromedial cleft, lateral edges of which are flared outwards, setae largely restricted to a band about midlength and along posterior margin, anterior margin of S5 greatly expanded (
+Fig. 120B
+). Subcercus large, larger than surstylus, folded over itself (
+Fig. 119B–C
+) ....... ...................
+
+S. rectangularis
+(
+Malloch, 1914
+)
+
+(CRI, DMA, DOM, GTM, HND, JAM,
+MEX
+, VEN)
+
+
+
+
+– Distal half of mid tibia with two dorsal setae (one anterior, one posterior). CS2 1.0 × CS3. Male S5 very simple, posteromedially rounded slightly and uniformly setose in posterior half, anterior margin of S5 sinuate, left side moderately reduced (
+Fig. 33B
+). Subcercus smaller, subtriangular in posterior view and curved into a 90° bend in lateral view (
+Fig. 32B–C
+) ........................................... ..................................................................................................................
+
+S. chilensis
+
+sp. nov.
+(CHL)
+
+
+
+
+
+24. Anterior pair of dorsocentral bristles small, indistinct from surrounding acrostichal setulae......... 25
+
+
+– Anterior pair of dorsocentral bristles at least 0.4 × length of posterior pair, distinct from surrounding acrostichal setulae............................................................................................................................ 29
+
+
+
+
+
+25. Mid tibia with only two anterodorsal setae in proximal half. Male S5 with a dark, asymmetrical, posteromedial cluster of short, thick setae (
+Fig. 19B
+); S6 with similar patch of setae anterior to a brush-like tuft on sclerite A. Subcercus very large and broad, almost as tall as epandrium and 1.5× as tall as surstylus (
+Fig. 18B
+)............................................................
+
+S. argentinensis
+
+sp. nov.
+(ARG)
+
+
+
+
+– Mid tibia with a small posterodorsal seta in proximal half in addition to usual two anterodorsal setae. Male S5 various, but either with a large, dark, posteromedial patch of dense setulae or a dark, symmetrical, sclerotized patch with finer setulae. Subcercus various, but not more than 0.7 × as tall as epandrium or 1.2× as tall as surstylus; if close to 1.5× as tall as surstylus (
+Fig. 144C
+), subcercus flattened and triangular ................................................................................................................... 26
+
+
+
+
+
+
+26. Interfrontal bristles in three pairs, middle pair largest and cruciate. Wing hyaline. Male S5 deeply and broadly emarginate posteromedially with a distinct, rounded posteromedial lobe and a dark, inverted Y-shaped posteromedial sclerite originating underneath(dorsal to)rounded lobe(
+Fig.110B
+).Subcercus larger than surstylus, with a large, membranous, apical part (
+Fig. 109C
+) .....
+
+S. penai
+
+sp. nov.
+(BOL)
+
+
+
+
+– Interfrontal bristles in four pairs, first very small and others larger but subequal. Wing slightly infuscate. Male S5 various, either with a large, dark, posteromedial patch of dense setulae (as in
+Fig. 35B
+) or with a pair of large, posteromedial setae surrounded by a setulose, desclerotized area (
+Fig. 14B
+). Subcercus smaller or equal to surstylus and entirely membranous, without a membranous apical part......................................................................................................................................... 27
+
+
+
+
+
+
+27. Eye height 3.5× genal height. Fore femur with four enlarged ventral setae; distal half of mid tibia with two dorsal setae (one anterodorsal, one posterodorsal). Male S5 with a pair of large posteromedial setae surrounded by a setulose, desclerotized area (
+Fig. 14B
+). Female S7 strongly produced posteromedially into an apically emarginate process as long as main part (
+Fig. 15B
+)........ .........................................................................................................
+
+S. alpinus
+
+sp. nov.
+(ECU, VEN)
+
+
+
+
+– Eye height 4.0 × genal height. Fore femur with three enlarged ventral setae; distal half of mid tibia with three dorsal setae (two anterodorsal, one posterodorsal). Male S5 with a large, dark, posteromedial patch of dense setulae (
+Figs 35B
+,
+145B
+). Female S7 evenly rounded or produced posteromedially into a triangular process less than half as long as main part (
+Figs 36B
+,
+146B
+)............................... 28
+
+
+
+
+
+
+28. Posteromedial patch of setulae on male S5 narrower, 1.9× as long as wide (
+Fig. 35B
+). Surstylus shorter than long, with a triangular, anterobasal inner lobe, outer surface brown. Posteroventral corners of female T8 strongly produced to points, female S7 pointed posteromedially...............................
+
+S. copiosus
+
+sp. nov.
+(BOL, BRA, CRI, ECU, PAN, PER, VEN)
+
+
+
+
+– Posteromedial patch of setulae on male S5 wider, 1.4 ×as long as wide (
+Fig.145B
+). Surstylus taller than long, subtriangular, outer surface white. Posteroventral corners of female T8 more rounded, female S7 rounded posteromedially.
+
+S. vulgatus
+
+sp. nov.
+(CRI, GTM, HND,
+MEX
+, NIC, PAN, PER, TTO)
+
+
+
+
+
+29. Eye height 1.1–2.7 × genal height.................................................................................................... 30
+
+
+– Eye height 3.0–5.0 × genal height.................................................................................................... 38
+
+
+
+
+
+30. Eye greatly reduced, 1.1–1.3 × genal height..............................................
+
+S. ocellatus
+
+sp. nov.
+(CRI)
+
+
+
+– Eye 2.0–2.7 × genal height............................................................................................................... 31
+
+
+
+
+
+31. Anterior (postsutural) dorsocentral bristle large, 0.7× length of posterior (prescutellar) bristle. Wing hyaline. Male S5 with a long, dark, longitudinal, medial depression (
+Fig. 115B
+). Surstylus elongate, narrow, strongly sinuate with bifurcate apex (
+Fig. 114C
+) ..............
+
+S. punensis
+
+sp. nov.
+(BOL, PER)
+
+
+
+– Anterior dorsocentral bristle distinct but smaller, 0.4–0.5 × length of posterior bristle. Wing slightly infuscate. Male S5 various, but never with a long, dark, longitudinal, medial depression. Surstylus various, usually broader, apex never bifurcate ................................................................................ 32
+
+
+
+
+
+32. Legs and gena yellow. Male S5 with a large, ovoid, setulose posteromedial emargination extending almost to anterior margin (
+Fig. 143B
+). Cercus indistinct from epandrium; subcercus small, shield-like (
+Fig. 142B
+). Surstylus elongate but broad, 0.7 × height of epandrium, outer surface convex and inner surface concave (
+Fig. 142C
+)................................................................
+
+S. turpis
+
+sp. nov.
+(BRA)
+
+
+
+
+– Legs and gena brown to dark brown. Male S5 various but never with a large, setulose posteromedial emargination.Cercus and subcercus various. Surstylus various but usually shorter than 0.5× epandrial height; if surstylus large (
+
+S. dryadalis
+
+sp. nov.
+), male S5 without posteromedial emargination and cercus very large .............................................................................................................................. 33
+
+
+
+
+
+
+33. Distal half of mid tibia with a small dorsal seta in addition to usual anterodorsal and posterodorsal setae. Male S5 wide, 3.5 × wider than long (
+Fig. 48B
+)............................
+
+S. dryadalis
+
+sp. nov.
