Revision of Neotropical species of Empididae (Diptera) described by Mario Bezzi. VIII. The species described in Hilarempis Bezzi Author Rafael, J. A. text Zootaxa 2012 2012-02-10 3189 1 56 68 https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3488.1.3 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.3488.1.3 1175-5326 5248040 1C88D39B-92D0-4045-8E96-59A820FD14B5 Hilarempis carinata Bezzi ( Figs. 23–34 , 72 ) Hilarempis carinata Bezzi, 1909: 369 ; Melander 1928: 129 (checklist); Collin 1933: 110 (citation); Smith 1967: 34 (catalogue); Yang et al . 2007: 239 (catalogue). Diagnosis. Dark brown to black distinctly grey pruinose; frons setose; face glabrous; scutum with four darker longitudinal bands; fore and mid tibiae with long setae; fore tarsomere 1 quite swollen, almost 2X wider than tibia; pterostigma tenuous at apex of costal cell; abdomen grey pruinose in anterior view. Re-description. Lectotype male. Body 4.0 mm; wing 5.0 mm long. Head ( Fig. 23 ). Dichoptic; ommatidia subequal. Frons ( Fig. 25 ) wider than ocellar tubercle, subquadrate, slightly convergent near antenna, matte brown, greybrown pruinose in certain angles, and grey next to antenna insertion. Frons with 4–5 slender lateroclinate setae, 1 placed more medially. Face glabrous, as wide as frons, subquadrate, divergent at ventral margin, grey-brown pruinose. Ocellar tubercle slightly protruding, matte brown, brown pruinose in certain angles; anterior ocellar setae long, divergent, posterior setae short. Postcranium ( Fig. 24 ) brown, grey pruinose with more robust black setae on upper half and slender clear setae on lower half; postocular setae long, distinct, dorsal setae longer; vertical setae similar to postocular ones. Gena and postgena with slender clear setae. Proboscis ( Fig. 23 ) length same as head height, black, with labrum black, shiny. Palpus light brown, with several long slender setae. Antenna with scape and pedicel brown; postpedicel missing, originally described as: “flagellum distinctly enlarged basally”. Thorax ( Fig. 26 ). Dark brown to black, matte, grey pruinose with narrow dark longitudinal bands between acrostichal and dorsocentral rows of setae, extending slightly beyond transverse suture, and another shorter less distinct band placed laterally, between dorsocentral and supra-alar setae. In posterior view, scutum brown pruinose but without darker bands. Chaetotaxy: 2–3 clear antepronotals, lateral setae more robust; 7–8 slender black postpronotals, 1 more robust; 4–5 slender and clear proepisternals; several slender and clear proepimerals; about 10 slender uniserial acrostichals extending slightly beyond transverse suture; about 15 slender uniserial dorsocentrals in a complete row, longer than acrosticals, latter more robust; 4–5 intra-alar presuturals, 2 slightly more robust; 1–2 intra-alar postsuturals, nearly aligned with supra-alar postsuturals; 4–5 supra-alar presuturals; 2–3 supra-alar postsuturals, last broken, probably more robust; 2 robust, 2 medium sized and many slender, but distinct notopleurals; 1 robust postalar; 2 scutellars, apical setae apparently convergent or crossed. FIGURES 23–34. Hilarempis carinata Bezzi , lectotype ♂ (pres. desig.). 23, head, lateral view; 24 , postcranium, posterolateral view; 25 , frons, frontal view; 26 , thorax, dorsal view; 27 , right fore leg, anterior view; 28 , right mid leg, anterior view; 29 , right hind leg, anterior view; 30 , anomaly at vein R 4 (paralectotype ♂); 31 , terminalia before maceration, lateral view; 32 , tergite 8, dorsal view; 33 , terminalia, lateral view; 34 , terminalia, posterior view. Abbreviations: ce = cercus, ce + b scl = cercus + bacilliform sclerite, ep = epandrium, hypd = hypandrium, ptg = postgonite; ph = phallus, ST = sternite, T = tergite. Scale bars: 23–26, 27–29, 31 = 0.5 mm; 