Bengalia jejuna
Creators: name: Rognes, Knut
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2018
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Diptera
Calliphoridae
Bengalia
Bengalia jejuna

description: Bengalia jejuna (Fabricius, 1787)
(Figs 100–130)
Musca ieiuna Fabricius, 1787: 342. Incorrect original spelling of jejuna Fabricius, 1787, in accordance with Article 33.3.1 of the Code (ICZN 1999). 3 female syntypes (NHMD, recently given the labels “ zmuc / 00027291–93”; examined). Type locality: India (Tamil Nadu province, Tarangambadi [as “Habitat Tranquebariae Dom. Lund”]) (Fig. 126). [No index to species names in Fabricius (1787)]. Male to be proposed as neotype (NHMD), labelled “Madras / Galatea / Jejuna / F.” [handwritten] (Figs 127–129) [see discussion under “ Type material examined”.]
Musca jeiuna: Fabricius (1794: 312). Incorrect subsequent spelling of jejuna Fabricius, 1787 [as ieiuna]. [No index to species names in Fabricius (1794)].
Musca jejuna: Fabricius (1805: 283). Correct original spelling of ieiuna Fabricius, in accordance with Article 33.3.1 of the Code (ICZN 1999) [in the index to species names in Fabricius (1805), only the spelling jejuna is listed, not ieiuna or jeiuna, cf. http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/15663120].
Additional remarks. Thompson & Pont (1994) were the first to record the three spellings of the Fabrician name. But in all the relevant literature published after Fabricius’s works only the spelling jejuna has been used. Surcouf (1920: 39) cited the year 1794 as the publication year for jejuna, but never used the spelling in that work (jeiuna). Townsend (1931b) saw the three syntypes in NHMD. He did not cite the year of Fabricius’s work(s), but only used the spelling jejuna. Zimsen (1964), who reported on the collections of Fabricius in detail, used the spelling jejuna while referring both to “Mant. Ins. II p. 342 · 2” (= Fabricius 1787), where the spelling is ieiuna, and to “Syst. Ant. 1805 p. 283 · 1” (= Fabricius 1805), where the spelling is jejuna. To summarize, even though the spelling jejuna has been in prevailing usage, it has either been attributed to Fabricius (1787), where the spelling is ieiuna (James [1977: 529]; Rueda [1985: 349]; Kurahashi et al. [1997: 42]; Kurahashi & Magpayo [2000: 43]; Verves [2005: 239]), or to Fabricius (1794), where the spelling is jeiuna (Wiedemann [1830: 386; citing “Ent.syst IV.312.1” from 1794]; Surcouf [1920: 39]; James [1966: 471]; Senior-White [1930: 69]; Senior-White et al. [1940: 88]; Kurahashi [2001: 243]; Lehrer [2005: 143]). I have not found any author giving the source of the name jejuna as Fabricius (1805), where the spelling jejuna was first introduced in a published work. On all labels I have seen, including old ones from 1809 (Westermann), only the spelling jejuna occurs. Even the original Fabricius label on the “ zmuc / 00027291” specimen reads “ Musca / jejuna ” (Fig. 126).
Article 33.3.1 of the Code (ICZN 1999) sets two conditions for an incorrect subsequent spelling to be conserved. The first is that the “incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage”. This condition is fully satisfied in the jejuna case. The second is that the “incorrect subsequent spelling … is attributed to the publication of the original spelling”. This condition is only partly satisfied in the jejuna case, since the name is attributed to the publication of the original spelling (i.e., Fabricius 1787) only in about half of the investigated papers. One should keep in mind, however, that it is likely that many authors do not check the original publication when a species name is attributed to its author, but tend to follow the attribution given in some main reference works at hand, e.g., James (1977) and Senior-White et al. (1940). Therefore, I would not give too much weight to the fact that not all authors attribute the name jejuna (the subsequent spelling) to the publication of the original spelling (Fabricius 1787).
With this in mind, I will interpret the Code to the effect that the subsequent spelling (jejuna) and the attribution (to Fabricius’s 1787 work) are to be preserved, and that this subsequent spelling is deemed to be the correct original spelling. This is also the spelling used by Fabricius in his own handwriting on the only preserved label (Fig. 126) on any of the three syntypes in NHMD.
Musca jejuna: Wiedemann (1830: 386).