+(VEN)
+
+
+
+– Distal half of mid tibia with anterodorsal and posterodorsal setae only. Male S5 longer, 1.5–2.5 × wider than long ................................................................................................................................ 34
+
+
+
+
+34. Distal half of mid tibia with two dorsal setae (one anterodorsal, one posterodorsal). Male S5 various but never with a dark, posteromedial patch of dense setulae .......................................................... 35
+
+
+
+– Distal half of mid tibia with three dorsal setae (two anterodorsal, one posterodorsal). Male S5 with long setae largely restricted to lateral edges and a dark, posteromedial patch of dense setulae (as in
+Fig. 107B
+)....................................................................................................................................... 37
+
+
+
+
+
+
+35. Epandrium boxy, with dorsal, lateral, and posterior surfaces at right angles to each other (
+Fig. 40B– C
+). Male S5 with very large and densely packed posteromedial patch of peg-like setae (
+Fig. 41B
+). Surstylus inverted U-shaped, with long anterior and posterior lobes (
+Fig. 40C
+) ................................ ............................................................................................................
+
+S. cubus
+
+sp. nov.
+(ECU, PER)
+
+
+
+
+– Epandrium saddle-shaped, dorsal, lateral, and posterior surfaces not at right angles to each other. Male S5 with scattered elongate setae not forming a dense posteromedial cluster (
+Figs 59B
+,
+65B
+). Surstylus small and subquadrate...................................................................................................... 36
+
+
+
+
+
+
+36. Fore femur with 4–5enlarged ventral setae.Eye height 2.0 ×genal height.Male S5deeply desclerotized posterolaterally, setae clustered along anterior edges of desclerotized areas, medially with a flattened V-shaped desclerotization (
+Fig. 59B
+). Additional sclerites of genital pouch very well developed. Postgonite elongate, 3.7 × as long as widest part (
+Fig. 59A
+)...............
+
+S. frigidifrons
+
+sp. nov.
+(ECU)
+
+
+
+
+– Fore femur with three enlarged ventral setae. Eye height 2.5× genal height. Male S5 extremely simple, rectangular, posterior margin unmodified, left side slightly extended posteriorly, uniformly setose in posterior two-thirds (
+Fig. 65B
+). Additional sclerites of genital pouch absent. Postgonite stout, 1.7× as long as widest part (
+Fig. 65A
+) .........................................
+
+S. inornatus
+
+sp. nov.
+(ECU)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+37. Male mid tibia with a double row of ventral setae in apical half. Acrostichal setulae in 6–7 rows between anterior dorsocentral bristles. Surstylus convex anterobasally (cf
+Marshall 1995
+: fig. 2). Lateral supporting sclerite of distiphallus uniformly thin (cf.
+Marshall 1995
+: fig. 5) ......................... ............................................................................................
+
+S. sordipes
+(
+Adams, 1904
+)
+
+(CAN,
+USA
+)
+
+
+
+
+– Male mid tibia with a double row of ventral setae in apical third. Acrostichal setulae in 8–9 rows between anterior dorsocentral bristles. Surstylus concave anterobasally (
+Fig. 106C
+). Lateral supporting sclerite of distiphallus abruptly expanded apically (
+Fig. 107A
+)........................................ ......................................................................................
+
+S. parasordipes
+
+sp. nov.
+(CAN,
+MEX
+,
+USA
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+38. Acrostichal setulae in 11–12 rows between anterior dorsocentral bristles.......................................... .................................................................
+
+S. subbrevipennis
+(
+Frey, 1954
+)
+
+(SHN –
+Tristan da Cunha
+)
+
+
+
+– Acrostichal setulae in 4–9 rows between anterior dorsocentral bristles.......................................... 39
+
+
+
+
+
+39. Legs yellow. Surstylus large, mitt-like, height 2.0× length (as in
+Fig. 125C
+) ................................ 40
+
+
+
+– Legs brown. Surstylus various, usually not large and mitt-like, at most height 1.7× length .......... 43
+
+
+
+
+
+40. Medial patch of dense setulae on male S5 almost reaching anterior margin (
+Fig. 126B
+). Outer surface of surstylus largely bare, with only short, scattered setae (
+Fig. 125C
+); inner anterior ridge of surstylus with a deep notch (
+Fig. 126D
+).............................................................................................. ...........................................
+
+S. regularis
+(
+Malloch, 1914
+) (BLZ, CRI, HND, PAN, SLV, TTO, VEN)
+
+
+
+
+
+– Medial patch of dense setulae on male S5 well separated from anterior margin (0.3× length) (as in
+Fig. 105B
+). Outer surface of surstylus densely long-setose (as in
+Fig. 104C
+); inner ridge of surstylus entire ................................................................................................................................................ 41
+
+
+
+
+
+
+41. Subcercus truncate apically (
+Fig. 45B
+)............................................
+
+S. dominicensis
+
+sp. nov.
+(DMA)
+
+
+
+
+– Subcercus pointed or rounded apically (
+Figs 66B
+,
+104B
+)............................................................... 42
+
+
+
+
+
+
+42. Postgonite sinuate (
+Fig. 67A
+). Subcercus rounded apically (
+Fig. 66B
+) .............................................. ..............................................................
+
+S. irregularis
+
+sp. nov.
+(ARG, BOL, BRA, CRI, ECU, PRY)
+
+
+
+
+– Postgonite straight (
+Fig. 105A
+). Subcercus produced inwards apically (
+Fig. 104B
+) .......................... .........................................................................................................
+
+S. pararegularis
+
+sp. nov.
+(
+MEX
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+43. Anterior dorsocentral bristle very large, 0.8× length of posterior pair. Genital pouch sclerites reduced, only sclerite G distinguishable (
+Fig. 82B
+) ..........................
+
+S. lutosus
+
+sp. nov.
+(BOL, PER)
+
+
+
+– Anterior dorsocentral bristle smaller, 0.4–0.6 × length of posterior pair. Genital pouch sclerites well developed, with most pouch sclerites distinguishable..................................................................... 44
+
+
+
+
+44. Distal half of mid tibia with two dorsal setae (one anterodorsal, one posterodorsal) ..................... 45
+
+
+– Distal half of mid tibia with three dorsal setae (two anterodorsal, one posterodorsal) ................... 46
+
+
+
+
+
+45. Gena bicoloured: orange anteriorly, brown posteriorly; face yellow. CS2 1.0 × CS3. Posterior margin of male S5 desclerotized with short, thickened setae (
+Fig. 129B
+). Surstylus subtriangular with a triangular, inner, anterobasal lobe and dense setae apically (
+Fig. 128B–C
+)........................................ ...................................................................................................................
+
+S. riparius
+
+sp. nov.
+(ECU)
+
+
+
+
+– Gena entirely orange-brown; face orange-brown; CS2 0.7–0.8× CS3. Posteromedial margin of S5 produced posteriorly with thin, elongate setae only (
+Fig. 17B
+). Surstylus ovoid with a patch of three setae apically (
+Fig. 16B–C
+) ............................................................................
+
+S. altus
+
+sp. nov.
+(ECU)
+
+
+
+
+
+46. Interfrontal bristles in three pairs, middle pair largest..................................................................... 47
+
+
+– Interfrontal bristles in four pairs, first very small, other three subequal.......................................... 48
+
+
+
+
+
+47. Mid tibia of both sexes with three dorsal setae in proximal half (two anterodorsal, one posterodorsal). Acrostichal setulae in 8–9 rows between anterior dorsocentral bristles. CS2 0.7–0.8 × CS3. Male S5 with a dark, inverted Y-shaped posteromedial sclerite flanked by a pair of converging, subtriangular, long-setose lobes (
+Fig. 21B
+). Lateral pieces of female T8 wide, subquadrate with setae well separated from ventral corner; female S8 reduced to a pair of minute lateral sclerites; spermathecae spherical with a shallow apical and a deep basal invagination (
+Fig. 22D
+) .............
