identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
FF043401BC395B74DEF4F9C7FA7078DB.text	FF043401BC395B74DEF4F9C7FA7078DB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cephalops Fallen 1810	<div><p>Genus  Cephalops Fallén, 1810</p><p>Cephalops Fallén, 1810: 10 . Type species  Cephalops aeneus Fallén, 1810 (monotypy); Rafael, 1990: 353, figs 1–133; De Meyer, 1989a: 725, figs 1–149; De Meyer, 1989b: 99, figs 1–49; De Meyer, 1994: 8, figs 1–49; Rafael, 1996: 363, figs 12–17; Motamedinia et al. 2022: 1209; Ramos-Pastrana et al. 2022: 202.</p><p>Pipunculus (group II); Becker, 1897: 36, 58 (partim); 1900: 226 (partim); 1921: 149 (partim); Cresson, 1911: 296 (partim); Motamedinia et al. 2022: 14 (phylogeny).</p><p>Dorilas Hardy, 1943: 54 (partim); 1950a: 13 (partim); 1959: 391; Aczél, 1952: 240 (partim).</p><p>Witella Hardy, 1950b: 41. Type species  Dorylas candidulus Hardy, 1949 (original designation); synonymized by Rafael &amp; De Meyer, 1992: 649.</p><p>Pipunculus (Pipunculus) Hardy, 1965a: 230 (partim); 1965b: 16; 1965c: 552 (partim); 1966: 6 (partim).</p><p>Pipunculus (Cephalops) Hardy, 1972: 10; 1975: 298; 1980: 484.</p><p>Key to males of the Neotropical species of  Cephalops</p><p>Adapted from Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022).</p><p>1 Abdomen with conspicuous pilosity; tergite 1 with 8–12 thin and long setae laterally; scutellum with many thin and long setae dorsally and laterally (except  C. amembranosus which does not have a membranous area in the syntergosternite 8)....... 2</p><p>- Abdomen with inconspicuous pilosity (except in  C. acutus); tergite 1, at most, with 6 conspicuous setae laterally; scutellum with few tiny setae.................................................................................... 7</p><p>2 Syntergosternite 8 with membranous area [figures 8, 24, 40, 56, 72, 85, 98 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; sternite 6 uninflated, ending in a simple apex; phallus trifid [figures 90, 110 in Rafael (1990)]......................................... 3</p><p>- Syntergosternite 8 without membranous area [figures 83, 96 in Rafael (1990)]; sternite 6 extremely inflated, usually cheliform [figure 95 in Rafael (1990)]; phallus simple, unbranched [figures 84, 97, 104, 113 in Rafael (1990)]................... 4</p><p>3 Frons black with frontal callus shiny black; hind femur without ventral ctenidia; tergites 2–4 brown pruinose at base [figure 106 in Rafael (1990)]; surstyli with inner margins slightly straight [figure 107 in Rafael (1990)].....  C. nigrifrons Rafael, 1990</p><p>- Frons gray without frontal callus; hind femur with ventral ctenidia; tergites 2–5 entirely shiny black dorsally, completely without pruinosity; surstyli with inner margins slightly sinuous [figure 89 in Rafael (1990)].......  C. callistus Hardy, 1954</p><p>4 Tergites 2 and 3 and eventually 4 with yellow tonalities...................................................... 5</p><p>- All tergites without yellow spots......................................................................... 6</p><p>5 All coxae predominantly yellow; meron yellow; phallic guide with a rigid lobe forward-directed, with setae ventrally and lobes laterally truncated apically [figure 112 in Rafael (1990)]; ejaculatory apodeme T-shaped [figure 112 in Rafael (1990)]; phallus without subapical spicules [figure 112 in Rafael (1990)].....................................  C. ponti Rafael, 1990</p><p>- Fore and mid coxae black, unlike the yellow hind coxa; meron partially black anteriorly; phallic guide with lobes laterally acute apically, without setae ventrally [figure 103 in Rafael (1990)]; ejaculatory apodeme funnel-shaped narrowed [figure 103 in Rafael (1990)]; phallus with tiny spicules subapically [figure 104 in Rafael (1990)]..........  C. nigricoxa Rafael, 1990</p><p>6 All coxae yellow; hind femur with yellow ventral ctenidia; scutellum with thin and long setae; postpedicel with acuminate apex; surstyli subsymmetrical [figure 96 in Rafael (1990)].......................................  