Homodexia obscuripennis BigoT, 1885 a: xxvi [1885b: xxvi]. HoloType ♂ [noT female as sTaTed in The original publicaTion; apparenTly a lapsus, since The label gives The sex as “ ♂ ”; see also Senior-WhiTe (1924: 104, under “ lateralis Macq. ”)] (NHMUK; examined), by monotypy. Type locality: Sri Lanka (as “ Ceylan ”).
Musca jejuna: Surcouf (1920: 39).
Musca torosa: Surcouf (1920: 39). As synonym under jejuna.
Bengalia lateralis: Senior-White (1923a: 304; Plate I, fig. 7; Plate V). Misidentification, not lateralis Macquart, 1844: 277 (= Musca torosa Wiedemann) (India [various localities]; fore leg and terminalia figured).
Bengalia lateralis: Senior-White (1924: 104). Misidentification, not lateralis Macquart, 1844: 277 (= Musca torosa Wiedemann) (India [various localities]).
Bengalia lateralis: Senior-White (1926: 137). Misidentification, not lateralis Macquart, 1844: 277 (= Musca torosa Wiedemann) (India [various localities]).
Bengalia lateralis: Senior-White et al. (1940: 91, fig. 43). Misidentification, not lateralis Macquart, 1844: 277 (= Musca torosa Wiedemann) (terminalia figured).
[? Bengalia jejuna: James (1966: 471) (Philippines [“ A male and female from Brooke’s Point, Uring Uring, and a headless female … Manatlingajan Range, Pinigisan.” (…) “The male genitalia are not significantly different [my emphasis] from those of specimens from South India which I have used for comparison”]). [Both females have been recovered in NHMD and examined, but are unidentifiable. The male has not been recovered, it is not present in NHMD, nor has it been found in WSU. There are four males under B. jejuna in WSU from South India (“Coimbatore”) that James possibly used for comparison. Three of them are specimens of Bengalia kanoi Kurahashi & Magpayo, 2000, only the fourth is B. jejuna. This male (see Fig. 125) and one of the B. kanoi males had their terminalia exposed with the distiphallus clearly visible, but all four had the ST5 flap exposed. This casts doubt on James’s ability to correctly distinguish a male B. jejuna from a male B. kanoi from the Philippines. Note that the second species was undescribed at James’s time. This record is not accepted but is listed with a question mark for the sake of completeness.]
Bengalia jejuna: James (1977: 529; catalogue entry).
Musca ieiuna: Thompson & Pont (1994: 84).
Musca jeiuna: Thompson & Pont (1994: 86).
Musca jejuna: Thompson & Pont (1994: 87).
Bengalia jejuna: Kurahashi et al. (1997: 42) (no own material from Malaysia and Singapore, only a citation of the catalogue entry of James [1977]) for “Malaya”).
Bengalia jejuna: Kurahashi & Magpayo (2000: 43) (no own material from the Philippines, only a citation of the dubious record of James [1966] from that country, see above).
Bengalia jejuna: Kurahashi (2001: 243) (Sri Lanka).
Gangelomyia evafoneae Lehrer, 2005: 115. HoloType ♂ (NHMUK; examined), by original designaTion. Type localiTy: India (Dhimbam, Biligirirangan Hills). Syn. nov.
Gangelomyia senausmarta Lehrer, 2005: 128. HoloType ♂ (NHMUK; noT examined, buT Terminalia well illusTraTed), by original designation. Type locality: Peradeniya, Sri Lanka (as “ Ceylan ”). Unavailable name, published in synonymy, cf. Rognes (2005: 456, 468). Syn. nov.
Bengalia jejuna: Verves (2005: 239; catalogue entry).
Gangelomyia evafonea e: Lehrer (2006a: 10) (Sri Lanka [as “Ceylan”], Suduganga [a record repeated from Lehrer (2005)]; all material examined).