+
+S. azulensis
+
+sp. nov.
+(ECU)
+
+
+
+
+– Male mid tibia with only a single anterodorsal seta at about midlength; female mid tibia with three dorsal setae in proximal half (two anterodorsal, one posterodorsal). Acrostichal setulae in 6–7 rows between anterior dorsocentral bristles. CS2 1.0 × CS3. Male S5 with a dark, elongate, posteromedial patch of dense setulae (
+Fig. 85B
+). Lateral pieces of female T8 narrow, distinctly rectangular with setae extending to ventral corners; Female S8 well developed with four small setae and dense medial setulae; spermathecae bean-shaped with a large but not deep subbasal invagination (
+Fig. 86D
+) ................................................................................
+
+S. mandibulum
+
+sp. nov.
+(BOL, ECU)
+
+
+
+
+
+48. CS2 0.9–1.0 × CS3........................................................................................................................... 49
+
+
+– CS2 0.7–0.8 × CS3........................................................................................................................... 54
+
+
+
+
+
+49. Wing hyaline. Male mid tibia with double ventral row of setae along apical two-thirds. Female hypoproct with a sclerotized anteromedial process covered in slightly thickened setulae (
+Fig. 141B
+).........................................................................................
+
+S. tridens
+
+sp. nov.
+(BOL, ECU)
+
+
+
+– Wing at least slightly infuscate. Male mid tibia with double ventral row of setae along apical third at most. Female hypoproct membranous anteromedially, without a sclerotized anteromedial process ........................................................................................................................................... 50
+
+
+
+
+
+50. Foreleg yellow. Male S5 with microtomentose posteromedial area (
+Fig. 112B
+). Surstylus tall, 0.9– 1.0 × height of epandrium (
+Fig. 111C
+)..............
+
+S. plumiseta
+(
+Duda, 1925
+) (BOL, BRA, PER, PRY)
+
+
+
+
+– Foreleg brown. Male S5 with a patch of dense setulae or long setae. Surstylus short, 0.4–0.5× height of epandrium.................................................................................................................................... 51
+
+
+
+
+
+51. Male S5 gently curved along posterior margin with a posteromedial patch of long setae (
+Figs 27B
+,
+103B
+); sclerite A bifurcate and setulose posteriorly (as in
+Fig. 27B
+); sclerite E with stout setae or dense setulae posteriorly. Pseudocercus absent; subcercus large and broad, larger than surstylus. Postgonite broad, straight, and truncate apically ............................................................................. 52
+
+
+
+
+– Male S5 produced posteriorly with a posteromedial patch of dense setulae (
+Figs 70B
+,
+79B
+); sclerite A rounded and bare; sclerite E bare. Pseudocercus free from epandrium; subcercus small and tapered, smaller than surstylus. Postgonite narrow, sharply bent in apical third, flared and pale apically ... 53
+
+
+
+
+
+
+52. Eye height 4.0 × genal height. Left lobe of sclerite A subequal to right lobe and apically pointed, with only setulae (
+Fig. 27B
+); sclerite E with a posterior patch of dense setulae. Basiphallus strongly bent in lateral view ....................................................................
+
+S. bucki
+
+sp. nov.
+(BOL, CRI, ECU, PER)
+
+
+
+
+– Eye height 3.5× genal height. Left lobe of sclerite A larger than right lobe and apically rounded, with two setae in addition to setulae (
+Fig. 103B
+); sclerite E with a posterior patch of stout, thickened setae. Basiphallus gently curved in lateral view.............................
+
+S. paranebulosus
+
+sp. nov.
+(VEN)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+53. Eye height 4.0× genal height. Medial patch of setulae on male S5 1.5× as long as wide (
+Fig. 70B
+). Surstylus subtriangular with apex elongate, curved anteriorly and blunt (
+Fig. 69C
+). Female S7 widely desclerotized along posterior margin with four large setae and 10–14 smaller setae (
+Fig. 71B
+); S8 split into two large lateral sclerites ..................................
+
+S. latibarbus
+
+sp. nov.
+(GTM, HND,
+MEX
+)
+
+
+
+
+– Eye height 3.5× genal height. Medial patch of setulae on male S5 2.1× longer than wide (
+Fig. 79B
+). Surstylus hatchet-shaped, anterior edge straight, posterior edge broadly rounded (
+Fig. 78C
+). Female S7 sclerotized along posterior margin with four very large setae, 18–22 small setae, and a distinct posteromedial lobe bearing 3–4 large setae (
+Fig. 80B
+); S8 reduced to two minute lateral sclerites ...........................................................................
+
+S. longibarbus
+
+sp. nov.
+(CRI, GTM,
+MEX
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+54. Male S5 with a dark, posteromedial patch of dense setulae (as in
+Fig. 123B
+)................................ 55
+
+
+
+– Male S5 with short or long posteromedial setae, but not a patch of dense setulae ......................... 57
+
+
+
+
+
+55. Surstylus subtriangular, tapered towards apex (131C). Subcercus large and pointed apically. Anal fissure short, semicircular (
+Fig. 131B
+). Postgonite dramatically expanded apically (
+Fig. 132A
+) ...............................................................................................
+
+S. rostrum
+
+sp. nov.
+(
+MEX
+)
+
+
+
+– Surstylus subquadrate or subrectangular, distinctly flat/truncate apically. Subcercus small and truncate apically. Anal fissure larger, subtriangular. Postgonite relatively slender throughout length.......... 56
+
+
+
+
+
+56. Male S5 with posteromedial patch of dense setulae elongate, 2.0× as long as wide and flanked by bare, pale areas and dark, setose patches, anterior half of S5 with two large, pale areas on either side of midline (
+Fig. 123B
+). Surstylus stouter, 0.8 × as long as broad. Female S7 rectangular, posteromedially flat with sparse setae; S8 with a large, recurved ventral lobe (
+Fig. 124B–C
+); hypoproct elongate..................................................................................
+
+S. recurvatus
+
+sp. nov.
+(CRI)
+
+
+
+
+– Male S5 with posteromedial patch of dense setulae broader, 1.4× as long as wide and flanked by uniformly pigmented, setose patches, anterior half of S5 with two converging pale lines making a V-shape (
+Fig. 134B
+). Surstylus more elongate, 1.8 × as long as broad. Female S7 with a small posteromedial lobe and many long setae; S8 reduced to a pair of small lateral sclerites (
+Fig. 135B
+); hypoproct short ...............................................................................
+
+S. synorios
+
+sp. nov.
+(
+MEX
+,
+USA
+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+57. Anterior (postsutural) dorsocentral bristle 0.7× length of posterior (prescutellar) bristle. Male S5 dark, produced and bare posteromedially; sclerite A forming a rectangular, entirely densely setulose area on the posterior margin of S6+7 (
+Fig. 117B
+). Subcercus wedge-shaped with a posteriorly elongate apex. Surstylus subtriangular, apical third tapered, anterior side with a triangular notch ........................................................................................................
+
+S. puyensis
+
+sp. nov.
+(ECU)
+
+
+
+
+– Anterior (postsutural) dorsocentral bristle 0.4× length of posterior (prescutellar) bristle. Male S5 desclerotized, simple and setose posteromedially; sclerite A projecting from S6+7 as two setulose lobes (
+Fig. 94B
+). Subcercus relatively parallel-sided and rectangular, apex rounded with a small, dorsal, preapical lobe. Surstylus stout, subquadrate............
+
+S. nebulosus
+
+sp. nov.