C. limatus Hardy, 1965</p><p>- All coxae black; hind femur with black ventral ctenidium; scutellum with tiny setae; postpedicel with rounded apex; surstyli asymmetrical [figure 83 in Rafael (1990)]........................................  C. amembranosus Rafael, 1990</p><p>7 Pedicel yellow....................................................................................... 8</p><p>- Pedicel brown to dark brown........................................................................... 10</p><p>8 Notopleuron and mesopleuron brown, brown pruinose, tergites 2–4 with brown triangular spots at base and medially, sparsely gray-brown pruinose, with yellow spots laterodorsally [figures 1–2, 6 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; both surstyli thickened at base, acute apically, with outer margins sinuous [figure 8 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; apex of phallic guide with rigid and distinct lobes laterally, and distinct acute lobe dorsally [figure 12 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; ejaculatory apodeme fan-shaped [figure 13 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; phallus unbranched, with two lateral membranous projections apically [figure 12 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)].......................  C. acutus Ramos-Pastrana, Marques &amp; Rafael, 2022</p><p>- Notopleuron and mesopleuron dark brown to black, gray pruinose; tergites 2–4 brown to black with light brown bands on the distal margin [figures 18, 22 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)] or with black pruinose bands across bases; both surstyli thickened at base and medially, acute apically, with external margins curved [figure 24 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022) and figure 13 in Rafael (1996)]; apex of phallic guide simple without rigid and distinct lobes laterally, and without distinct acute lobe dorsally [figure 28 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022) and figure 15 in Rafael (1996)]; ejaculatory apodeme funnel-shaped [figure 29 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022) and figure 17 in Rafael (1996)], phallus trifid, without lateral membranous projections apically [figure 28 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022) and figure 15 in Rafael (1996)]........................................ 9</p><p>9 Fore coxa yellow, mid and hind black; all femora and tibiae entirely yellow; tergites 2–5 shiny brown with light brown bands on distal margin [figures 18, 22 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)] or tergites 2–3 with shiny black spots posterolaterally (visible in certain light); both surstyli with inner margins straight and outer margins curved [figure 24 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]..............................................................................  C. amapaensis Rafael, 1990</p><p>- All coxae predominantly black, all femora with apex yellow, all tibiae with bases and apices yellow; tergites 2–5 dark brown to black with black pruinose bands across bases; both surstyli with inside and outer margins curved [figure 13 in Rafael (1996)]...........................................................................  C. pedernalensis Rafael, 1996</p><p>10 Both surstyli with inner and outer margins sinuous in dorsal view [figure 40 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)] or conical-shaped [figure 56 in Rafael (1990)]; phallus trifid, with ejaculatory ducts distinctly separated, simple and clearly thinner than the phallic guide [figure 57 in Rafael (1990) and 44 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]................................. 11</p><p>- Both surstyli with inner or outer margins slightly rounded or rounded in dorsal view [Figs 1H 2G, figures 9, 36 in Rafael (1990) and 56, 69 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; phallus bifid [Figs 1L 2K; and 11, 37 in Rafael (1990)] or trifid with ejaculatory ducts distinctly separated only in distal third [figures 15, 27 in Rafael (1990) and 60 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)] if are separated in a greater proportion, the ejaculatory ducts are as thick as the phallic guide [figure 73 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]............................................................................................ 