Only one species of the genus Hybos Meigen was previously known to occur in Inner Mongolia. Here 4 species of Hybos are reported from this region. One species, Hybos daqinggouensis sp. nov., is described as new to science. A key to the known species of Hybos from Inner Mongolia is provided.
The genus Hybos Meigen is highly diversified in Asia. It is distributed worldwide with 217 known species, of which 14 species are distributed in the Palaearctic Region and 181 species in the Oriental Region (Yang et al. 2007; Yang 2008; Li & Yang 2009; Shi et al. 2009; Huo et al. 2010; Jiang et al. 2011; Yang & Li 2011; Plant 2013; Shamshev et al. 2013; Li et al. 2014; Shamshev et al. 2015). The major references dealing with the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Hybos are as follows: Brunetti (1920); Melander (1928); Frey (1938, 1953, 1954); Saigusa (1963, 1965); Smith (1965); Chvála (1983); Yang & Yang (2004); Plant (2013); Shamshev et al. (2013); Li et al. (2014); Shamshev et al. (2015). The then known 85 Chinese species including 6 species from Palaearctic China were reviewed by Yang & Yang (2004).
Inner Mongolia bordered with Mongolia belongs to Palaearctic China. Hybos from this region remains poorly known with only one recorded species, Hybos grossipes (Linnaeus, 1767) (Yang & Yang 2004). In the present paper, the following three species including one new species are added to the fauna of Inner Mongolia: Hybos daqinggouensis sp. nov., H. hubeiensis Yang & Yang and H. wudanganus Yang & Yang. A key to the species of Hybos from Inner Mongolia is provided.
Materials and Methods
Type specimens are deposited in the Entomological Museum of China Agricultural University (CAU), Beijing. Morphological terminology generally follows Cumming & Wood (2009). The following abbreviations are used: acr = acrostichal seta(e), ad = anterodorsal seta(e), av = anteroventral seta(e), dc = dorsocentral seta(e), npl = notopleural seta(e), oc = ocellar seta(e), pd = posterodorsal seta(e), ppn = postpronotal seta(e), prsc = prescutellar seta(e), psa = postalar seta(e), pv = posteroventral seta(e), sc = scutellar seta(e).
Results
Genus Hybos Meigen, 1803
DIAGNOSIS
Large to middle-sized. Eyes usually with upper facets enlarged; eyes narrowly but distinctly separated on face, not virtually contiguous. Proboscis strong, spinose, directed forward; labellum constricted for piercing, without pseudotracheae. Palpus slender, nearly as long as proboscis. Rs rather short (nearly as long as distance between humeral crossvein and extreme base of Rs); anal cell longer than cell bm; anal cell produced posteroapically, inner angle formed between CuA2 and A1 strongly acute with CuA2 usually distinctly curved; basal portion of M (separating basal cells) distinct. Legs strongly bristled. Hind femur distinctly to strongly swollen, with spinose ventral setae (Chvála 1983; Yang & Yang 2004).
Key to species (males) of Hybos from Inner Mongolia
1. Hind tibia without ad at middle; right surstylus not furcated 2
—. Hind tibia with 2 ad at middle; right surstylus irregularly furcated (Yang & Yang 2004, Fig. 279) H. hubeiensis Yang & Yang
2. First flagellomere shorter than scape and pedicel combined; hypandrium not as below 3
—. First flagellomere elongated, slightly longer than scape and pedicel combined; hypandrium with very short lateral process at middle (Fig. 4) H. daqinggouensis sp. nov.
3. Hind coxa with 3 spinose anterior setae apically; right surstylus short and wide (Yang & Yang 2004, Fig. 257) H. grossipes (Linnaeus)
—. Hind coxa without spinose anterior setae; right surstylus long and narrow (Yang & Yang 2004, Fig. 404) H. wudanganus Yang & Yang
1. Hybos daqinggouensis sp. nov. (Figs. 1–4)
DIAGNOSIS
First flagellomere elongate, slightly longer than scape and pedicel combined, without dorsal setula. Legs entirely black. Mid tibia with 2 ad; apically with 1 av and 1 pv long hair-like and apically curved. Acr irregularly quadriseriate. Hypandrium with short lateral process at middle, apically without long setae.