+(CRI, ECU, VEN)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FFF6FFFCFDDB91F0FC992BC0.xml b/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FFF6FFFCFDDB91F0FC992BC0.xml
index 773595e6cf1..ff0ff0754aa 100644
--- a/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FFF6FFFCFDDB91F0FC992BC0.xml
+++ b/data/03/D4/28/03D42841FFF6FFFCFDDB91F0FC992BC0.xml
@@ -1,62 +1,62 @@
-
-
-
-A revision of the genus Sclerocoelus Marshall (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae)
+
+
+
+A revision of the genus Sclerocoelus Marshall (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae)
-
-
-Author
+
+
+Author
-Kuwahara, Gregory K.
-2E2D313F-7249-4F76-AF5D-615516840188
-University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
-gkuwahar@gmail.com
+Kuwahara, Gregory K.
+2E2D313F-7249-4F76-AF5D-615516840188
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+gkuwahar@gmail.com
-
-
-Author
+
+
+Author
-Marshall, Stephen A.
-6C1C1C9E-365F-48BF-B8C7-31163EC5F3A7
-University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
-samarsha@uoguelph.ca
+Marshall, Stephen A.
+6C1C1C9E-365F-48BF-B8C7-31163EC5F3A7
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+samarsha@uoguelph.ca
-
-
-Author
+
+
+Author
-Paiero, Steven M.
-B172670C-2159-4D6B-9542-53406F315DC7
-University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
-paieros@uoguelph.ca
+Paiero, Steven M.
+B172670C-2159-4D6B-9542-53406F315DC7
+University of Guelph Insect Collection and Insect Systematics Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N 1 G 2 W 1, Canada.
+paieros@uoguelph.ca
-text
-
-
-European Journal of Taxonomy
+text
+
+
+European Journal of Taxonomy
-
-2025
-
-2025-03-04
+
+2025
+
+2025-03-04
-
-979
+
+979
-
-1
-277
+
+1
+277
-
-https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2803/12807
+
+https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2803/12807
-journal article
-10.5852/ejt.2025.979.2803
-2118-9773
-14980852
-F40A49A4-5DCC-491E-9D0A-7A3C2EC6D186
+journal article
+10.5852/ejt.2025.979.2803
+2118-9773
+14980852
+F40A49A4-5DCC-491E-9D0A-7A3C2EC6D186
@@ -109,15 +109,14 @@ This name (from the Latin
-
+
ECUADOR
•
♂
;
Pichincha
,
-Cotopaxi
-National Park
+Cotopaxi National Park
,
Quebrada Mishahuaycu
;
@@ -131,11 +130,14 @@ a.s.l.
;
S.A. Marshall
-leg.; along stream,
+leg.;
+along stream
+,
pan traps
;
-QCAZ
-debu00139226.
+QCAZ
+debu00139226
+.
diff --git a/data/3E/7D/F7/3E7DF728FFC1A31CA1FE35A67AA01856.xml b/data/3E/7D/F7/3E7DF728FFC1A31CA1FE35A67AA01856.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..2135c4be073
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/3E/7D/F7/3E7DF728FFC1A31CA1FE35A67AA01856.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,775 @@
+
+
+
+Two new and endangered species of Syngonanthus (Eriocaulaceae) from Chapada dos Veadeiros, Goiás, Brazil
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Watanabe, Mauricio T. C.
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Echternacht, Lívia
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Hensold, Nancy
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Sano, Paulo Takeo
+
+text
+
+
+Phytotaxa
+
+
+2015
+
+2015-06-09
+
+
+212
+
+
+4
+
+
+271
+282
+
+
+
+
+http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.212.4.3
+
+journal article
+308979
+10.11646/phytotaxa.212.4.3
+b1f7df45-56b5-42ee-82c5-88bdba223ed7
+1179-3163
+13637538
+
+
+
+
+
+Syngonanthus vittatus
+M.T.C.Watan. & Echternacht
+
+,
+
+sp. nov.
+
+
+
+
+
+Type:—
+
+BRAZIL
+.
+Goiás
+:
+Alto Paraíso de Goiás
+,
+Chapada dos Veadeiros, estrada Alto Paraíso de Goiás - Teresina de Goiás, Fazenda Água Fria
+, em campo limpo após a piscina, próximo a vereda e mata de galeria,
+
+14
+º
+06’21.7’’S
+
+,
+
+47
+º
+30’33.6’’W
+
+.
+
+19 July 2012
+
+(fl),
+
+M. Watanabe
+&
+W. Watanabe
+377
+
+(
+holotype
+SPF
+!
+
+,
+
+isotype
+F
+!
+
+).
+Figures 2H–N
+&
+4
+.
+
+
+
+
+The new species is similar to
+
+Syngonanthus arenarius
+var.
+heterophyllus
+
+but differs by involucral bracts narrowly lanceolate with apex markedly acute and petals glabrous in pistillate flowers.
+
+Syngonanthus vittatus
+
+is also similar to
+
+Syngonanthus densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+differing by all characteristics mentioned above as well the rosette leaves recurved.
+
+
+
+
+Perennial herbs,
+20–40 cm
+tall.
+Roots
+0.2–1.5 mm
+in diameter, white to cream-colored, spongy.
+Rhizome
+0.7–3.3 cm
+×
+2.5–3.5 mm
+, horizontal to oblique, often branched, tomentose to villous, with white, dense and woolly curled trichomes; each branch giving rise to a rosette of leaves, each rosette bearing 1–3 synflorescences.
+Rosettes
+19–41 mm
+in diameter.
+Leaves
+9.0–22.5 × 0.3–1.0 mm, linear to narrowly lanceolate, flat to semi-terete, apex acute, base truncate, recurved, coriaceous, striate abaxially with 3–5 conspicuous veins, only the midvein visible on upper surface in young leaves; pilose on both surfaces, with arachnoid trichomes and adpressed trichomes adaxially, filamentous hairs and adpressed trichomes abaxially, mainly concentrated on midvein, ca.
+0.3 mm
+long; basal sheath slightly enlarged, 0.5–1.0 mm wide, pale and achlorophyllous at base.
+Synflorescences
+with a primary axis bearing a lax umbel of 1–5 inflorescences at the apex.
+Synflorescence axis
+5.0–
+8.5 cm
+long, emerging from the center of the rosette, erect to flexuous, yellow-reddish when young, dark reddish brown in maturity, pilose at base with filamentous trichomes, glabrescent, becoming tomentose near the apex with simple filamentous and capitate trichomes.
+Bracts of synflorescence axis
+usually restricted to the apex, rarely a few tiny scattered bracts along the axis ca.
+3 mm
+long; apical bracts 1–30 × 0.3–1.0 mm, whorled, patent, the external series lanceolate, progressively elongating from the outer toward the inner series, the internal series linear, apex acute to rounded, erect, pubescent on both surfaces with capitate filamentous trichomes.
+Inflorescences
+composed of a closed spathe subtending a scape with a capitulum at the apex.
+Spathes
+3.5–5.5 cm
+long, chartaceous, cylindrical, obliquely opened, apex acute, erect, recurved or rarely involute, tip erect to uncinate, margin minutely involute, ciliate, adaxial surface glabrous to glabrescent, abaxial surface pubescent with capitate trichomes.
+Scapes
+erect,
+9–30 cm
+long, greenish to straw-colored with age, 4(–5)-costate, sparsely hairy to densely pilose with erect to patent glandular hairs and appressed, and simple trichomes, pubescent near the apex with a collar of patent, simple filamentous and capitate [gland-tipped] trichomes.
