Chagasia fajardi Lutz 1904
Creators: name: Harbach, Ralph E.
name: Howard, Theresa M.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2009
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Diptera
Culicidae
Chagasia
Chagasia fajardi

description: Chagasia fajardi (Lutz, 1904)
fajardi (Lutz, 1904), in Bourroul, 1904: 64 (Ƥ, Pyretophorus), types Ƥ (location unknown): Cantareira, São Paulo, Brazil.
neivae Cruz, 1906: 199 (Ƥ), syntypes Ƥ (location unknown): Juiz de Fóra, Minas Gerais, Brazil; synonymy by Theobald (1907: 123). Belkin et al., 1971: 2 (type data).
maculata Peryassú, 1921b: 141 (A, as fajardi variety), type (s) A (location unknown): Parque em Cambuquira, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Peryassú, 1923: 63 (as Chagasia maculata, catalogue); Belkin et al., 1971: 2 (type data).
stigmopteryx Martini, 1932: 276–277 (Ƥ, as fajardi variety), holotype Ƥ (IP): Butantan, São Paulo, Brazil. Belkin et al., 1971: 2 (type data).
Diagnosis. The adults of Ch. fajardi are distinguished from those of other species of Chagasia as follows: front of anterior promontory with white (usually) or slightly yellowish scales contiguous but not contrasting with white dorsocentral scales (distinction from Ch. ablusa, Ch. bathana and Ch. bonneae); acrostichal scales pale anteriorly, dark posteriorly (Fig. 3 B) (distinction from Ch. bathana and Ch. bonneae); usually with short line of pale scales (easily lost) on mesal margin of supraalar scales (unique) (Fig. 3 B); wing dark-scaled with speckling of pale scales on proximal half of costa and spots of pale scales (unique) (Fig. 6) on radius (R) before furcation of radius-one (R1) and radial sector (R s), junction of radiomedial crossvein (rm) and mediatwo (M2) and sometimes at base of rm (rm occasionally completely pale-scaled), pale scaling and spots weak or absent in males making them indistinguishable from males of Ch. rozeboomi; hindtibia without semi-erect clusters of dark scales (Fig. 4 B) (distinction from Ch. ablusa, Ch. bathana and Ch. bonneae); hindtarsomeres 2–5 without postbasal dark band (distinction from Ch. bathana), basal pale band of hindtarsomere 2 moderately long, 1.67–3.71 (mean = 2.16) length of apical dark band (Fig. 5 C) (distinction from Ch. ablusa), hindtarsomere 5 with apical dark band (distinction from Ch. bonneae). Males are distinguished by the presence of two stout specialised seta on the dorsomesal prominence of the gonocoxite (distinction from Ch. ablusa) and fine setae on the claspette (distinctions from Ch. bathana and Ch. bonneae). The larva and pupa of Ch. fajardi are not known with certainty and they cannot be distinguished from other species of Chagasia based on currently available information (see Discussion below).
Neotype designation. Lane (1953) indicated that the “ types of Ch. fajardi were in the collection of the Instituto Oswaldo Cruz (IOC), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, but they were not found when the collection was examined by Belkin et al. (1971). The location has since been regarded as unknown (Knight & Stone, 1977), but insofar as the specimens have never been found and are not listed among the type specimens deposited in the IOC (Marchon-Silva et al., 1996), it must be assumed that they no longer exist. Consequently, in the interest of taxonomic stability, a neotype is designated here to fix the identity of Ch. fajardi and distinguish the species from Ch. ablusa. NEOTYPE, hereby designated, adult female bearing the following labels: “ Brasil / S. Paulo / Coqueiros [geographical location: Jardinopolis, São Paulo State, 21 0' 0" S, 47 50' 0" W] / Col. Duret / 18.ix.54 ” // “ Chagasia / fajardoi [sic] (Lutz, 1904) / J. P. Duret-Det. 1968”. The neotype is deposited in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA.
