New Oriental Species And Records Of Sphaerocerinae And Copromyzinae (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae) Author Papp, L. text Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 2003 49 1 71 85 journal article 10.5281/zenodo.12587208 2064-2474 12587208 Metaborborus flavior orientalis ssp. n. ( Figs 14–23 ) Holotype male ( HNHM ): Nepal , Royal Chitwan National Park , Bandarjhola Island – Jungle Island Resort, 84°10’E , 27°35’N , 150 m , 1995.10.30 . – swept on Elephas maximus dung, leg. L. Peregovits [abdomen with genitalia in a plastic microvial with glycerol, left hind leg glued on the card below] . Paratype female ( HNHM ): data same as for holotype . Measurements in mm (measured in alcohol before minuten-pinning): body length 1.34 ( holotype ), 1.55 ( paratype ), wing length 1.38, 1.34, wing width 0.53, 0.60. Body characteristics are the same as in M. flavior ( VANSCHUYTBROECK ) , though thorax and abdominal tergites seem darker brown than the African specimens. Head all bare, shiny, without antenna slightly longer than high (0.30 vs 0.29 mm ), vibrissa 0.207 mm long, arista 0.26 mm long, longest rays ofarista 0.048 mm . Ocellars in line ofanterior ocellus, consequently lateral to the line from anterior to posterior ocelli, postocellars slightly anterior to verticals, 4 interfrontal pairs. Gena extremely narrow, height only 1/9 height of eye. Mesonotum mostly bare, shiny. 1+2 pairs ofdorsocentrals, anterior dorsocentrals longer than prescutellars. Two acrostichal rows. Figs 14–23. Metaborborus spp. , male genitalia. 14–18 = M. flavior orientalis ssp. n. , holotype: 14 = left surstylus, broadest extension, 15 = apex of left surstylus, higher magnification, 16 = right surstylus, broadest extension, 17 = apex ofright surstylus, higher magnification, 18 = postgonite, broadest extension. 19–23 = M. flavior ( VANSCHUYTBROECK , 1959) , Tanzania: 19 = left surstylus, broadest extension, 20 = apex of left surstylus, higher magnification, 21 = right surstylus, broadest extension, 22 = apex ofright surstylus, higher magnification, 23 = postgonite, broadest extension. Scales: 0.2 mm for Figs 14, 16, 19, 21 , 0.1 mm for Figs 15, 17, 20, 22 and Figs 18, 23 , respectively Femora and tibiae shiny, bare. No posteroventral seta on mid tibia. Hind femur extremely thick in both sexes, 0.40 mm long and 0.10 mm thick in holotype , longest dorsal seta 0.11 mm , ventral spur 0.10 mm , seta proximal to spur 0.12 mm long. Wing evenly infuscated light brown, veins light brown, M vein ratio 0.414 / 0.362 mm , i.e. 1.143, lower edge ofdiscal cell rounded. Abdominal tergites 3–5 pruinose. Male surstyli asymmetrical ( Figs 14–15 vs 16–17, etc). Surstyli ( Figs 14–17 ) with more numerous and longer setae on apical part than in M. flavior (African specimens, e.g. ours from Tanzania , Figs 19–22 ). Left surstylus with shorter and more rounded medial subapical process ( Figs 14–15 , cf. Figs 19–20 ), apical process also broader and widely rounded apically, contrary to that of M. flavior , practically there is no lateral subapical process in the new subspecies, unlike M. flavior . Right surstylus ( Figs 16–17 , cf. Figs 21–22 ) with somewhat shorter medial subapical process, apical process slightly lateroclinate (straight and almost parallel-sided in M. flavior ) practically no lateral subapical process, (a definite process in M. flavior ). Postgonite ( Fig. 18 ) with a broader apical part viewed when seen in its broadest extension, compared to M. flavior ( Fig. 23 ). Female abdominal tergites less broad than abdomen, i.e. membraneous parts are also visible dorsally. Three long hair-like setae on cercus, longest one 0.216 mm long. NORRBOM and KIM (1985 b ) produced an excellent key to the Metaborborus species. This new form keys