12</p><p>11 Hind coxa brown; femora with brown spot medially; tergites 2–3 opaque brown, tergites 4–5 entirely black pruinose; both surstyli thickened at base, with acute apex, left surstylus clearly shorter and thinner [figure 56 in Rafael (1990)]; apex of phallic guide without distinct translucent lobe apically, with tip acute and setae ventrally [figure 57 in Rafael (1990)]........................................................................................  C. villifemoralis Hardy, 1954</p><p>- All coxae light brown; femora yellow; tergites 2–5 with dark brown band dorsally on anterior margin, tergites 2–4 with light brown spots laterodorsally [figures 33–34, 38 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; both surstyli with outer and inner margins sinuous, with tips inward-directed [figure 40 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; both surstyli dorsally lobated and tips slightly downward-directed when seen in lateral view [figures 41–42 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; right surstylus with a distinct apical lobe visible in lateral view [figure 42 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; apex of phallic guide with distinct translucent lobe apically, with tip slightly truncated, without setae ventrally [figure 44 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)].......................................................................  C. gracilis Ramos-Pastrana, Marques &amp; Rafael, 2022</p><p>12 Phallus trifid [figures 6, 27, 57, 90, 109 in Rafael (1990), figures 28, 44, 60, 73 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]........ 13</p><p>- Phallus bifid [figures 11, 37 in Rafael (1990) and Figs 1L, 2K]................................................ 16</p><p>13 Apex of phallic guide with lobes ventrally or apically [figures 15, 27 in Rafael (1990)]............................. 14</p><p>- Apex of phallic guide without lobes [figures 60, 73 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)].............................. 15</p><p>14 Postpedicel acute [figure 25 in Rafael (1990)]; apex of phallic guide with membranous lobe apically [figure 27 in Rafael (1990)]; phallus with ejaculatory ducts clearly separated, without small spines medially [figure 27 in Rafael (1990)]; ejaculatory apodeme with truncate apex [figure 28 in Rafael (1990)]..................................  C. nitidellus Rafael, 1990</p><p>- Postpedicel rounded [figure 13 in Rafael (1990)]; apex of phallic guide with rigid lobes ventrally [figure 15 in Rafael (1990)]; phallus trifid with ejaculatory ducts separated only at the apex short, with small spines medially [figure 15 in Rafael (1990)]; ejaculatory apodeme with acute apex [figure 16 in Rafael (1990)]..........................  C. innitidus Rafael, 1990</p><p>15 Postpedicel yellowish brown, unlike the dark brown pedicel; surstyli thickened medially, thin at bases and apically, left surstylus slightly thinner than right [figure 69 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; both surstyli with tips downward directed when seen in lateral view [figures 70–71 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; apex of phallic guide thin, bearing a small translucent lobe and row of thin setae ventrally [figure 73 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; ejaculatory apodeme pin-shaped, shortened, truncated distally [figure 74 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; phallus trifid, with ejaculatory ducts thickened [figure 73 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)], two ejaculatory ducts with submedian lobes laterally when seen in ventral view [figure 72 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)].......................................  