Etymology. Adolfo Lutz dedicated this species to his friend Francisco Fajardo, but apparently inadvertently dropped the last letter of his surname (Kitzmiller, 1982) when he described it as Pyretophorus fajardi. The name was subsequently amended to fajardoi and commonly used in the mosquito taxonomic literature until the original spelling gradually became accepted following publication of the world catalogues of Culicidae by Stone et al. (1959) and Knight & Stone (1977). As indicated above, the names of three nominal forms are junior synonyms of Ch. fajardi. Anopheles neivae was described by Oswaldo Cruz in honour of Dr Arthur Neiva (Cruz, 1906: 200), a medical doctor who devoted his career to medical entomology and malaria (Kitzmiller, 1982). Chagasia fajardi variety maculata Peryassú, 1921 and Ch. fajardi variety stigmopteryx Martini, 1932 were named for the two pale spots borne on the wing (see above). It is obvious that neither Peryassú (1921) nor Martini (1932) were aware that the pale spots are normally present in the species.
Discussion. The larva and pupa of Ch. fajardi are to all intents and purposes unknown. Specimens of these life stages were not available during the present study and published descriptions and illustrations (see literature listed below) are too superficial and incomplete to provide diagnostic and differential characters for their identification and separation from Ch. ablusa, Ch. bathana and Ch. bonneae.
Root (1927: 475) stated that the shape of the genital lobe distinguished the pupa of Ch. fajardi from the pupa of Ch. bonneae, but this is not the case. Root apparently did not realise that the genital lobe is differently formed in males and females, and actually compared the female pupa of Ch. fajardi with the male pupa of Ch. bonneae.
The historical perception that Ch. fajardi is principally a dark-winged form is not supported by the specimens available for the present study. The two pale spots on the wing, although variable in size and distinctness, are almost always present. In the few specimens where the spots appear to be indistinct or absence, scattered pale scales are generally clearly visible on the proximal portion of the costa. However, it is possible, perhaps probable, that another species is involved. This possibility is based on six specimens (four females; 2 males) from Água Limpa, Minas Gerais? (or Goias?), Brazil, with entirely dark wings that one of us (REH) had identified as Ch. rozeboomi until it was noted that the larval exuviae of two specimens could not be that species. Extensive collection and comparative study, and perhaps the application of molecular methods, are needed to determine whether these are melanic specimens of Ch. fajardi or an undescribed species.
Distribution. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and? Guyana. The occurrence of Ch. fajardi in Bolivia requires confirmation as reports of the species in that country may refer to Ch. ablusa. Based on the credible distribution of Ch. fajardi in southern Brazil and northern Argentina (Forattini, 2002: 241), the occurrence of Ch. fajardi in Guyana seems unlikely. Specimens of Chagasia from Bolivia and Guyana were not available for the present study.
Material examined. One hundred and thirty-six specimens: ARGENTINA, Misiones, Eldorado (3Ƥ), Iguazú Falls (1Ƥ), Montecarto (1Ƥ), Puerto Rico (4Ƥ), uncertain localities (4Ƥ). BRAZIL, Bahia, Bomfim (4Ƥ); Mato Grosso do Sul, Maracaju (82Ƥ, 13); Minas Gerais, Abadia dos Dourados (1Ƥ); Rio de Janeiro, District Federal (1Ƥ), Macieira (1Ƥ); São Paulo, Avaré (1Ƥ), Coqueiros (15Ƥ, 23, 23G), Guaratinoveta (1Ƥ), Ribeirão Preto (6Ƥ); unknown localities (5Ƥ).
