Xenomyia atra Malloch, 1921

Xenomyia atra Malloch, 1921 View in CoL

Diagnosis. (modified from Malloch 1921). Length: 10 mm. Black, shining with bluish-grey pruinescence. Head of female as in Fig. 5 View FIGURES 4–9 . (modified from Fig. 53 of Emden 1951); black, frons velvety black; face, parafacial and gena with whitish pollinosity. Antenna black; palpus yellow. Dorsum of scutum velvety brownish black, most of pleura grey pruinescent. Legs black. Wings slightly smoky, calypter brown, margins fuscous. Halteres bright yellow. Frons a little over one-third of head-width; orbits not clearly differentiated; ocellar setae present; fronto-orbital plate narrower than frontal vitta; proboscis stout and bulbous, dusted; anepimeron bare; postpedicel about three times as long as pedicel, tapered from middle to apex; arista long and slender; gena about as high as width of postpedicel. Postsutural dorsocentrals 3, katerpisternals 1:1. Legs long and slender. Fore and mid tibia, each with one anterodorsal and one posterodorsal seta; hind femur with very short weak anteroventral setae; hind tibia with 1 anteroventral, 1 anterodorsal and 1 posterodorsal setae. crossvein r–m at middle of discal cell. Lower calypter much longer than upper.

Note: Described from male and female from Kenya (NHMUK and MNHN) at 8,300 ft., forest area. Emden (1951) considered Jeanneliotis notabilis Séguy as a junior synonym of X. atra . According to him, the description of J. notabilis by Séguy (1941) gives enough details to consider them the same species. Moreover, they were collected in the same mountain, and the male of X. atra and the female of J. notabilis are unknown. The morphological differences between them, especially in the shape on the head ( Fig. 6 View FIGURES 4–9 , modified from Fig. 52 View FIGURE 52 of Emden 1951) are probably sexual differences as occuring in other species of the genus. As commented in the introduction, Hennig (1965), who observed the type of Jeanneliotis in Paris, considered this synonym poorly substantiated and according to him it is not even possible to determine whether this genus belong to the Limnophorinae . At the time of the original description, Séguy (1941) constituted an independent subfamily to it.