C. lobatus Ramos-Pastrana, Marques &amp; Rafael, 2022</p><p>- Postpedicel dark brown [figure 51 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; surstyli thickened at base, thin apically, with tips slightly inward-directed, surstyli almost equal in length [figure 56 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; both surstyli with margins straight, tips forward directed when seen in lateral view [figures 57–58 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; apex of phallic guide stout, thickened at base, acute apically, without setae apically [figure 60 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; ejaculatory apodeme funnel-shaped [figure 61 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; phallus trifid, with ejaculatory ducts distinctly separated only in distal third, only tips of ejaculatory ducts slightly coiled [figure 60 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]..........................................................................  C. klinsmanni Ramos-Pastrana, Marques &amp; Rafael, 2022</p><p>16 Apex of phallic guide with lobes ventrally or dorsally [figures 11, 37 in Rafael (1990)]; ejaculatory ducts of phallus with acute apex [figures 11, 37 in Rafael (1990)];................................................................... 17</p><p>- Apex of phallic guide without lobes ventrally or dorsally (Figs 1L, 2K); ejaculatory ducts of phallus with truncated or rounded apex (Figs 1L, 2K)................................................................................... 18</p><p>17 Postpedicel with acute apex [figure 8A in Hardy (1950)]; apex of phallic guide with three acute lobes dorsally [figure 11 in Rafael (1990)]; phallus with one ejaculatory duct with a medial protuberance backward-directed [figure 11 in Rafael (1990)].............................................................................  C. brasiliensis Hardy, 1950a</p><p>- Postpedicel with slightly rounded apex [figure 35 in Rafael (1990)]; apex of phallic guide without lobes dorsally [figure 37 in Rafael (1990)]; ejaculatory ducts of phallus without protuberance [figure 37 in Rafael (1990)]; ejaculatory apodeme with acute apex [figure 38 in Rafael (1990)]; ejaculatory apodeme with truncate apex [figure 12 in Rafael (1990)]..................................................................................................  C. nitidus Hardy, 1950a</p><p>18 Fore and mid femora proximal half brown and distal half yellow, fore femur with proximal two thirds brown and distal third yellow (Fig. 1A); left surstylus with rounded apex (Fig. 1A); gonopods with acute apex (Fig. 1K); ejaculatory ducts of phallus with truncated and membranous apex (Fig. 1L); one ejaculatory duct with tuft of projections that appear to be setae on third apical ventrally (Fig. 1L)..............................................................  C. baldiensis sp. nov.</p><p>- Femora entirely yellow (Fig. 2A); left surstylus with acute apex (Fig. 2A); gonopods with rounded apex (Fig. 2J); ejaculatory ducts of phallus with rounded and sclerosed apex, without tuft of projections that appear to be setae ventrally (Fig. 2K).....................................................................................  C. farallonensis sp. nov.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/FF043401BC395B74DEF4F9C7FA7078DB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ramos-Pastrana, Yardany;Córdoba-Suarez, Eric;Wolff, Marta	Ramos-Pastrana, Yardany, Córdoba-Suarez, Eric, Wolff, Marta (2025): Two new species of Cephalops Fallén (Diptera: Pipunculidae) from Colombia, and an updated key to males of the Neotropical species. Zootaxa 5621 (3): 383-394, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5621.3.6, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5621.3.6