DESCRIPTION
Male. Body length 3.6–3.9 mm, wing length 3.0–3.5 mm.
Head. Black with gray pollinosity. Eyes contiguous on frons, brownish yellow, with distinctly enlarged upper facets. Setulae and setae on head black except postero-ventral setulae yellow; ocellar tubercle distinct, with 2 long oc and 2 short posterior setulae. Antenna black; scape without setulae, pedicel with circlet of subapical setulae; first flagellomere elongated, slightly longer than scape and pedicel combined, without dorsal setula; arista distinctly longer than basal 3 antennal segments, pubescent except apical 1/4 or so thin and bare. Proboscis slightly shorter than head, blackish or black. Palpus black, with 3 ventral setulae.
Thorax. Black with gray pollinosity. Setulae and setae on thorax black, setulae on scutum short and rather sparse; ppn absent, 2 npl (posterior npl long), irregularly quadriseriate acr, uniseriate hair-like dc nearly as long as acr, 1 long prsc, 1 psa slightly shorter than prsc; scutellum with 8 or 10 short marginal setulae (2 setulae between sc) and 2 long sc. Legs entirely black. Setulae on legs brown or brownish, setae black. Hind coxa apically with 2–3 spinose anterior setae. Fore femur 1.2 times and hind femur 2.7 times as wide as mid femur. Fore and mid femora each with row of very long, thin pv. Hind femur with 2–3 long, thin preapical ad, with about 3 rows of spinose ventral setae on tubercles (av relatively long, only 2–3 pv located at base). Fore and mid tibiae and tarsomere 1 with some long setulae. Fore tibia with 2 weak ad; apically with 1 short av. Mid tibia with 2 ad; apically with 1 av and 1 pv, very long and thin (av nearly as long as tarsomere 1). Hind tibia with row of 6–7 long ad and 8–9 long pd setulae; apically with 1 long erect subapical pd. Hind tarsomeres 1–2 with several short ventral spines. Wing nearly hyaline, slightly tinged grayish; stigma long, dark brown; veins dark brown, R4+5 and M1 weakly divergent apically. Squama brownish yellow with yellow setulae. Halter dark yellow except base brown and knob pale yellow.
Abdomen. Weakly or strongly curved downwards, subshiny black with pale gray pollinosity; hypopygium weakly swollen. Setulae and setae on abdomen dark yellow except hypopygium with some black setae.
Male genitalia (Figs. 1–4). Left epandrial lamella slightly longer than right epandrial lamella, with weakly convex inner margin near middle; left surstylus long and thick, with short basal process. Right epandrial lamella with concave inner margin near middle; right surstylus rather short and wide, with apical margin weakly incised. Hypandrium much longer than wide, deeply cleft with right lobe much shorter and apically pointed; left lobe rounded apically. Long setae on hypandrium lacking.
Female. Body length 3.6–3.9 mm, wing length 3.6–3.9 mm. Similar to male, pv on fore and mid femora shorter. Fore and mid tibiae and tarsomere 1 without long setulae.
TYPE MATERIAL
HOLOTYPE ♂, CHINA, Inner Mongolia, Tongliao, Daqinggou National Nature Reserve, Yuanshisenlin (E 122° 10′ 19″ N 42° 48′ 26″), 180 m, 23.VII.2014, N. Wang & D. Yang (CAU). Paratypes: 2 ♂♂, 8 ♀♀, same data as holotype (CAU).
DISTRIBUTION
China (Inner Mongolia).