+Capitula
+5–12 mm
+in diameter, obconic, later becoming depressed-hemispherical.
+Involucral bracts
+in 4–6 series, all similar in color, light to dark brown, often with a reddish tinge, with a lighter longitudinal band in center and a darker pigmentation on the margins, adaxial surface glabrous, abaxial surface strigose, ciliate, with patent, simple trichomes, rarely also capitate trichomes ca.
+0.5 mm
+long; external series 1.5–2.0 ×
+0.5–0.8 mm
+, triangular to ovate, apex acute, bracts progressively elongating toward the internal series, middle series 4–5 ×
+1 mm
+, narrow elliptic, apex acute, internal series 3.0–5.5 × 0.7–1.0 mm, inner series surpassing the flowers by
+0.1–0.3 mm
+, narrow-lanceolate, elliptic, rarely narrow-oblanceolate, apex acute; receptacle hemispheric, pilose.
+Floral bracts
+absent.
+Flowers
+3-merous, 60–110 per capitulum, staminate and pistillate generally equal in number, with contrasting colors, staminate flowers darker and concentrated at the border of the capitulum.
+Staminate flowers
+2.5–3.5 mm
+long, including pedicels; pedicels 0.5–1.0 mm long; sepals 2.0–
+2.5 mm
+long, coppery brown, shortly fused at base, concave, membranous, usually two sepals similar in form, elliptic to lanceolate (-oblanceolate) with acute apex, slightly curved, asymmetrical, and the third different, slightly irregular-subspathulate with round to truncate apex, but occasionally occurs a reversal of forms, or occasionally the three sepals slightly different, margins ciliate, adaxially glabrous, abaxially setose with simple filamentous trichomes ca.
+0.5 mm
+long; petals ca.
+2 mm
+long, hyaline, membranous, fused, tubulose, lobes triangular, obtuse, involute after anthesis, glabrous; filaments free, anthers ca.
+0.6 mm
+long, white; anthophore ca.
+0.3 mm
+long; pistillodes 3, ca.
+0.2 mm
+long, clavate, papillose at apex.
+Pistillate flowers
+2.4–3.5 mm
+long, including pedicels of
+0.4–1.5 mm
+long; sepals ca.
+2 mm
+long, elliptic, concave, apex acute to obtuse, base thickened, free, cream to light castaneous, hyaline and membranous toward the apex, dark reddish brown-colored at apex, ciliate, hairy on the inside, with simple filamentous trichomes up to
+1 mm
+long, glabrous outside; petals about equaling the sepals,
+1.8–2.7 mm
+long, oblanceolate, fused at the distal third, membranous, white to hyaline, glabrous, the lobes triangular-rounded to obtuse, involute after anthesis; ovary ca.
+0.6 mm
+long; style column
+0.2–0.4 mm
+long, cream-colored; appendages ca.
+0.5 mm
+long, the glandular apex capitatecurved; stigmatic branches simple, ca.
+1.5 mm
+long.
+Seed
+ca. 0.40 ×
+0.25 mm
+, ellipsoid, reddish-brown colored.
+
+
+
+
+Etymology:—
+The specific epithet refers to the well-marked longitudinal stripe evident in the center of the involucral bracts.
+
+
+
+
+Notes and taxonomic affinities:—
+In the field, the species looks superficially similar to
+
+Paepalanthus
+
+(
+FIG. 4A
+), because of its pilose capitula and dark involucral bracts. However, a closer examination reveals the compound inflorescences (synflorescences), with a differentiated, usually leafless primary axis, a feature that does not occur in
+
+Paepalanthus
+
+. In addition, the species has petals of pistillate flowers fused in the distal part and free at the base, and staminate flowers isomerous an exclusive set of characters of
+
+Syngonanthus
+(
+
+Giulietti
+et al
+. 2012
+
+)
+
+.
+
+
+
+Syngonanthus vittatus
+
+belongs to the same morphological group as
+
+S. incurvifolius
+,
+
+which also includes
+
+Syngonanthus arenarius
+
+,
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+brachyphyllus
+
+and
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+.
+All these species share a similar architecture and dark and pilose involucral bracts with a contrasting pale longitudinal band.
+
+Syngonanthus vittatus
+
+differs from all of them by the involucral bracts narrowly lanceolate to linear, with a narrower and more conspicuous pale stripe, composing a laxer involucre (
+FIG. 4G
+); the other species have large elliptical to obovate bracts, forming a denser involucre (
+Fig. 4F, 4H–I
+).
+
+
+
+FIGURE 4.
+
+Syngonanthus vittatus
+
+and other morphologically similar
+
+Syngonanthus
+species.
+A
+
+–E
+.
+
+S. vittatus
+
+:
+A.
+Habit detail showing specimen at flowering;
+B.
+Rosette and roots;
+C.
+Elliptic sepal of staminate flower;
+D.
+Other forms of sepals revealing concave shapes in staminate flowers;
+E.
+Three different shapes of sepals in the same staminate flower revealing asymmetry among the sepals.
+F–I.
+Comparison among capitula in
+
+Syngonanthus
+species
+
+:
+F.
+
+S. arenarius
+var.
+heterophyllus
+
+;
+G.
+
+S. vittatus
+
+;
+H.
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+brachyphyllus
+
+;
+I.
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+;
+J–K
+. Pistillate flower of
+
+S. vittatus
+
+:
+J.
+Flower exhibiting trichomes on sepals;
+K.
+Flower with two sepals removed, the remaining sepal with hairs deciduous, showing the glabrous petals;
+L.
+Pistillate flower of
+
+S. arenarius
+var.
+heterophyllus
+
+;
+M–N.
+Staminate flowers of
+
+S. vittatus
+
+:
+M.
+Young flower;
+N.
+Mature flower;
+O.
+Staminate flower of
+
+S. arenarius
+var.
+heterophyllus
+
+. Scale bars: C,M= 500 μm. D–E, J–L, N–O= 1 mm. F–I= 2 mm. (Photos by Mauricio T. C. Watanabe).
+
+
+
+The flowers of
+
+Syngonanthus vittatus
+
+are very similar to those of
+
+S. arenarius
+var.
+heterophyllus
+
+(1903:260), except that the former has petals of pistillate flowers glabrous (
+FIG. 4J–K
+;
+vs.
+petals pilose,
+FIG. 4L
+) and smaller flowers (up to 3.5
+vs.
+4.5 mm
+). In addition,
+
+S. vittatus
+
+has pistillate and staminate flowers strongly contrasting in colour, the staminate with brown sepals and the pistillate with cream sepals (
+FIG. 4M–N and 4K–J
+, respectively), whereas both
+types
+of flowers in
+
+S. arenarius
+var.
+heterophyllus
+
+have a similar pigmentation (
+FIG. 4L; 4O
+), cream at base and reddish-brown at apex.
+
+
+Other features differentiating
+
+Syngonanthus vittatus
+
+from
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+and
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+are the rosette leaves recurved (
+FIG. 4B
+) (
+vs.
+incurved in the distal half or flexuous, respectively,
+FIG 3A–B
+), the synflorescence axis often bearing tiny scattered bracts along its length (
+vs.
+bracts restricted to the apex), and the petals of pistillate flowers glabrous (
+vs.
+pilose).
+
+Syngonanthus vittatus
+
+also differs from
+
+Syngonanthus densifolius
+var.
+brachyphyllus
+
+by the narrower leaves (0.3–1.0 mm
+vs.
+2.0–5.0 mm), with simple and adpressed trichomes (
+vs.
+only simple) and striate adaxial surface (
+vs.
+reticulate).