FF043401BC3A5B79DEF4FF0AFC2A7A70.text	FF043401BC3A5B79DEF4FF0AFC2A7A70.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cephalops baldiensis Ramos-Pastrana & Córdoba-Suarez & Wolff 2025	<div><p>Cephalops baldiensis sp. nov.</p><p>Figs 1A–M, 4</p><p>Diagnosis. Male. Antenna with scape and pedicel dark brown, postpedicel brown, with rounded apex. Hind femur with proximal two thirds brown and distal third yellow, forming a brown ring medially. Tibiae yellow. Abdomen shiny brown, tergites 2–5 with a triangle-shaped dark brown pruinose spot at base and medially. Surstyli equal epandrium length, thickened, with inner margin straight and outer margins slightly rounded in dorsal view. Apex of phallic guide slightly thickened, with tip acute. Phallus bifid, with ejaculatory ducts distinctly separated, truncated apex and entirely membranous, one ejaculatory duct thinner than the other, the thicker ejaculatory duct with tuft of projections that appear to be setae on third apical ventrally.</p><p>Description. MALE (holotype). Body length 2.7 mm. Head (Figs 1A, B). Eyes contiguous for 19 facets. F, EM, V (mm) = 0.4, 0.5, 0.2. Frontal triangle brown pruinose, with conspicuous brown callus. Occiput brown, brown pruinose dorsally and ventrally, gray pruinose laterally. Antenna (Fig. 1C) with scape and pedicel dark brown, scape with one seta dorsally; pedicel with four setae dorsally and two longer setae ventrally; postpedicel brown, with rounded apex. LPP/WPP = 2. Thorax (Figs 1A–B, D). Postpronotal lobe brown. Scutum dark brown, brown pruinose. Notopleuron concolorous with scutum, gray-brown pruinose. Scutellum concolorous with scutum, with few tiny scattered setae. Mesopleuron and mediotergite brown, gray-brown pruinose. Wing (Fig. 1E). Length 6.3 mm. LW/MWW = 3.4; LTC/LFC = 1.6. Membrane slightly brown infuscated; vein r-m located slightly after basal third of cell dm; anal lobe narrow. Halter stem light brown and knob brown. Legs (Figs 1A). Coxae dark brown; trochanters light brown; fore and mid femora proximal half brown and distal half yellow, hind femur with proximal two thirds brown and distal third yellow, forming a brown ring medially; tibiae yellow, hind tibia with posterior erect setae medially; tarsomeres 1–3 yellow, 4–5 brown; pulvilli yellow. Abdomen (Figs 1A–B, F). Ground color dark brown, tergite 1 shiny, brown with proximal margin brown pruinose and six brown and long setae laterally; tergites 2–5 shiny with a triangle-shaped dark brown pruinose at base and medially; tergites and sternites 6 and 7 as in Fig. 1G. Syntergosternite 8 brown, brown pruinose, shorter than length of tergite 5, with membranous area apically (Figs 1F, H).  Terminalia (Figs 1G–M). Epandrium brown, surstyli light brown (Fig. 1H). Surstyli (Figs 1H–J) subsymmetrical, equal epandrium length, completely setose, thickened, only slightly thinner at base, with inner margin straight and outer margins slightly rounded in dorsal view; both surstyli with apex slightly rounded in dorsal view (Fig. 1H); both surstyli slightly thickened at the apex and with tips slightly rounded and downward directed when seen in lateral view (Figs 1I–J). Gonopods subsymmetrical, triangle-shaped, with tips acute, inner margins sinuous and outer margins curved (Fig. 1K). Apex of phallic guide slightly thickened, with tip acute and without lobes (Fig. 1L). Phallus bifid, with ejaculatory ducts distinctly separated, truncated apex and entirely membranous, one ejaculatory duct thinner than the other, the thicker ejaculatory duct with tuft of projections that appear to be setae on third apical ventrally (Fig. 1L). Ejaculatory apodeme narrow, with margins sinuous (Fig. 1M).</p><p>FEMALE. Unknown.</p><p>Type material.   HOLOTYPE. Male: COLOMBIA, Antioquia, Bello, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-74.64778&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=6.342222" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -74.64778/lat 6.342222)">Páramo Baldías</a>, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-74.64778&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=6.342222" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -74.64778/lat 6.342222)">Jama</a>, 6.3422222ºN, 74,64777778ºW, 2900–3000 m [eters], 10.jul[VII].2013, J. [A.] Rafael, J.T. Câmara &amp; [F.F.] Xavier leg (1 ♂, CEUA-101626) (photographed)  . Holotype with right wing mounted on microslide in Canada balsam, left antenna and terminalia placed in a microvial with glycerin.</p><p>Etymology. The specific epithet refers to the type locality, Páramo Baldías, Private Reserve Protection, Colombia.</p><p>Geographical distribution. Colombia (Antioquia, Bello) (Fig. 4).