Diagnosis. Male. Length: 13.0–16.0mm (n=4). Frons at vertex / head width ratio 0.29–0.31 (mean 0.30, n=5). Head in profile (Fig. 106) without a concavity along the posterior eye margin. Anepimeron with a bundle of 9–12 black setulae in upper part, otherwise with only pale setulae (Fig. 108). Fore tibia with 3–4 spinous setae in proximal fourth (Fig. 113). T3 and T4 with dark marginal bands varying from 1/6 to almost 1/2 of tergite length. T5 varying from mostly pale to entirely dark (Fig. 127). ST5 flap (Figs 107, 116, 121) broad, with hind margin straight or very slightly concave, and with rounded lateral angles; dorsal side concave (Fig. 121). Cercus broad throughout in posterior view, narrowing abruptly near tip to form a short pointed process (Figs 100, 114). Surstylus narrow in posterior view (Figs 100, 114), broadly oval in its broadest aspect, broadest below middle (Fig. 102, 115). Bacilliform sclerite process simple, with an oblique distal margin (Figs 101, 115). Distiphallus with dorsal wall constricted at middle (Fig. 103). Distal lip process (dlp) of complex structure, broader than long and with broad wing-like projecting membranes in dorsal view (Figs 103–105, 109, 117, 123, 125). Both ventral and lateral winglike membranes denticulate along margin (Fig. 123). Semidomes with characteristic outline in apical view (Figs 109, 123–124). Pre- and postgonites as in Figs 110, 122.
Female. Unknown.
Discussion. This is a rare species from the Indian subcontinent. Malloch (1927) saw four specimens of B. jejuna compared to 51 of B. torosa (as lateralis). In the present study I examined 11 specimens of B. jejuna and 97 of B. torosa. Lehrer’s nominal species Gangelomyia evafoneae (Figs 114–124) is obviously the same as B. jejuna. See Rognes (2006) on Lehrer’s (2005: 145) view of Musca jejuna Fabricius and Musca torosa Wiedemann as “ nomina dubia, qui ne peuvent être utilisés dans la taxonomie moderne”. Lehrer (2005) created his nominal species Gangelomyia senausmarta on the basis of a male, believing he could thus avoid the problem of deciding on the identity of these old names based on alleged females. He keyed G. evafoneae as separate from G. senausmarta on the basis of the shape of the cerci in profile (Lehrer 2005: 112). The cerci of G. evafoneae were described in the first half of couplet 5 of the key, as: “Partie distale des cerques large [my emphasis], ayant la marge ventrale ondulée et un sommet mince [distal part of cerci broad, with the ventral margin undulating and tip pointed]”. The second half of couplet 5, which reads “Partie distale des cerques étroite [my emphasis] [distal part of cerci narrow]”, leads, via various choices, to G. senausmarta in the first part of key couplet 8, which reads “Partie distale des cerques large [my emphasis]”, the exact opposite. In short, the key is useless as an explanation of why the two nominal species were considered different taxa.
Biology. Maschwitz & Schönegge (1980) observed B. jejuna (and other Bengalia species) to lurk in the territories of different ants, robbing prey and brood from moving workers by using their forelegs and sometimes also the proboscis (Sri Lanka). Of decisive importance was that the ant prey was of a pale colour (like insect larvae or termites) and that it was being carried along, thus moving. The identity of Maschwitz & Schönegge’s B. jejuna was confirmed by B. Herting (SMNS) and myself (see list of records below). Bequaert (1922: 278–279) cites B. jejuna as capturing termites in India and Sri Lanka, but this was most likely based on misidentifications. I treat his account, below, under B. torosa.
Distribution. India *, Sri Lanka *.
Type material examined. Musca jejuna Fabricius, 1787. Three female SYNTYPES (NHMD) (Fig. 126). The first syntype is labelled (1) TYPE [black print on red label]; (2) Musca jejuna [old label in Fabricius’s handwriting]; (3) zmuc / 0 0 0 27291 [black print on white label]. The second syntype is labelled (1) TYPE [black print on red label]; (2) zmuc / 0 0 0 27292 [black print on white label]. The third syntype is labelled (1) TYPE [black print on red label]; (2) zmuc / 0 0 0 27293 [black print on white label].
Remarks on the syntypes of Musca jejuna. When I received the specimens, the second syntype (… 27292) was the rightmost specimen in the box, and it still is. This specimen is a female Bengalia torosa Wiedemann and it is also the smallest of the three syntypes. The other females are not identifiable at present. All specimens are from “ Tranquebar ” [= Tarangambadi] in the Tamil Nadu province of India. Surcouf (1920: 359) examined one of these syntypes. He wrote: “De plus le P r LUNDBECK a bien voulu nous communiquer le type en parfait état de FABRICIUS; … ”. However, it is not known which of the three syntypes he examined, although Townsend (1931b: 371) was of the opinion that Surcouf saw one of the two larger specimens “as proved by his giving length of 14 mm.”.