+
+
+Additionally, the evident asymmetrical sepals of staminate flowers are an important characteristic shared with
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+and the other species previously cited (
+FIG. 4C–E
+).
+
+
+
+
+Phenology:—
+Flowering of
+
+Syngonanthus vittatus
+
+occurs during the dry season (winter), from July to September. This period coincides with all collections reported for this species. Most
+
+Syngonanthus
+
+from Chapada dos Veadeiros bloom at the same time, for example,
+
+S. decorus
+Moldenke (1976:485)
+
+and
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+. Seeds mature at the end of the dry season, implying a dispersal period concomitant with the rains and possible hydrochory.
+
+
+
+
+Habitat and distribution:—
+All collections are known from the same population as the
+type
+, at the farm called “Água Fria”, except by a single record from waterfall “São Bento”. These localities are about
+10 km
+apart and close to recreational and agricultural areas. The expansion and intensification of human activities in the area threatens the natural surroundings. The limited distribution of the known populations contrasts with a local abundance of individuals, and further fieldwork may reveal other populations.
+
+Syngonanthus vittatus
+
+occurs outside conservation units, although very close to the boundaries of the PNCV. The species occurs over hydromorphic soils, in moist grasslands or wet campo, a common physiognomy on
+floodplains
+between Cerrado
+sensu stricto
+and gallery forest (
+
+Ratter
+et al
+. 1997
+
+). These wet
+campos
+occur on well-drained sandy soils, which become waterlogged during summer and quite dry in winter, a variation that constrains tree growth and prevents forest formations (
+
+Ratter
+et al
+. 1997
+
+), favoring the occurrence of herbs such as
+
+S. vittatus
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+Conservation status:—
+This species is classified as critically endangered, according to criteria B1ab and B2ab of
+IUCN (2001
+,
+2015
+). The taxon is known only from two populations, both on privately owned land hosting human activities that may threaten the species with extinction.
+
+Syngonanthus vittatus
+
+has an area of occupancy of
+12 km
+2
+. Conservation status is endangered, as evaluated by CNCFlora according to the
+IUCN (2001
+,
+2015
+), matching criteria B2ab(i,ii,iii) (Negrão 2014b).
+
+
+
+
+Additional specimens examined:—
+
+BRAZIL
+.
+Goiás
+:
+Alto Paraíso de Goiás
+.
+Est. 11-Chapada dos Veadeiros
+, mata,
+
+06 August 1972
+
+,
+
+Rizzo
+8236
+
+(
+SPF
+)
+
+;
+
+
+9 km
+
+de
+Alto Paraíso
+/
+São Jorge, cachoeira São Bento
+, campo úmido próximo a floresta de galeria,
+
+09 September 1994
+
+,
+
+Silva
+et al. 2315
+
+(
+IBGE
+,
+SPF
+)
+
+;
+
+Fazenda Água Fria
+, próximo a sede da fazenda, borda de mata de galeria,
+14º09’07’’ S
+,
+47º37’08’’W
+,
+
+06 June 1997
+
+,
+
+Munhoz
+et al.
+
+462 (
+UB
+)
+
+;
+
+
+Fazenda Água Fria, cerca de
+10 km
+em direção a Teresina de Goiás
+
+, campo limpo úmido, borda de cerrado rupestre e mata de galeria,
+14°04’21.7’’S
+,
+47°30’33.6’’W
+, altitude
+
+1488 m
+
+,
+
+17 June 2000
+
+,
+
+Munhoz
+et al. 1651
+
+(
+IBGE
+,
+SPF
+)
+
+;
+
+idem,
+
+01 July 2000
+
+,
+
+Munhoz
+et al. 1721
+
+(
+IBGE
+,
+SPF
+)
+
+;
+
+idem,
+
+01 July 2000
+
+,
+
+Munhoz
+et al. 1729
+
+(
+IBGE
+,
+SPF
+)
+
+;
+
+idem,
+
+19 July 2000
+
+,
+
+Munhoz
+et al. 1764
+
+(
+IBGE
+,
+SPF
+)
+
+;
+
+idem,
+
+19 July 2000
+
+,
+
+Munhoz
+et al. 1797
+
+(
+F
+,
+IBGE
+,
+SPF
+)
+
+;
+
+idem,
+
+16 August 2000
+
+,
+
+Munhoz
+et al. 1831
+
+(
+F
+,
+IBGE
+,
+SPF
+)
+
+.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/3E/7D/F7/3E7DF728FFC5A313A1FE3758780E1856.xml b/data/3E/7D/F7/3E7DF728FFC5A313A1FE3758780E1856.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..03621b78d3d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/3E/7D/F7/3E7DF728FFC5A313A1FE3758780E1856.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,835 @@
+
+
+
+Two new and endangered species of Syngonanthus (Eriocaulaceae) from Chapada dos Veadeiros, Goiás, Brazil
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Watanabe, Mauricio T. C.
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Echternacht, Lívia
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Hensold, Nancy
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Sano, Paulo Takeo
+
+text
+
+
+Phytotaxa
+
+
+2015
+
+2015-06-09
+
+
+212
+
+
+4
+
+
+271
+282
+
+
+
+
+http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.212.4.3
+
+journal article
+308979
+10.11646/phytotaxa.212.4.3
+b1f7df45-56b5-42ee-82c5-88bdba223ed7
+1179-3163
+13637538
+
+
+
+
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+M.T.C.Watan. & Echternacht
+
+,
+
+sp. nov.
+
+
+
+
+
+Type:—
+
+BRAZIL
+.
+Goiás
+:
+Alto Paraíso de Goiás
+,
+
+ca.
+15 km
+south of Veadeiros, road to São João da Aliança
+
+, cerrado on outcrops, in wet sand, adjacent campo,
+
+1000 m
+
+alt.,
+
+19 March 1969
+
+,
+
+H. S. Irwin
+
+,
+
+R. Reis dos Santos
+
+,
+
+R. Souza
+&
+S. F. da Fonseca
+24648
+
+(
+Holotype
+UB
+!
+
+,
+
+Isotypes
+F
+!
+
+,
+
+MO
+!
+
+,
+
+NY
+!
+
+RB!
+).
+Figures 2 A–G
+&
+3
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+
+differs from all other New World species of
+
+Syngonanthus
+
+by the rosette leaves incurved from the middle to the apex. It differs from
+
+Syngonanthus arenarius
+
+, the most similar species, by pistillate flowers with cream sepals and adpressed trichomes on the leaves.
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+
+is also similar to
+
+Syngonanthus densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+but differs by pistillate flowers with pilose petals, sepals cream with a light castaneous longitudinal band, and individuals smaller.
+
+
+
+
+Perennial herbs, 7.5–18.0 cm tall.
+Roots
+0.75–1.4 mm
+in diameter, cream-colored, spongy.
+Rosettes
+1.7–3.4 cm
+in diameter.
+Rhizome
+1.0–2.5(–5) cm ×
+2.5–7.5 mm
+, horizontal to oblique, often branched, tomentose to villous, with white, dense and interwoven trichomes ca.
+1 cm
+long; each branch giving rise to a rosette of leaves, each rosette bearing 1–5 synflorescences.
+Leaves
+0.5–2.0 cm ×
+0.75–1.20 mm
+, linear, flat to semi-terete, apex acute to round, base truncate, sinuous, recurved at base, becoming incurved from the middle to the apex, firm to rigid, striate adaxially with 3-veins prominent, or only the midvein perceptible in young leaves; densely pilose adaxially, glabrescent to pilose abaxially, with adpressed trichomes, and patent, simple trichomes ca.