</p><p>Habitat. The specimen was collected in the Páramo Baldías, with areas of very humid premontane forest of the Central cordillera of the Northwest region of Colombia, where the vegetation is composed of Andean clouded forests (Andean Forests 2024).</p><p>Taxonomic notes.  Cephalops baldiensis sp. nov. runs to  C. klinsmanni Ramos-Pastrana, Marques &amp; Rafael, 2022 in the couplet 17 of the key presented by Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022). It differs from  C. klinsmanni by having postpedicel brown, with rounded apex (Fig. 1C) [versus postpedicel dark brown, with acuminate apex, figure 51 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; legs mainly yellow (Fig. 1C) [versus legs mainly brown to dark brown, figure 49, 50 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; abdomen shiny (Figs 1A–B, F) [versus abdomen velvety, figures 49–50, 54 in Ramos-Pastrana et al. (2022)]; other differential characters of the male genitalia are well specified in the key below. Based on males and due to the shape bifid of phallus,  C. baldiensis sp. nov. is also related to  C. brasiliensis Hardy, 1950 [figure 11 in Rafael (1990)];  C. farallonensis sp. nov. (Fig. 2K) and  C. nitidus Hardy, 1950a [figure 37 in Rafael (1990)]. It differs from  C. brasiliensis by having postpedicel with rounded apex (Fig. 1C) [versus postpedicel with acute apex in  C. brasiliensis, figure 8A in Hardy (1950)]; both surstyli only slightly thinning at base and apex (Fig. 1H) [versus both surstyli thickened at base, only slightly thinning at apex, figure 9 in Rafael (1990)]; both surstyli with inner margin straight (Fig. 1H) [versus right surstylus with inner margin sinuous, figure 9 in Rafael (1990)]; apex of phallic without lobes at apex (Fig. 1L) [versus apex of phallic with three lobes thin and acute apex dorsally, figure 11 in Rafael (1990)]; ejaculatory ducts of phallus with truncated apex (Fig. 1L) [versus ejaculatory ducts of phallus with acute apex, figure 11 in Rafael (1990)]. It differs from  C. farallonensis sp. nov. by having trochanters light brown; fore and mid femora proximal half brown and distal half yellow, fore femur with proximal two thirds brown and distal third yellow (Fig. 1A) [versus trochanters and femora entirely yellow in  C. farallonensis sp. nov. (Fig. 2A)]; left surstylus with rounded apex (Fig. 1A) [versus left surstylus with acute apex (Fig. 2A)]; gonopods with acute apex (Fig. 1K) [versus gonopods with rounded apex (Fig. 2J)]; ejaculatory ducts of phallus with truncated and membranous apex (Fig. 1L) [versus ejaculatory ducts of phallus with rounded and sclerosed apex (Fig. 2K)]. It differs from  C. nitidus by having both surstyli only slightly thinning at base and apex (Fig. 1H) [versus both surstyli thickened at base, only slightly thinning at apex in  C. nitidus, figure 36 in Rafael (1990)]; apex of phallic guide without lateral setae on apex (Fig. 1L); [versus apex of phallic guide with lateral setae and two lobes laterally on apex, figure 37 in Rafael (1990)]; ejaculatory ducts of phallus with truncated apex (Fig. 1L); [versus ejaculatory ducts of phallus with acute apex, figure 37 in Rafael (1990)].</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/FF043401BC3A5B79DEF4FF0AFC2A7A70	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ramos-Pastrana, Yardany;Córdoba-Suarez, Eric;Wolff, Marta	Ramos-Pastrana, Yardany, Córdoba-Suarez, Eric, Wolff, Marta (2025): Two new species of Cephalops Fallén (Diptera: Pipunculidae) from Colombia, and an updated key to males of the Neotropical species. Zootaxa 5621 (3): 383-394, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5621.3.6, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5621.3.6
