Bradysia spinidensa Hondru, 1968

Bradysia spinidensa Hondru, 1968 View in CoL

Hondru 1968 Rev. roum. bioI. (Zool.), 13 (2): 92-94; Fig. 4 A-D.

Type Locality: Copăceni and Voluntaru (Bezirk Ilfov, Romania).

Syntypes: 1 male 27.IX.1962 (Copăceni); 6 males, 2.VIII.1964 (Copăceni); 7 males, 5.IX.–15.IX.1964 (Copăceni); 3 males, 18.IV.1962 (Voluntaru); all leg. HONDRU.

Materials

Type status: Other material. Occurrence: catalogNumber: SMNS_DIP_022418 ; recordedBy: A. Rosenbauer; individualCount: 1; sex: male; lifeStage: adult; occurrenceID: 7107FC9B-2E75-5A97-9485-2607DA1BB442; Taxon: scientificName: Bradysia spinidensa ; Location: country: Germany; stateProvince: Baden-Württemberg; locality: Backnang, Katharinenplaisir, Streuobstwiese ; verbatimElevation: 294 m; verbatimCoordinates: 48°57'19.34"N 9°26'25.82"E; Identification: identifiedBy: Roy J. Canty & Hans-Georg Rudzinski; Event: samplingProtocol: Malaise Trap; eventDate: 28/V–16/VI/2014; Record Level: ownerInstitutionCode: SMNS GoogleMaps

Type status: Other material. Occurrence: catalogNumber: SMNS_DIP_022646 ; recordedBy: A. Rosenbauer; individualCount: 1; sex: male; lifeStage: adult; occurrenceID: CBBFD3AE-63FB-5B64-9F91-D77E6666F2FF; Taxon: scientificName: Bradysia spinidensa ; Location: country: Germany; stateProvince: Baden-Württemberg; locality: Backnang, Katharinenplaisir, Streuobstwiese ; verbatimElevation: 294 m; verbatimCoordinates: 48°57'19.34"N 9°26'25.82"E; Identification: identifiedBy: Roy J. Canty & Hans-Georg Rudzinski; Event: samplingProtocol: Malaise Trap; eventDate: 28/V–16/VI/2014; Record Level: ownerInstitutionCode: SMNS GoogleMaps

Type status: Other material. Occurrence: catalogNumber: SMNS_DIP_029186 ; recordedBy: HTW-Dresden / SMNS; individualCount: 1; sex: male; lifeStage: adult; occurrenceID: ED80888B-0952-5C8D-AF9A-E7F2E7D28E99; Taxon: scientificName: Bradysia spinidensa ; Location: country: Germany; stateProvince: Sachsen; locality: Lkr. Sächsische Schweiz-Osterzgebirge, Bad Gottleuba-Berggießhübel, NSG-Mittelgebirgslandschaft um Oelsen, Sattelbergwiese ; verbatimElevation: 607 m; verbatimCoordinates: 50°47'24.18"N 13°55'50.2212"E; Identification: identifiedBy: Roy J. Canty & Hans-Georg Rudzinski; Event: samplingProtocol: Malaise Trap; eventDate: 03/V–16/VI/2014; Record Level: ownerInstitutionCode: SMNS GoogleMaps

Type status: Other material. Occurrence: catalogNumber: SMNS_DIP_029207 ; recordedBy: HTW-Dresden / SMNS; individualCount: 1; sex: male; lifeStage: adult; occurrenceID: D8138DAC-A30C-56F3-8351-DB137AD85B06; Taxon: scientificName: Bradysia spinidensa ; Location: country: Germany; stateProvince: Sachsen; locality: Lkr. Sächsische Schweiz-Osterzgebirge, Bad Gottleuba-Berggießhübel, NSG-Mittelgebirgslandschaft um Oelsen, Sattelbergwiese ; verbatimElevation: 607 m; verbatimCoordinates: 50°47'24.18"N 13°55'50.2212"E; Identification: identifiedBy: Roy J. Canty & Hans-Georg Rudzinski; Event: samplingProtocol: Malaise Trap; eventDate: 03/V–16/VI/2014; Record Level: ownerInstitutionCode: SMNS GoogleMaps

Type status: Other material. Occurrence: catalogNumber: ZFMK-TIS-2583290 ; recordedBy: M. Jaschhof, C. Jaschhof, M. Karström; individualCount: 1; sex: male; lifeStage: adult; occurrenceID: EA3F5E0C-5C6A-5F03-9297-8679CF048B5E; Taxon: scientificName: Bradysia edwardsi ; Location: country: Sweden; locality: Jokkmokk, Vuollerim ; verbatimCoordinates: 66°25'47.830"N 20°37'27.771"E; Identification: identifiedBy: K. Heller; Event: samplingProtocol: Malaise Trap; eventDate: 17/XI/2016; Record Level: ownerInstitutionCode: ZFMK GoogleMaps

