.... , , GE/.R E. E. 8("/ 1 Anna/es Entom%gici Fennici 54:107-113.1988 Je (ed. O. Kudrna), liption price (when Rocetelio'n, a new Holarctic genus of the Keroplatidae (Diptera, Mycetophiloidea): Description, phylogenetic and biogeographic ~ can agree with some notes (ample, that "None the s of rare or region~lIy lccessful, entirely miss ion"! Who has missed Loi'c Matile la.';t realized that agri­ ;lhle for the. production Matile, L. 1988: Rocetelion, a new Holarctic genus of the Keroplatidae (Diptera, )1' nature, ~~d they are Mycetophiloidea): Description, phylogenetic and biogeographic notes. - Ann. Entomol. I requests to introduce Fennici 54: i07-113. ; or that animal group". bioindicators, "whose The genus Rocetelion is proposed for the three nearctic species Cerotelion fascia/urn hose ofthe "rest" of the Garrett, Keroplatusfasciolus Coquilletl and K.fenestralis Fisher, and for the palaearctic K. ~an be agreed that bUI­ hllmeralis Zetterstedt. The new genus is mainly distinguished by its male gonostyle, which should we forget other suggests asister-group relationship with the afrotropical genusParacerotelion MatHe, rather crved together with the than with Cerute/ion Rondani or Eliceroplatus Edwards. The main characters of the genus :Juld we not usc seveml and a key to the species are given. The phylogenetic relationships established, and the lindicatorsofa valuable a~sign genLL~ nolnC{;essarily such a biogeographic conclusions which may be drawn from them, to thespecies ofthe 'alion (rcd data books, a minimum age of 40 million years. mmnnity conservation L. Matile,Laboratoired' Enlomologie, Museum nationald' Histoire naturel!e, 45, rUl!. de Buffon, F-75005 Paris, France lic part of the book wi 11 cs to cladistics secm to Index words: Taxonomy, Keroplatidae, Holarctic, Rocetelion gen. n., new combina· •many trivial detaiis on tions, key to species, phylogeny, biogeography subspecies should be )([hy of recognition in Is for this secm vagne. 'S aquila, Pseudophi/o­ elisted as sp~cies from 'ors or lapses. It is se­ In my thesis (Matile, 1986), I proposed the erection been attributed to Cerote/ion by Johannsen (1909). :1110t normally inhahit ofa new genus, Rocetelion, for four species previously Lundstrom (1914), who was the tirst to illustrate the nage. could extend il~ (1csClibed in, or attributed to, the genera (or subgenera male genitalia of the species, did not accept the sepa­ ufly species is known 1'0 pages laler Polyom­ according to some· authors), Kerop/arus Bose, Cero­ ration ofKerop/arus and Cerote/ion, and therefore kept ;l-:<ln species knowl1 to te/ion Rondani or Eucerop/arus Edwards. Of these it in Kerop/arus. Edwards recognized this division in 'nes is said lO have only species, three are nearctic, Cerotelionjasciatum Gar­ his generic revision of 1925, and placed humera/e with Finland. Picris dapii­ NorcJmannia won/bum rett, Kerop/atu.sjascio/us Coquillelt and K.jenesira/is C. linearum, while he noted the importance of ile Pieris chloridice is Fisher, and one Northern European, Kerop/atus hu­ differences between the genitalia of the two species. ·0 herll and Nymphalis mera/is Zetterstedt. The British specialist may have had later doubts about tonics in Finland (they As regards nomenclature, this monograph does not the generic position ofR. humera/e. since this species Jlllplcmentary Finnish constitute a publication [International Code of zoo­ is not cited in his paper of 1929, where the only . book presents many hgical Nomenclature, 1985, an. 9 (11)], although the European species of Cerote/ion mentioned is C. for the critical reader. data other than nomenclatural should be considered to /inearwn. Hutson, Ackland and Kidd (1980) and .on of nom inal species have been published, as is usual for the French Doc­ Hackman (1980) nevenheless kept the species in '.s. The general outline Hlllne for indigenous torat d' Etat theses (see Hewitt & Rousset, 1985). The Cerote/ion. Its distribution is Nonhern European, ::.lI1sideralion together main purpose of the present paper is to make the new extending from Great Britain to the European USSR. 'proaches do not seem generic name and description available; a key to the Kerop/arus jascio/us was described by Coquillelt ntary. species, not included in my thesis, is given as well and (1894) from the state of Washington; the author later a shOit account of the phylogenetic and biogeo!,'Taphi­ (1895) placed the species in "P/aryura" (=Orfe/ia). a cal data. course which was followed by Johannsen (1910). It no Vaisanen Described in Kerop/atus by Zetterstedt (1850) was assigned to Kerop/atus, subgenus Eucerop/ams. from Scandinavia ("Jemtl;U;dia"), R. humera/e has by Fisher (1941), who cites a specimen from 108 Matile: Rocetelion, a new Holarctic genus of the Keroplatidae ... "Mapewate", Arkansas. Laffoon (1965) did not retain The male genitaliaofR.fpsciatumandR.fenestrale are this locality (see below) and added California to the distinctive (cf. Figs. 11-12 and 13-14). As regards R. distribution ofthe species. No other