FF043401BC3C5B7BDEF4FC7BFBAD7FCC.text	FF043401BC3C5B7BDEF4FC7BFBAD7FCC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cephalops farallonensis Ramos-Pastrana & Córdoba-Suarez & Wolff 2025	<div><p>Cephalops farallonensis sp. nov.</p><p>Figs 2–4</p><p>Diagnosis. Male. Trochanters, femora and tibiae yellow, femora with a row of long and fine yellow setae posteroventrally and short and strong setae ventrally, scarcer on the hind leg. Abdomen with tergite 1 gray-brown pruinose, tergites 2–5 shiny. Surstyli slightly shorter than length of epandrium. Both surstyli thickened medially, slightly thinner at base and apex, inner margins slightly straight and outer margins slightly rounded in dorsal view; right surstylus truncate apically, left surstylus slightly acute apically. Apex of phallic guide thin, with tip rounded. Phallus bifid, with ejaculatory ducts distinctly separated, rounded and sclerosed apex, one ejaculatory duct thinner than the other.</p><p>Description. MALE (holotype). Body length 3.5 mm. Head (Figs 2A, B). Eyes contiguous for 24 facets. F, EM, V (mm) = 0.4, 0.4, 0.2. Frontal triangle dark brown pruinose, with inconspicuous brown callus. Occiput brown, brown pruinose dorsally and ventrally, gray pruinose laterally. Antennae scape and pedicel brown, scape with two setae dorsally; pedicel with three setae dorsally and three setae ventrally, one shorter than the others; postpedicel lost. Thorax (Figs 2A–C). Postpronotal lobe dark brown pruinose. Scutum dark brown, brown pruinose. Notopleuron concolorous with scutum. Scutellum concolorous with scutum, with few tiny setae scattered and 17 inconspicuous setae along posterior margin. Mesopleuron and mediotergite dark brown, gray-brown pruinose. Wing (Fig. 2D). Length 7.5 mm. LW/MWW = 3.5; LTC/LFC = 1.9. Membrane slightly brown infuscated, anal lobe narrow; vein r-m located slightly before basal third of upper section of cell dm. Halter stem white, except light brown base, knob dark brown dorsally. Legs (Fig. 2A). Fore and mid coxae dark brown, hind coxa light brown; trochanters yellow; femora yellow, with a row of long and fine yellow setae posteroventrally and short and strong setae ventrally, scarcer on hind leg; tibiae yellow, fore tibia with conspicuous apical setae, hind tibia with posterior erect setae medially; tarsomeres 1–3 yellow, 4–5 brown; pulvilli yellow. Abdomen (Figs 2A–B, E). dark brown in ground color with inconspicuous setae, tergite 1 gray-brown pruinose, with six brown and long setae laterally; tergite 2 shiny with a triangle-shaped brown pruinose at base and medially; tergites 3–5 shiny, with proximal margin brown pruinose, tergites and sternites 6 and 7 as in Fig. 2F. Syntergosternite 8 brown, brown pruinose, shorter than tergite 5, with a membranous area apically (Figs. 2E, G).  Terminalia (Figs 2F–L). Epandrium and surstyli brown (Fig. 2G). Surstyli (Figs 2G–I) subsymmetrical, slightly shorter than length of epandrium, and with a few scattered setae. Both surstyli thickened medially, slightly thinner at base and apex, inner margins slightly straight and outer margins slightly rounded in dorsal view; right surstylus truncate apically, left surstylus slightly acute apically (Fig. 2G), left surtylus with tip slightly acute in lateral view (Fig. 2H), right surstylus with tip slightly rounded in lateral view (Fig. 2I), both surstyli thickened basally and medially, thinner apically and with tips downward directed when seen in lateral view (Figs 2H, I). Gonopods subsymmetrical, triangle-shaped and tips slightly rounded (Fig. 2J). Apex of phallic guide thin, with tip rounded and without lobes (Fig. 2K). Ejaculatory apodeme needle-shaped, with margins sinuous (Fig. 2L). Phallus bifid, with ejaculatory ducts distinctly separated, rounded and sclerosed apex, one ejaculatory duct thinner than the other (Fig. 2K).</p><p>FEMALE (Figs 3A–C). As in male, differing only in the following aspects: Body length 3.2 mm, with more abundant grey pruinosity (Fig. 3A). Eyes dichoptic. Frontal ommatidia larger than adjacent ones. Wing length 4 mm. LW/MWW = 3.3. LTC/LFC = 1.5. Ovipositor OL: 0.44 mm, PL: 0.30 mm, B: 0.22 mm; base of ovipositor brown, gray-brown pruinose, with a slight protuberance on distal part ventrally, piercer yellow, except light brown base and ventrally, apex shiny, straight (Figs 3B, C).</p><p>Type material.   HOLOTYPE. Male: COLOMBIA, Valle del Cauca,  PNN [Parque Nacional Natural] Los Farallones de Cali, Malaise, 9.dic[XII].1998. (1 ♂ CEUA-101581) (photographed)  .   