Literature. Blanchard, 1905: 623 (unjustified emendation to fajardoi); Theobald, 1907: 123–124 (Ƥ); Peryassú, 1908: 41, 61, 122–125, 334–336, 361–362 (as fajardoi, Brazil, Ƥ* E* L*); Theobald, 1910: 75–76 (as fajardoi, Brazil, Ƥ* E* L*); Surcouf & Gonzalez-Rincones, 1911: 42–44 (as fajardoi, Brazil, Ƥ); Howard et al., 1913: 143 (as fajardoi, E); Howard et al., 1917: 992 (as fajardoi, E L); Dyar, 1918: 149 (Brazil, synonymy); Peryassú, 1921a: 71 (as fajardoi, Ƥ*); Peryassú, 1923: 63 (as fajardoi, catalogue); Christophers, 1924: 10, 15, 78 (catalogue); Root, 1927: 476–479 (as fajardoi, Brazil, 3* Ƥ* L* P*); Dyar, 1928: 428, 431– 432 (as farjardi, Argentina, Brazil, 3 Ƥ L); Shannon & del Ponte, 1928: 61–64 (as fajardoi, Argentina, 3* Ƥ E* L*); Shannon, 1931: 152, 153 (as fajardoi, taxonomy); Edwards, 1932: 32, Pl. 1 Figs 1, 2, 4, Pl. 5 Fig. 8 (as fajardoi, type data, A* 3* E L*, bionomics); Pinto, 1932: 293 (Brazil, bionomics); Senevet, 1934: 67 (P key); Galvão & Barretto, 1938: 110, 114, 115, Fig. 10 (as fajardoi, Brazil, E*); Galvão & Barretto, 1939: 114– 115, Pls XXIII, XXIV (as fajardoi, Brazil, E* L*); Pinto, 1939: 305 (Guyana [as Guiana], 3); Gabaldon et al., 1940: 58–61 (as fajardoi, A L* P); Corréa & Ramos, 1942: 38, 39, 43, 44 (as fajardoi, Brazil, L); Floch & Abonnenc, 1942: 1–3 (as fajardoi, Ƥ); Simmons & Aitkin, 1942: 39, 41, 48, 54, 62–63 (3 Ƥ L keys, distribution, bionomics); Coutinho et al., 1944: 8, 11, 18 (as fajardoi, Brazil, L, bionomics); Causey et al., 1945: 341, 342, 344–346, 348 (as fajardoi, Brazil, 3 Ƥ E* L*); Rachou, 1948: 715–717 (Brazil, distribution, L identification); Levi-Castillo, 1951: 79 (as fajardoi, list);? Romeo Viamonte & Castro, 1951: 319, 324, Fig. 12 (as fajardoi, Ƥ*); Gabaldon & Cova-Garcia, 1952: 179, 197, 198, Fig. 8H (as fajardoi, in part, Argentina,? Bolivia, Brazil); Lane, 1953: 139–144 (as fajardoi, in part, Argentina, Brazil,? Guyana, 3* Ƥ E* L* P*); Senevet, 1958: 8 (catalogue); Stone et al., 1959: 10 (as fajardoi, in part, catalogue, Argentina, Brazil,? Guyana [as British Guiana]); Villanueva Rodriguez, 1961: 217, 218 (as fajardoi, distribution); Forattini, 1962: 306, 468 (L*, distribution, A L keys); García & Ronderos, 1962: 139, 141, Figs 54, 59, 60–63, Map 1 (as fajardoi, Argentina, 3* Ƥ L* P, distribution); Forattini et al., 1970: 20 (as fajardoi, Brazil, collection); Belkin et al., 1971: 2 (type data); Deane, L.M. et al., 1971: 312, 314, 315, 317 (as fajardoi, Brazil, Ƥ, bionomics); Mattingly, 1971: Fig. 3 a (as fajardoi, Ƥ*); Neves & da Silva, 1973: 289, 291, 292 (as fajardoi, Brazil, A, bionomics); Neves & Pedersoli, 1976: 551 (as fajardoi, Brazil, Ƥ, bionomics); Knight & Stone, 1977: 68 (in part, catalogue, Argentina, Brazil,? Guyana); Wilke et al., 1980: 587–588 (as fajardoi, Brazil, collection data); Darsie, 1985: 1158, 172, 193, 221, 237 (Argentina, Ƥ, L, identification); Linley & Milstrey, 1995: 27, 32–38 (Brazil, E*); Lopes & Lozovei, 1995: 186, 187 (Brazil, L, bionomics); Guimarães, 1997: 30 (in part, catalogue, Argentina, Brazil,? Guyana); Harbach & Howard, 1997: 102 (Ƥ); Harbach & Kitching, 1998: 367; Reinert, 1999: 77 (as fajardoi, P); Sallum et al., 2000: 746, 749–754, 755, 757, 758, 759, 760, 763, 768, 769, 770 (3 Ƥ L P, cladistic analysis); Guimarães et al., 2001: 395, 396, 397 (as fajardoi, Brazil, Ƥ, bionomics); Forattini, 2002: 193, 194, 195, 238, 239, 241, 802 (A, L, E*, distribution); Guimarães et al., 2003: 1110, 1111, 1113, 1114 (as fajardoi, Brazil, Ƥ, bionomics); Alencar et al., 2005: 182–184 (Brazil, Ƥ, bionomics); Harbach & Kitching, 2005: 348, 351, 355, 356, 357, 358, 367–374 (3 Ƥ L P, cladistic analysis).
description: Published as part of Harbach, Ralph E. & Howard, Theresa M., 2009, Review of the genus Chagasia (Diptera: Culicidae: Anophelinae), pp. 1-25 in Zootaxa 2210 on pages 15-17, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.189830