records are given, fasciolum, it differs from the other species of Roce- but the distribution ofthe known specimens is typically telion in the presence ofa distinct antennal apicule, and western, a fact which makes me very doubtful about several other characters, and cannot therefore be either the identification or the locality ofthe specimen conspecific with any of them. ofR .jasciolumcitedby Fisherfrom Arkansas. She was unable to find Mapewate on any map and as the label is badly written, she suggests that it could be Maple­ Rocetelion gen. n. vale, Pulaski Co. There are several Pulaskis in the U.S., but I suggestthatthereal locality ofthe specimen might Type-species: Cerotelion fasciatus Garrett. be Maple Valley, in the State of Washington. Cerotelion 'Jasciatus" was described by Garrett Derivatio nominis: anagram of Cerotelion. Gen­ from British Columbia. Fisher, in herthesis (1937), left der: neutral. Figs. 1-5. Roc~ (Garrett). 1-2) hea~ the species in Cerotelion, but later (1941) placed it in Species: R. fasciatum, comb. n. (Cerotelion fas­ view; 3) antenna) Keroplatus (Euceroplatus), adding to this distribution ciatus Garrett, 1925:12); R.fasciolum, conlb. n. (Cero­ view; 4) wing. dor two localities from the States of Washington and platus fasciolus Coquilleu, 1894:126); R. fenestrale, coxae and frrst al California. comb. n. (Ceroplatusfenes~ralis Fisher, 1938:197); R. lateral view. Fisher (1937) had been unable to place Cerotelion humerale, comb. n. (Ceroplatus humeralis Zetterstedt, jasciatum in any ofthe subgenera ofher"Ceroplatus", 1850:3445). a group which she recognized as polyphyletic. In 1938, While not fonnally named, the genus was de­ she descri~~ Keroplatus fenestralis from Michigan scribed and illustrated in detail in Matile, 1986. A outerface inR.j and placed it in the subgenus Euceroplatus. In 1941, shorter diagnosis is given here. and outer faces having been able to study a male of C.jasciatum, she Head (Figs. 1-2) wider than high. Three ocelli, the with regular rc considered herjenestralis to be a "variety"ofGarrett's median one smaller, the lateral large, their distance appearing as ( species (but nomenclatorially treated it as a sub­ from the eye margin 1.5 times their own diameter (R. magnification, species). Moreover, she put forward the hypothesis jasciatum, R.jasciolum) oralmost twice theirdiameter regularrows, al that both jasciatwn and fenestralis might be only (R .fenestraIe,R. humerale). Eyes deeply emarginated, the anterior fa' varieties of K. fasciolus, the male of which was then, pilosity short. Antennae: scape and pedicel short and fasciolum (tibi and still is, unkown. She placed these taxa in cylindrical. Fourteen flagellomeres, widened and available specir Euceroplatus on the basis of the arrangement of the flattened (Fig. 3). Last flagellomere much longer than rows, some clo~ tibial setulae in regular rows. wide, without tenninal apicule, except in R.fasciolum, species. Spurs ] The genitalia of the two North American species in which it is small and rounded. Face wide, bare and length ofthe ou for which males are known, and of the European weakly sclerotised, except in R.fasciolum, in which it II with a reducl species K. humeralis, are very different from those of is more strongly sclerotised, and bears a few ventral between spurs, l Euceroplatus, Cerotelion and a new genus erected for setae. Labella short, membranous on the inside. comb, a small the species-group "Euceroplatus" bellulus Williston, Palpifer small and well sclerotised. First palpomere large, but made as defined in MatHe, 1986. I propose to erect the new very small, second large and porrect. protarsus I 2.3 genus Rocetelion for these species. The new taxon is Thorax (Fig. 5): scutum weakly arched, evenly from 1.6 to 1: characterizedby the dorsoventral flattening ofthe male covered with short setae, the lateral and prescutellar serrulated, witl gonostyles, which also bear an internal sclerotised setae longer. Scutellum bare on disc, except in R. Wing (Fig. plate, by the small cerci, and the presence of a large jenestrale and R. humerale, where it bears one or two lobereduced;n membranous area ventrally dividing the gonocoxal pairs ofdiscal setae, marginal setae numerous, short, in R.fasciolum an synsclerite. Moreover, it can be distinguished from several rows. Mediotergite strongly jutting out from anterior margin Euceroplatus and Cerotelion by the scutellum bearing scutellum, rounded at apex, bare. Pleurae bare except (R.fasciatum) 4 several rows of short apical setae, and by the elongate proepisternum and antepronotum, and mesan­ weak, situated foretarsus. episternum, which bears a group of short dorsal setae. oblique (a litt] Like Fisher, I was able to study the type of R. Coxae with posterior apical setae"except II-III in reaching wing jasciolum, some ofthe metatypes ofR.fasciatum, and R.fasciatum and R.fasciolum. Tibial setulae regularly R4+5, R5 and .I a specimen of R. jenestrale (from Alaska), which and irregularly arranged. Tibia I with regular rows side.