REMARKS
The new species is somewhat similar to H. grosspies (Linnaeus), but it may be separated from the latter in the following characters: first flagellomere elongated, slightly longer than scape and pedicel combined; mid tibia with 2 ad, apically with 1 av and 1 pv thin hair-like and apically curved; left surstylus with small inner lateral process about 1/5 as long as outer lateral process; hypandrium with very short right lobe about 1/5 as long as left lobe, apically without long setae. In H. grosspies, the first flagellomere is shorter than scape and pedicel combined; the mid tibia has 3 ad, but apically with 1 av and 1 pv thick bristle-like and straight; the hypandrium has the long right lobe about 1/2 as long as left lobe and long setae apically; the left surstylus has a long inner lateral process about 1/3 as long as outer lateral process (Yang & Yang 2004; Shamshev et al. 2015).
ETYMOLOGY
The specific name refers to the type locality Daqinggou.
Figs. 1–4.
Hybos daqinggouensis sp. nov. (male). 1. Genitalia, dorsal view; 2. right surstylus; 3. left surstylus; 4. hypandrium, ventral view. Abbreviations: cer = cercus; lepn = left epandrial lamella; lsur = left surstylus; repn = right epandrial lamella; rsur = right surstylus. Scale bar = 0.1 mm.
2. Hybos grossipes (Linnaeus, 1767)
Musca grossipes Linnaeus, 1767: 988. Type locality:” Europa”.
MATERIAL
CHINA. Inner Mongolia: 3 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀, Erdos, Dongsheng (E 109° 45′ 7″ N 39° 47′ 55″), 7.VIII.2006, Maoling Sheng (CAU); 2 ♂♂, 11♀♀, Aershan, Wuliquan (E 119° 55′ 56″ N 47° 11′ 46″), 1,035 m, 26.VII.2014, N. Wang & D. Yang (CAU).
DISTRIBUTION
China (Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Ningxia, Shaanxi, Jilin, Shanxi, Hebei, Henan, Sichuan); Palaearctic Region.
REMARKS
For a full list of synonymies, see Yang et al. (2007). Yang & Yang (2004) reported that this species is distributed in Inner Mongolia.
3. Hybos hubeiensis Yang & Yang, 1991
Hybos hubeiensis Yang & Yang, 1991: 3. Type locality: China: Hubei, Wudang Mountain.
MATERIAL
CHINA. Inner Mongolia: 2♂♂, 1♀♀, Erdos, Dongsheng (E 109° 45′ 7″ N 39° 47′ 55″), 7.VIII.2006, Maoling Sheng (CAU).
DISTRIBUTION
China (Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Ningxia, Henan, Hubei).
REMARKS
This species was described in Hubei by Yang & Yang (1991) and also known to occur in Gansu and Henan (Yang & Yang 2004). Li & Yang (2009) recorded it from Ningxia.
4. Hybos wudanganus Yang & Yang, 1991
Hybos wudanganus Yang & Yang, 1991: 5. Type locality: Hubei, Wudang Mountain.
MATERIAL
CHINA. Inner Mongolia: 2♂♂, Erdos, Dongsheng (E 109° 45′ 7″ N 39° 47′ 55″), 7.VIII.2006, Maoling Sheng (CAU).
DISTRIBUTION
China (Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Henan, Hubei).
REMARKS
This species was described by Yang & Yang (1991) from Hubei and also known to occur in Henan (Yang & Yang 2004). Li & Yang (2009) recorded it from Ningxia. It is somewhat similar to H. grossipes, but may be separated from the latter by the hind coxa lacking spinose anterior setae and right surstylus long and narrow (Yang & Yang 2004).
Acknowledgments
We are very grateful to Ms. Chufei Tang (Beijing) for her help during the study and to Prof. Maoling Sheng (Shenyang) for collecting specimens. Four anonymous reviewers are thanked for providing useful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41301049, 31272354) and Special fund for basic scientific research project in the central scientific research institutes (Institute of Grassland Research of CAAS) (1610332014012).