+0.5 mm
+long; basal sheath not enlarged.
+Synflorescences
+with a primary axis bearing a lax umbel of 1–18 inflorescences at the apex.
+Synflorescence axes
+2–8 cm
+long, 0.2–1.0 mm in diameter, emerging from the center of the rosette, erect to curved, brown, sometimes with a dark-reddish tinge, glabrescent to pilose with simple filamentous trichomes ca.
+0.3 mm
+long.
+Bracts of synflorescence axis
+restricted to the apex, 0.2–3.0 cm ×
+0.5 mm
+, whorled and numerous, patent, progressively elongating from the outer toward the inner series, linear to narrowly lanceolate, apex acute, erect to uncinate, pubescent on both surfaces with adpressed trichomes, and patent, capitate and simple, filamentous trichomes, capitate trichomes mostly on abaxial surface, simple trichomes concentrated at margins.
+Inflorescences
+composed of a closed spathe subtending a scape with a capitulum at the apex.
+Spathes
+1–4 cm
+long, chartaceous, cylindrical, lax at apex, obliquely opened, apex acute to obtuse, erect to recurved, tip erect to uncinate, margin entire, not involute, glabrous adaxially, pubescent abaxially with capitate and simple, filamentous trichomes.
+Scapes
+erect,
+3–12 cm
+long, green to straw-colored with age, 3-costate, pilose, pubescent near the apex with erect to patent, simple and capitate trichomes.
+Capitula
+4–8 mm
+in diameter, radiate.
+Involucral bracts
+in 5–7 series, castaneous, reddish-brown to brown, sometimes with a lighter stramineous longitudinal band in the middle and on the margins, glabrous on adaxial surface, pilose to glabrescent abaxially, ciliate, with simple filamentous trichomes, rarely also capitate trichomes, these concentrated at the apex, ca.
+0.3 mm
+long; external series 1.0–1.8 ×
+0.5–0.8 mm
+, triangular to ovate, apex acute, progressively longer toward the internal series, middle series 2.5–3.0 ×
+0.9–1.2 mm
+, obovate, apex acute to obtuse, internal series 2.5–3.0 ×
+0.3–0.7 mm
+, equaling the flower height, elliptic to slightly oblanceolate, apex acute to obtuse, sometimes membranous, lighter-colored than the external series; receptacle obconic, pilose.
+Floral bracts absent
+.
+Flowers
+3-merous, 40–100 per capitulum, the staminate and pistillate generally equal in number, with contrasting colors, staminate flowers darker and concentrated at the border of the capitulum or mixed.
+Staminate flowers
+with pedicels 0.5–1.0 mm long, pilose in the bottom part of pedicel with simple trichomes ca.
+1 mm
+long; sepals 1.5–2.0 mm long, coppery brown, shortly fused at base, concave, membranous, the sepals slightly different from each other, or two sepals similar to each other and a third different, falcate-asymmetrical, oblanceolate, elliptic or irregular-subspathulate, apex mucronate, cuspidate, rounded or obtuse to acute, glabrous adaxially, pubescent abaxially, especially at apex and margin, with simple filamentous trichomes ca.
+0.4 mm
+long; petals
+1–2 mm
+long, hyaline, membranous, fused, tubulose, lobes obtuse to rounded, involute after anthesis, glabrous; stamens adnate to the petals at base, anthers ca.
+0.3 mm
+long, cream to yellowish; anthophore ca.
+0.3 mm
+long; pistillodes 3, ca.
+0.3 mm
+long, clavate, papillose at apex.
+Pistillate flowers
+2–3 mm
+long, including pedicels; pedicels 0.4–1.0 mm long, with filamentous trichomes at insertion with receptacle, actinomorphic; sepals equaling the petal height, 1.2–2.0 mm long, oblong to widely ovate, concave, apex acute, base thickened, free, white with a light castaneous longitudinal band, adaxially glabrous, abaxially pubescent near the apex, ciliate, with simple filamentous trichomes up to
+0.5 mm
+long; petals about equaling the sepals,
+1–2 mm
+long, linear to oblong, fused at the upper half, free at base and at the very top, lobe triangular, apex acute, membranous, white to hyaline when hydrated, pilose with simple filamentous trichomes up to
+0.5 mm
+; gynoecium ca.
+2 mm
+long; ovary
+0.4–0.6 mm
+long; style column ca.
+0.2 mm
+long, cream-colored to castaneous; appendages ca.
+0.4 mm
+long, the glandular apex capitate; stigmatic branches simple, ca.
+1.5 mm
+long.
+Seed
+0.4–0.6 ×
+0.2–0.3 mm
+, ellipsoid, brown-colored.
+
+
+
+
+Etymology:—
+The specific epithet refers to the orientation of the rosette leaves, which are curved inward and upward at the distal middle, a unique feature within Brazilian
+
+Syngonanthus
+
+. Only
+
+Syngonanthus wahlbergii
+Ruhland (1903:247)
+
+in Africa has leaves like this.
+
+
+
+
+Notes and taxonomic affinities:—
+Several species share a similar architecture with
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+
+, including: a rhizome with apical rosettes of leaves, bearing synflorescences with verticillate bracts at the apex and scapes arranged in lax umbels. The following taxa also share dark and pilose involucral bracts (
+Fig. 3H
+), usually with a lighter longitudinal band abaxially:
+
+Syngonanthus arenarius
+(Gardner)
+Ruhland (1903:260)
+
+,
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+brachyphyllus
+Moldenke (1984: 372)
+
+,
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+majus
+Moldenke (1972:499)
+
+, and
+
+S. vittatus
+,
+
+the new species described here below.
+
+Syngonanthus densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+and
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+brachyphyllus
+
+, actually do not belong to
+
+S. densifolius
+
+, which possess golden to cream, glabrous involucral bracts, and shall be elevated to species status (Echternacht
+et al.
+in prep.). We consider these five taxa to form a cohesive morphological group due to the characters mentioned above. All of them, except
+
+S. arenarius
+
+, occur in Chapada dos Veadeiros and they are possibly sympatric.
+
+
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+
+also shares with these four taxa an unusual floral trait: sepals of staminate flowers are always clearly asymmetrical (
+FIG. 3D; 3F
+). The three sepals might differ
+in form and
+curvature or two might be similar and the third different.
+
+
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+
+differs from the congeneric species that have synflorescences by the remarkable form of the rosette leaves, which are recurved at base and incurved at the upper half. This feature persists even after diaphanization.
+
+Syngonanthus densifolius
+var.
+brachyphyllus
+
+can be easily distinguished from
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+by its broader leaves (ca. 2–5
+vs.
+0.5–2 mm
+), with arachnoid trichomes on the adaxial surface (
+vs.
+not arachnoid), which is reticulate (
+vs.
+striate), and leaf bases achlorophyllous and pale (
+vs.
+chlorophyllous and green) (
+FIG. 3C
+).
+
+Syngonanthus densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+differs by pistillate flowers with glabrous petals (
+vs.
+pilose), and darker sepals, light-brown at the upper half (
+FIG. 3G; 3J
+) (
+vs.
+cream with a longitudinal light castaneous band); moreover, individuals are bigger than
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+and the rosette leaves are erect and flexuous.
+
+Syngonanthus arenarius
+var.
+arenarius
+
+shares with
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+the small size and pilose petals of pistillate flowers (
+FIG. 3E; 3I
+); it differs by the cup-shaped bracts of the synflorescence (equal size), which are fewer (
+vs.
+progressively elongating from the outer toward the inner series and more numerous), and pistillate flowers with sepals cream at base and dark reddish-brown on the upper half (
+vs.
