o .eg an Jo of En1tomol0lD' - Norsk entomologisk forening

eared. Additional material studied: W. Norway,
Lundeelv, J61ster Sept. 1980, G. A. Halvorsen
leg., I male; Finse nr. Blliisen, 13 Aug. 1980, E.
Willassen leg., 2 males. Lectotype and paralectotypes:
labeled: Beeren Eiland, Holmgren Gn addition
on lectotype: rev. D.R. Oliver 1959), Riksmuseum
Stockholm (numbers 81 382-389),5 males
and 3 females (including I female with genitalia
missing).
As indicated by the list of synonyms the taxonomic
history of D. hyperborea is rather confusing.
Part of the problems may be traced back to
the inaccurate original description of the species.
Kieffer's (J 918) first description of D. ursus from
Bear Island was nothing more than a brief differential
diagnosis separating D. ursus from D. hyperborea.
One of the characters used was the
number of flagellomeres. Holmgren (1869) counted
only 10 flagellomeres in the male of D. hyperborea,
while Kieffer found 1'3 in D. ursus. With a
modern microscope Holmgren would have seen
that the number of flagellomeres in D. hyperborea
actually is 13, but adjacent flagellomeres may occasionally
be partly fused. Oliver (1962), when
examining Holmgren's type series did not make
microscopic preparations of the specimens, except
for the hypopygium of the lectotype which he designated.
He did not comment on the error committed
by Holmgren when describing the antenna.
The original description of D. ursus was later
corrected and improved by Kieffer (1919) himself,
and Pagast (1947) redescribed D. ursus from Kieffer's
material. Srether (1968) described D. ursus
from Finse, Norway, and referring to Kieffer
(1919), Pagast (1947), and Oliver (1962) pointed
out morphological differences between D. ursus
and D. hyperborea. Comparison of the type series
of D. hyperborea and material from W. Norway
shows that these characters are intraspecific variations.
The types of D. hyperborea show AR values
ranging from 0.28 to 0.35, and LR values of the
front leg from 0.54 to 0.59 (Only three specimens
could be measured). Specimens from W. Norway
show AR values from 0.33 to 0.47 and LR values
from 0.60 to 0.63. (The AR values for D. hyperborea
given by Oliver (J 962), from 0.32 to 0.46,
must have been measured on the pinned types or
on additional material from Bear 1. available to
him.). Kieffer (1919) states for D. ursus: «Vordertibia
fast urn 4/ 5 liinger als der Metatarsus».
This would give LR about 0.56. The proportions
of the front leg were the other main character
used by Kieffer to separate D. ursus from D.
hyperborea.
Serra-Tosio (1971) described D. ursus from two
males collected in N. Sweden. He must have overlooked
that Oliver's (J 962) treatment of D. hyperborea
in part was based on the type material because
he states that he regards D. ursus and D. hyperborea
as distinct, but that the species described
by Oliver actually is D. ursus and not D. hyperborea.
Accordingly, he regards D. hyperborea sensu
Oliver as a synonym of D. ursus.
Paradoxically, when Oliver (1962) suggested D.
ursus as a synonym of D. hyperborea he referred
to Edwards (1922) who stated that D. urslls is
smaller than D. hyperborea but otherwise the
same. However, the species described as D. ursus
and D. hyperborea by Edwards (1922) were misidentified
females of D. bohemani and D. bertrami
respectively. The males of these two species were
described and named at later dates,
Pagast (1947) regarded D. davisi as a possible
synonym of D. hyperborea. Srether (1968) referred
to Pagast (1947) and to Edwards (1922: fig.
12) concerning D. hyperborea. Hansen and Cook
(J 976) refer to Edwards (1922: fig. 11) (D. ursus
sensu Edwards) stating that Srether (1968) questioned
the determination by Edwards. Accordingly,
D. ursus was regarded as a possible synonym
of D. davisi by Hansen and Cook (1976).
According to Serra-Tosio (1971) D. hyperborea
(as D. ursus) is distinct from the alpine Diamesa
cinerella Meigen primarily by antennal characters.
D. cinerella has an AR about 0.6. The AR
alone would place some of the stlecimens from
Ekse (AR 0.33-0.47) between D. cinerella and
D. ursus as described by Serra-Tosio. At least
some of the additional characters listed by Serra­
Tosio as distinguishing the two species (anal lobe
of the wing, setae on the volsella, enlarged part of
the gonostylus) are subject to variation in the material
available to us. Thus, D. hyperborea might
show up to be a junior synonym of D. cinerella.
Specimens of D. cinerella have, however, not
been examined by us.
Diamesa latitarsis (Goetghebuerl sensu Edwards
8 Jul.-26 Aug. 1976 about 50 males and females,
9 Jul 1979 3 reared mature pupae, 26 Jul.
1976 4 reared mature pupae.
Diamesa lindrothi Goetghebuer
24 Jun- I Sept. 1976 about 40 males and females.
Diamesa n. sp.
24 Jun. - 30 Sept. 1976 53 males and 8 females.
The species is a member of the Diamesa davisi
group and will be described elsewhere.
Diamesa thienemanni Kieffer
24 Jun.-7 Det. 1976 21 males, 26 Jul. 1979 I
male reared, 24 Jun. 1980 3 reared mature pupae.
D. thienemanni is possibly a junior synonym of
Diamesa tonsa (Haliday). Pagast (1947) stated that
D. tonsa is separable from D. thienemanni by lower
antennal ratio only. This character is used in
the keys to the British species in Pinder (1978),
where the hypopygia figured for D. tonsa and D.
thienemanni appear very different. Putative types
of D. tonsa have been examined, and the relationships
between the two species will be discussed
elsewhere.
Pseudodiamesa branickii (Nowicki)
10 Aug, 1976 I male, I Sept. 1976 I male,
118