Zimsen (1964: 486) listed the syntypes as follows: “ Musca jejuna Mant. Ins. II p. 342 · 2 [1787] »Tranquebariae Dom. Lund«. (Syst. Ant. 1805 p. 283 · 1) – Copenhagen 3 specimens sine loc.”. The word “ Tranquebariae ” refers to the modern city of Tarangambadi, from 1620 to 1845 a small Danish colony on the South East coast of India. The expression “Dom. Lund” refers to the collection of Ove Sehested and Niels Tønder Lund (Zimsen 1964: 11).
Townsend (1931b: 371) also examined the material in NHMD. He correctly stated that there were three specimens in “Copenhagen Fab. Coll.”. He also said they were labelled “ Musca jejuna ”, but failed to state that only one specimen had such a label. It is also of interest to note that he gave the spelling as “ jejuna ”, as on the Fabricius label, and not as “ ieiuna ” as given by Fabricius (1787).
Further, Townsend (1931b: 371) stated that one of the three specimens was the “Female Ht.” and that the others were “ 2 female Pts.”. I do not think it is justified to treat the statement “Female Ht.” as a valid (indirect) lectotype fixation since none of the specimens is (was) recognizable or labelled as such, or labelled in a manner making it distinguishable or recognizable from the others. Note that this conclusion is different from the one reached by Rognes et al. (2015) regarding the implicit lectotype fixation by Townsend (1931b: 375) of a male specimen of Tachina westermanni Wiedemann, 1819 in NHMD, because in that instance the specimen cited was clearly recognizable.
Townsend also noted that “… the smallest of these 3 females is Bengalia lateralis Macq., and is hereby excluded, the species being restricted to the other 2 which measure 14 mm and are jejuna, Fab., Wied., Macq., Surc. ”. I do not think that Townsend was justified in excluding a syntype from the type series.
Thompson & Pont (1994: 84, under ieiuna) accepted Townsend’s (1931b) opinions and stated that a “HT ♀ ” is in “ UZMC ” (= NHMD). I do not accept this claim. There is no holotype in NHMD or elsewhere, only syntypes.
The smallest specimen [now labelled “ zmuc / 00027292”] is in fact a female of Bengalia lateralis Macquart, as correctly judged by Townsend, thus = Bengalia torosa (Wiedemann). The two larger specimens, both females as well, are not identifiable at the present state of knowledge, but they are not B. torosa.
In the past there have been differences of opinion over the interpretation of the name Bengalia jejuna (Fabricius). The confusion also involved the nominal species Bengalia lateralis Macquart (now B. torosa Wiedemann). This confusion led to the unfortunate situation in which the names B. jejuna and B. lateralis ended up being used to denote two different taxa by two different groups of authors. Bezzi (1913) illustrated the fore tibia of a species he called “ Beng. jejuna Fabr. ” as having two groups of strong, short setae. In this interpretation of “ jejuna ” he was followed by Senior-White (1923a, 1923b, 1924, 1926, 1930) and Senior-White et al. (1940). Senior-White (1923a, Plate IV) also provided excellent illustrations of the terminalia of his “ jejuna ”, reproduced by Senior-White et al. (1940: 89). Senior-White (1923a) named a related Indian species, with another arrangement of fore tibial setae, “ Bengalia lateralis Macquart ”, and illustrated the male terminalia of this species as well (his Plate V). These figures were also reproduced in Senior-White et al. (1940: 92).
Surcouf (1920) and Malloch (1927) disagreed with Bezzi’s interpretation. They were of the opinion that the species with the 5+2 arrangement (some variation was noted in the numbers of setae in each group) of the fore tibial spinous setae was the true Bengalia lateralis Macquart. Surcouf (1920: 37), having access to Macquart’s type, explained that “le thorax et le scutellum ont aussi une marge claire [the thorax and the scutellum also have a pale margin]” and Malloch (1927: 401) noted the presence of a “conspicuous broad margin of pale dust on each side of mesonotum and also on scutellum, which is most evident when the thorax is seen from behind, and this is not present to any appreciable extent in jejuna. I opine that Macquart named his species from this character. ...”. Malloch (1927: 402 fig. 4) illustrated the terminalia of his “ lateralis ”, his illustrations corresponding exactly to Senior-White’s figures of “ jejuna ”, and also noted a number of other features, including the concave hind margin of the eye in profile, the position of the vibrissa high “above the mouth-margin” and the anepimeron with pale setulae only. The species interpreted by Senior-White to carry the name “ jejuna ” was the same species that Malloch named “ lateralis ”.