Type status: Other material. Occurrence: catalogNumber: ZFMK-TIS-2583313 ; recordedBy: M. Jaschhof, C. Jaschhof, M. Karström; individualCount: 1; sex: male; lifeStage: adult; occurrenceID: 3C810A48-2FB5-52A8-BE3B-D0833D134321; Taxon: scientificName: Bradysia edwardsi ; Location: country: Sweden; locality: Jokkmokk, Vuollerim ; verbatimCoordinates: 66°25'47.830"N 20°37'27.771"E; Identification: identifiedBy: K. Heller; Event: samplingProtocol: Malaise Trap; eventDate: 17/XI/2016; Record Level: ownerInstitutionCode: ZFMK GoogleMaps

Diagnosis

All based on specimens observed ( 6 specimens). The gonostylus (Fig. 1 View Figure 1 B 1 & B 2) with: 3–4 claw-like spines found apically-subapically on the inside; 4–5 hyaline spines (1 subapical, 3–4 spines inside the inner groove, typically paired). L / mB index of the gonostylus is in the range of 2.11–2.625.

In comparison with B. polonica , the gonostylus tends to be thinner (with a higher L / mB index), and with fewer claw-like spines on the apex-subapex, albeit with some overlap. The main consistent difference between B. spinidensa and B. polonica is the number and formation of the hyaline spines. B. spinidensa has 4–5 hyaline spines which are arranged in pairs inside the inner groove, compared to the 6–10 hzaline spines in B. polonica , which are arranged randomly inside the inner groove.

Taxon discussion

While the differences might appear to be minor, the fact that these differences are consistent and congruent with our molecular groups strongly suggests that these are two separate species. As stated in our introduction, Bradysia edwardsi is clearly congruent with Bradysia polonica ; however, the same level of certainty is not available regarding Bradysia spinidensa .

When Menzel and Mohrig (2000) synonymised B. spinidensa with B. polonica , they did so without explaining their reasoning and without having observed the type material of B. spinidensa , as they could not confirm its location due to the lack of response to their enquiries with Hondru’s place of work (unnamed), which they attributed to the political and financial situation in Romania at the time ( Menzel and Mohrig 2000). Our own enquiries with the Grigore Antipa National Museum of Natural History, Bucharest; the Natural History Museum, Faculty of Biology, University Alexandru Ioan Cuza in Iasi; and the Institute of Biology Bucharest of the Romanian Academy found that there are no specimens of B. spinidensa or other specimens identified by Hondru in their collections. Enquiries into what turned out to be Hondru’s last place of work, the Research Development Institute for Plant Protection, Bucharest ( ICDPP), also did not lead to finding the type material. Despite the impossibility to study the type material, we consider the original description as sufficiently informative to question Menzel and Mohrig's synonymy.

The original description of B. spinidensa by Hondru (1968) is very minimal, with very little detail provided. However, the drawings of the hypopygium and gonostyli provided by Hondru (1968; fig. 4 A and B, page 93) do appear to resemble the hypopygium and gonostyli of our specimens in both size and shape, especially with the more elongate gonostyli compared to those of B. polonica . Additionally, Hondru (1968) described the gonostylus of B. spinidensa as having two strong spines on the inner-side of the gonostylus (the thicker, darker spines): one apically, the other subapically and inside the inner groove. While this is one or two fewer spines than what we observed, it is possible that the specimens studied by Hondru were damaged, that spines were overlooked, or that they genuinely had one or two fewer than stated in the description.

It could also be that the specimens here identified as B. spinidensa potentially represent a so-far undescribed species that shows only minimal divergence from the Romanian species B. spinidensa . However, describing this taxon as new, without being completely sure, would not contribute to a more stable taxonomy. With no material available from the type locality of B. spinidensa , which would allow for direct comparisons, and with the type specimens still missing, we cannot be completely certain that our specimens represent a new species. We therefore refrain from describing it as a separate species at this time. The German specimens show morphological similarities to B. spinidensa , with only minor differences in the gonostyli the origin and taxonomic significance of which remain uncertain.

For the above reasons and despite the holotype of B. spinidensa being probably lost, we also cannot designate a neotype for that nominal species. None of our specimens were collected from anywhere near the type locality, which would not satisfy article 75.3. 6 of the ICZN (1999). The mentioned uncertainty regarding the conspecificity of our specimens with B. spinidensa would also not satisfy article 75.3. 5 of the ICZN (1999).