PARATYPES. idem Bolivar, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-73.65&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.8" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -73.65/lat 10.8)">PNN [Parque Nacional Natural] Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta</a>, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-73.65&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.8" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -73.65/lat 10.8)">El Ramo</a>, 10º48’N / 73º39’W, 2500 m [eters], 25.nov[XI]–15.dic[XII].2000, J. Cantillo leg “M1047” (1 ♀, IAvH) (photographed)  . Holotype with left wing mounted on a microslide in Canada balsam and terminalia placed in a microvial with glycerin, both pinned along the specimen.</p><p>Etymology. The specific epithet refers to the type locality, Farallones de Cali, National Natural Park, Colombia.</p><p>Geographical distribution. Colombia (Bolivar, Valle del Cauca) (Fig. 4).</p><p>Habitat. The specimens were collected at the reserves Parque Nacional Natural Farallones de Cali and Parque Nacional Natural Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. The former has four ecosystems (Tropical Rainforest between 200 and 1.200 meters above sea level, Sub-Andean Rainforest between 1.200 and 2.000 meters above sea level, High Andean Rainforest between 2.000 and 3.500 meters above sea level and Paramo with altitudes above 3.500 meters above sea level) (Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia 2005), whereas the latter is mainly characterized by thorny bushes and dry tropical forests typical of the Caribbean region of Colombia (Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia 2020).</p><p>Taxonomic notes.  Cephalops farallonensis sp. nov. greatly resembles  C. lobatus Ramos-Pastrana, Marques &amp; Rafael, 2022 . The main morphological characters that differentiate the two species are found in the male genitalia and are well differentiated in the key below. Based on males and due to the shape bifid of phallus,  C. farallonensis sp. nov. is also related to  C. baldiensis sp. nov. (Fig. 1L),  C. brasiliensis [figure 11 in Rafael (1990)] and and  C. nitidus [figure 37 in Rafael (1990)]. It differs from  C. baldiensis sp. nov. by having trochanters and femora entirely yellow (Fig. 2A) [versus trochanters light brown; fore and mid femora proximal half brown and distal half yellow, fore femur with proximal two thirds brown and distal third yellow in  C. baldiensis sp. nov. (Fig. 1A)]; left surstylus with acute apex (Fig. 2A) [versus left surstylus with rounded apex (Fig. 1A)]; gonopods with rounded apex (Fig. 2J) [versus gonopods with acute apex (Fig. 1K)]; ejaculatory ducts of phallus with rounded and sclerosed apex (Fig. 2K) [versus ejaculatory ducts of phallus with truncated and membranous apex (Fig. 1L)]. It differs from  C. brasiliensis by having both surstyli slightly thinning at base (Fig. 2G) [versus both surstyli clearly thickened at base in  C. brasiliensis, figure 9 in Rafael (1990)]; apex of phallic without lobes (Fig. 2K) [versus apex of phallic with three lobes thin and acute apex, figure 11 in Rafael (1990)]; ejaculatory ducts of phallus with sclerosed and rounded apex (Fig. 2K) [versus ejaculatory ducts of phallus with membranous and acute apex, figure 11 in Rafael (1990)]; both surstyli slightly thinning at base (Fig. 2G) [versus both surstyli clearly thickened at base in  C. nitidus, figure 36 in Rafael (1990)]; apex of phallic without lateral setae and lobes laterally on apex (Fig. 2K) [versus apex of phallic guide with lateral setae and two lobes laterally on apex, figure 37 in Rafael (1990)].</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/FF043401BC3C5B7BDEF4FC7BFBAD7FCC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ramos-Pastrana, Yardany;Córdoba-Suarez, Eric;Wolff, Marta	Ramos-Pastrana, Yardany, Córdoba-Suarez, Eric, Wolff, Marta (2025): Two new species of Cephalops Fallén (Diptera: Pipunculidae) from Colombia, and an updated key to males of the Neotropical species. Zootaxa 5621 (3): 383-394, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5621.3.6, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5621.3.6