32–34 = 0.2 mm. Legs ( Figs. 27–29 ). Brown, grey pruinose, more distinct in certain angles; trochanter partly yellow. Fore tibia clavate with posterodorsal row of long setae, distal setae longer and placed dorsally, posterior row with distinct shorter setae, distal setae longer; fore tarsomere 1 ( Fig. 27 ) strongly swollen, almost 2X wider than tibia and about 0.7X length of fore tibia, with some setae longer dorsally than ventrally. Mid tibia ( Fig. 28 ) with long posterodorsal setae, 2 anteroventral, 2 posterodorsal placed submedially, and apical crown of shorter setae. Hind leg ( Fig. 29 ) with short subequal dorsal setae; tarsomere 1 with setae longer dorsally than ventrally. Wing ( Fig. 72 ). Hyaline with brown veins. Costal vein with robust seta at base (not illustrated in figure); pterostigma indistinct at apex of costal cell; A 1 evanescent. R 4 in left wing slightly disrupted (an anomaly) ( Fig. 30 ). A 1 almost entirely evanescent. Halter brown. Abdomen brown, distinct grey pruinose in anterior view; all setae clear, but longer laterally than dorsally and uniserial on tergite 7 posterior margin ( Fig. 31 ). Tergite 8 ( Fig. 32 ) with distinct posterolateral setae. Sternites concolorous with tergites. Terminalia ( Fig. 31–34 ). In natural position rather vertical. Cercus and lobe formed by cercal plate + bacilliform sclerite somewhat fused. Epandrium ( Fig. 33 ) with distinct cleft dorsally. Hypandrum ( Figs. 33–34 ) with two projections more sclerotized distally. Phallus slightly longer than postgonite apex. Postgonite sinuous. Ejaculatory apodeme lamella-form. Female. Described originally as: setae short, first fore tarsomere not swollen; terminalia with lanceolate apical lamella, black, matte. Geographic distribution . Bolivia , La Paz . Material examined. LECTOTYPE ♂ (here designated), “ BOLIVIA [ La Paz ], Cordilheira (= Cordilheira Real ), 24.xii.1902 , 4000 – 5000 m ”. Lectotype condition. Postpedicel missing; right wing on microslide; terminalia in vial with glycerin. Remarks. This species was described based on three specimens from the same locality in Bolivia . The only specimen remaining in Dresden is labelled lectotype accordingly to fix and stabilize the current concept of the name. Discussion. Unfortunately the postpedicel is missing in the male specimen of H. carinata and it was not described in Bezzi (1909) . If the stylus is very short and basal stout part (= segment 1 of stylus) very little longer than broad, as stated in couplet 21, it runs to couplet 22 of H. tibialis Collin, 1933 because the first tarsomere 1 of male is 0.75X length of tibia. The other two characters of this couplet do not fit H. carinata , hind tibia of male with longer soft hairs beneath (absent in H. carinata ) and halter greyish (yellow in H. carinata ). However, couplet 22 also list hind femora as rather stout, concave behind about base, hind tibiae evenly slender and ocellar bristles minute. Based in this combination of characters H. carinata is not H. tibialis . The alternative is to continue in the key to couplet 24 with antennal stylus longer. If so, considering femora without stout bristles or spines below, occipital bristles more than uniserial above, male fore tarsomere 1 dilated, frons with 1–2 pairs of longer bristles mixed with short hairs ( H. carinata has several pairs of setae subequal in length), thorax grey with four brown bands, H. carinata runs to couplet 38 of H. idonea . Both species have a posterodorsal protuberance on the epandrium ( Fig. 21 ; Collin:134, fig. 25e), but differ in postgonite shape, sinuous and same diameter in H. carinata and rather straight and enlarged subapically in H. idonea . Also, H. carinata has a short radial fork with section of R 4+5 1.8X longer than section of R 5 ( Fig. 72 ) and H. idonea has a long fork.