readily to M. flavior . However, the differences in details ofits genitalia (surstyli, postgonite) do not allow us to name it simply as M. flavior . In several other groups of sphaerocerid flies, the measure of differences found would be sufficient to name it as a separate species. However, since NORRBOM and KIM (1985 b ) did not separate their specimen from Tambunan (Sabah) specifically from the African ones, I prefer to describe the Asian specimens as a subspecies only, awaiting more material and application ofmore biologically reliable methods, other than morphological ones, to evaluate the differences. Norrbomia indica L. Papp, 1988 – 40 males , 17 females (HNHM): Nepal , Royal Chitwan National Park , Bandarjhola Island – Jungle Island Resort, 84°10’E , 27°35’N , 150 m , 1995.10.30 . – swept on Elephas maximus dung, leg. L. Peregovits ; 32 males , 9 females ( HNHM ): Taiwan : Pingtung Hsien , Kenting National Park , grassy hillside, on cow pats, October 5, 2000 , leg. L. Papp , No. 17. A species new to Nepal and Taiwan . In the World Catalogue ofSphaeroceridae (R OHÁČEK et al. 2001), NORRBOM elevated the varietal name sordidus var. tropicus DUDA , 1923 to species and formally designated a lectotype with label data identical to the holotype for my species N. indica L. PAPP , 1988 . There are a number ofreasons why the name tropicus cannot be used and why the lectotype designation cannot be accepted. DUDA , in 1923 identified a series of specimens from Abyssinia and East India as sordidus ( ZETTERSTEDT , 1847). When I examined the series that is housed in the Hungarian Natural History Museum, it was apparent to me that there were two species, neither ofwhich was sordidus ZETTERSTEDT . I described the specimens from India as N. indica , and the specimens from Abyssinia as N. demeteri L. PAPP , 1988 . I was unable to use the name tropicus for either of the species because I regarded it as unavailable according to the Code (Third edition, Article 12(a).). There is a definite ruling about infrasubspecific names in the International Code Z. N., Fourth Edition, Article 45.6.4.1., which says that if an infrasubspecific name had not been “…either adopted as the valid name ofa species or subspecies or was treated as a senior homonym” before 1985, that remains infrasubspecific. In fact, neither DUDA himself, in 1938, nor HACKMAN in 1977 accepted the name tropicus , this notwithstanding the fact that DUDA had recognised the said series ofspecimens as different from typical sordidus . His description ofthe variety tropicus is not sufficient to enable any subsequent worker to differentiate it from either sordidus or marginatis ADAMS , 1905 . Also, he did not label any specimens as var. tropicus . I consider NORRBOM to have been incorrect in raising the status of tropicus to species. Furthermore, NORRBOM did not examine any ofthis material, nor did he label any specimen as lectotype . This is not the accepted practice in lectotype designation (ICZN, Fourth Edition, Article 74 particularly 74.1, 74.7) even ifhe were correct in his interpretation of the status of the species in question. For these reasons, I propose that the name N. indica L. PAPP , 1988 remains the valid species name and should not have been sunk as a synonym of tropicus DUDA . I also propose that the name tropicus is in fact an unavailable name. * Norrbomia marginatis ( ADAMS , 1905) – 1 male ( HNHM ): Nepal , Royal Chitwan National Park , Bandarjhola Island – Jungle Island Resort, 84°10’E , 27°35’N , 150 m , 1995.10.30 . – swept on Elephas maximus dung, leg. L. Peregovits ; 28 males , 4 females : Taiwan : Pingtung Hsien , Kenting National Park , grassy hillside, on cow pats, October 5, 2000 , leg. L. Papp , No. 17. A species new to the fauna of Taiwan (cf. PAPP 1988 b ) .