Aprionus internuntius Jaschhof 2003

• Main Authors: Jaschhof, Mathias, Jaschhof, Catrin
• Format: Other/Unknown Material
• Language: unknown
• Published: Zenodo 2020
• Subjects: Biodiversity; Taxonomy; Animalia; Arthropoda; Insecta; Diptera; Cecidomyiidae; Aprionus; Aprionus internuntius; Norway; Lule Lappmark; Pite Lappmark; Finnmark; karelia*; Nordland; Norrbotten
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3717884; http://treatment.plazi.org/id/039C87F9FFD0FF9FFF2CF9D5815E7469

Aprionus internuntius Jaschhof Our earlier decision to synonymize A. internuntius Jaschhof, 2003 with A. stylifer Mamaev, 1998 is reversed here (Jaschhof & Jaschhof 2009: 242). Fresh specimens of A. internuntius we recently obtained from various sites in southern Sweden were instrumental in helping us realize that there are subtle but stable distinctions in their morphology, which are described below. In Sweden, A. internuntius tends to be more southerly distributed (Skåne, Östergötland, Uppland) than A. stylifer (Uppland, Västerbotten, Pite Lappmark, Norrbotten, Lule Lappmark), with some overlap in the hemiboreal zone. Our reexamination of the A. stylifer material in the NHRS and SDEI (Jaschhof & Jaschhof 2009: 242) showed that most specimens were correctly identified in the past, confirming this species to be present in Norway (Akershus, Finnmark) and Finland, whereas other specimens proved to be misidentified, representing the first findings of A. internuntius in Norway (Akershus, inner southern Nordland). The Akershus site, in southern Norway, is remarkable for being the only place where both species were found to co-occur. Another misidentification we noticed is a specimen from Russian Karelia labeled as A. stylifer (spn. FENN 2175 in NHRS), which our reexamination revealed to belong to neither A. stylifer nor A. internuntius but to an unnamed Aprionus . Diagnosis. Within the A. flavidus (Winnertz) group (Jaschhof & Jaschhof 2009: 228 ff.), both A. internuntius and A. stylifer are distinguished by the finger-like processes of the tegmen being unusually thin and situated in a cavity near the apex rather than in the center. As a distinction, in A. internuntius the cavity is slightly larger and more clearly defined (Jaschhof 2003: fig. 2C) compared with A. stylifer (Jaschhof & Jaschhof 2009: fig. 77C). A more obvious difference is the posterior edge of the subanal plate, which in A. internuntius is markedly concave medially and equipped with two short processes laterally, whereas in A. stylifer ...