+cream with a longitudinal light castaneous band).
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+
+also differs from
+
+S. vittatus
+
+by the synflorescence axis bearing bracts only at the apex (
+vs.
+tiny bracts scattered along axis), the petals of the pistillate flowers pilose (
+vs.
+glabrous), and the involucral bracts of the middle series obovate (
+vs.
+narrow-elliptic).
+
+
+
+FIGURE 2 A–G.
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+
+(based on
+Irwin et al. 24648
+).
+A.
+Habit;
+B.
+Capitulum detail;
+C.
+From outermost to innermost series of involucral bracts;
+D.
+Staminate flower;
+E.
+Various forms of sepals of staminate flower;
+F.
+Pistillate flower with one sepal removed;
+G.
+Gynoecium.
+H–N.
+
+S. vittatus
+
+(based on
+Watanabe & Watanabe 377
+).
+H.
+Habit;
+I.
+Capitulum detail;
+J.
+From outermost to innermost series of involucral bracts;
+K.
+Staminate flower;
+L.
+Various forms of sepals of staminate flower;
+M.
+Pistillate flower with one sepal removed;
+N
+. Gynoecium. Illustrated by Marcelo Kubo.
+
+
+
+
+FIGURE 3.
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+
+and other morphologically similar
+
+Syngonanthus
+species.
+A
+
+–C.
+Comparison among leaves:
+A.
+
+Syngonanthus densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+showing erect, flexuous leaves in a rosette;
+B.
+Incurved leaves of
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+;
+C.
+Leaf of
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+brachyphyllus
+
+, showing achlorophyllous base.
+D–G.
+Comparison among sexual traits of
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+and
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+:
+D.
+Staminate flower of
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+(trichomes removed from pedicel);
+E.
+Pistillate flower of
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+with filamentous trichomes;
+F.
+Staminate flower of
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+;
+G.
+Pistillate flower of
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+exhibiting trichomes only at upper portion of the sepals;
+H.
+Capitulum detail of
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+;
+I–J.
+Comparative vestiture of the petals in pistillate flowers:
+I.
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+showing pilose petals;
+J.
+Petals glabrous in
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+. Scale bars: B= 3 mm. C,H= 2mm. D–G, I–J: 500 μm. (Photos by Mauricio T. C. Watanabe).
+
+
+
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+
+has been determined as
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+pilosior
+Silveira (1928:320)
+
+in some herbaria. Actually,
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+pilosior
+
+is probably a synonym of
+
+S. anthemiflorus
+var.
+similis
+(Ruhland) L.R.
+Parra & Giulietti (1997:228)
+
+(
+Echternacht 2012
+), which can be easily distinguished from
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+by the involucral bracts surpassing the capitulum disc (
+vs.
+not surpassing), the outer series golden to straw-colored and the internal series cream (
+vs.
+all series castaneous to reddish-brown). Furthermore, the distributions of these taxa do not overlap, as
+
+S. anthemiflorus
+
+is restricted to the Espinhaço Range in
+Minas Gerais State
+.
+
+
+
+
+Phenology:—
+The flowering season of
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+
+is somewhat different from congeneric sympatric species. Most species of
+
+Syngonanthus
+
+bloom during the dry season but the blooming period of
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+recorded in herbaria is between February and May (the rainy season). Exceptions are
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+majus
+
+and
+
+S. densifolius
+var.
+brachyphyllus
+
+, whose records also attest for a blooming in the first semester of the year. Flowers of
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+are in anthesis from February to April, corresponding to the latter half of the rainy season in the region. Fruits were observed only in herbarium specimens collected in May, suggesting that seeds are dispersed during the dry season.
+
+
+
+
+Habitat and distribution:—
+Records for this species have only been reported from the municipality of Alto Paraíso de
+Goiás
+, along a small stretch of GO-118 highway, that connects Alto Paraíso de
+Goiás
+and São João da Aliança, between
+5–15 km
+south of Alto Paraíso de
+Goiás
+. According to herbarium labels,
+
+S. incurvifolius
+
+occurs on
+campos rupestres
+within the Cerrado biome, over quartzitic sandy soils and in wet meadows, typical habitats at the border of the highway at the described locality. Field observations (
+King & Bishop 8900
+, MO) reported the species to be locally abundant. However, we have done fieldwork in Chapada dos Veadeiros over a large area and we did not find the reported population neither did we see any other subpopulation. This fact indicates that the populations probably occupy narrow areas. The roadside along GO-118 northwest of Alto Paraíso de
+Goiás
+belongs to the Parque Nacional da Chapada dos Veadeiros (PNCV); roads to the south and northeast are privately owned, used for cattle grazing and farming, fragmenting the original
+
+campo
+rupestre
+
+habitat.
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+
+is registered southward, outside the PNCV and therefore might be threatened by human activities.
+
+
+
+
+Conservation status:—
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+
+is known from a stretch no longer than
+10 km
+along GO-118 highway, where the natural habitat is severely fragmented. The species is not recorded from a protected area and the region is affected by fire, pasturage and farming, with great impact on natural habitats. As it has not been collected since 1994 and there was no success to find it in recent fieldwork, the species could be classified as extinct in the nature. However, the region is still poorly collected and a careful search might discover new populations. Because there is reasonable doubt that the last individual has died, a more thorough check of expected habitat of this species is needed to confirm it. CNCFlora (Brazilian National Center for Plant Conservation, cncflora.jbrj.gov.br) evaluated the species threatened status, following the criteria of the IUCN Red List (
+IUCN 2001
+,
+2015
+).
+
+Syngonanthus incurvifolius
+
+has an area of occupancy of
+8 km
+2
+, which tend to contract and deteriorate in quality. According to criteria A2ac and B2ab(i,ii,iii) this species is currently considered critically endangered (Negrão 2014a).
+
+
+
+
+Additional specimens examined:—
+
+BRAZIL
+.
+Goiás
+:
+Alto Paraíso de Goiás
+,
+Region of the Chapada dos Veadeiros
+at
+14°30’ S
+47°30’ W
+,
+7 km
+south of Veadeiros, wet meadowland below sandstone outcrop 7,
+
+24 May 1956
+
+,
+
+Y. Dawson
+14639
+
+(
+LL
+)
+
+;
+
+Rod. GO-12, km 5–10 ao Sul de Alto Paraíso
+, campo arenoso,
+
+26 May 1975
+
+,
+
+G. Hatschbach
+36814
+
+(
+C
+,
+LL
+,
+MBM
+)
+
+;
+
+
+5–12 km
+S of Alto Paraíso de Goiás, mostly E of road to São João da Aliança
+
+,
+
+3300–3800 feet
+
+,
+
+8 February 1981
+
+,
+
+L. R. M. King
+&
+L. E. Bishop
+8900
+
+(
+MO
+,
+UB
+)
+
+;
+
+
+10 km
+S of Alto Paraíso de Goiás (GO-118) heading for Brasília, adjacent to Chapada dos Veadeiros
+
+,
+14°30’S
+,
+47°30’W
+,
+
+23 February 1990
+
+,
+
+J. Saunders
+,
+L. Breyer
+&
+G. Eiten
+3020
+
+(
+LL
+)
+
+;
+
+
+Rod. GO-118,
+10 km
+S de Alto Paraíso
+
+, campo rupestre, solo arenoso úmido,
+
+1150 m
+
+,
+
+10 February 1994
+
+,
+
+G. Hatschbach
+,
+M. Hatschbach
+&
+J. M. Silva
+60290
+
+(
+F
+,
+MBM
+)
+
+.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file