James (1966) accepted Surcouf’s and Malloch’s views and in his Calliphoridae chapter in the Catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region (James 1977) also introduced Bengalia torosa (Wiedemann, 1819) as the valid name for Bengalia lateralis Macquart, 1844. The concepts of Bengalia jejuna and Bengalia torosa as established by James (1977) have since been universally accepted, except by Lehrer (2005) who introduced two brand new names: “ Gangelomyia senausmarta ” for Bengalia jejuna and “ Ochromyia jejutora ” for Bengalia torosa. Lehrer apparently did this in an effort to alleviate the confusion over the identity of the names, but also honestly believed the matter could be settled by such an approach. Lehrer’s actions were discussed by Rognes (2006).
From the facts above, and the widespread use of the name Musca jejuna Fabricius in the literature on Bengalia, there is obviously a need to fix the identity of the name in order to ensure stability and universality. There are three options for this:
(1) to do nothing and follow current usage regarding the interpretation of the name Musca jejuna Fabricius, 1787. This is a precarious situation, as exemplified by the actions of Lehrer (2005);
(2) to select the specimen labelled “ zmuc / 00027292” (identity = Musca torosa) as a lectotype for Musca jejuna Fabricius, 1787. This would imply that the senior name Bengalia jejuna (Fabricius) is transferred to the nominal species currently known as Bengalia torosa (Wiedemann) (fore tibia with spinous setae in a 5+2 arrangement; posterior margin of eye with a concavity in profile, etc.). This would revert nomenclature back to that of Senior-White (1923a, 1924, 1926) and Senior-White et al. (1940: 88, 89 fig. 42), now long abandoned, and would result in tremendous confusion and instability. The next oldest synonym, obscuripennis Bigot, which has never been used as a senior name, would then take priority as the valid specific name for the taxon currently referred to as Bengalia jejuna; or
(3) to exploit the possibility offered by Articles 75.5 and 75.6 of the Code (ICZN 1999) to replace namebearing types that are either unidentifiable or do not conform with prevailing usage by a neotype. This is the option I will follow. In a forthcoming paper I will request the Commission to set aside, under its plenary power, the namebearing types (i.e., all three syntypes of Musca jejuna Fabricius, 1787) and replace them with a neotype. This will resolve the problem once and for all, create the basis for a stable nomenclature, and prevent any worker from designating the “ zmuc / 00027292” specimen as lectotype for Musca jejuna and thereby creating nomenclatural chaos.
Proposed neotype of Musca jejuna Fabricius in NHMD. The specimen I will propose as neotype of Musca jejuna Fabricius, 1787 is specimen # 3 in the unit-tray for Bengalia jejuna (Fabricius) (a tray separate from the one with the 3 syntypes) in NHMD (Figs 127–130). It carries a yellow label with a double-lined black frame, with handwritten (not by Westermann) text as follows: “Madras / Galatea / Jejuna / F.”. It is a male and I have dissected it. The abdominal tergites are glued to a piece of card above the labels. T3 and T4 have broad, dark marginal bands and T5 is dark all over. The terminalia are in glycerol in a glass microvial pinned below the original label and conform to the current concept of Bengalia jejuna (Malloch 1927; James 1977). [The specimen is in fair condition, but the left wing was slightly broken along the costa because of the position of the specimen close to the top of the pin, and the left mid leg is lost. When packing the specimen for return, both wings were accidentally broken off and were glued to a card on a separate pin, with a copy of the locality label.] “Madras” is the old name for the city of Chennai, capital of the Tamil Nadu province of India. “ Tranquebar ” [now Tarangambadi] is located on the coast of the Tamil Nadu province, 150 km south of Chennai. “ Galatea ” on the label refers to the Danish corvette Galathea (sometimes also spelt Galatea), used during the first Galathea expedition (1845–1847) around the world (for more information on the expedition, see http://www. galathea 3.dk/uk/Menu/Historical%2bperspective.html). The specimen was likely collected by the entomologist of the expedition, Carl Emil Kiellerup (1822–1908) (http:// www.gravsted.dk/person.php?navn=carlemilkiellerup; https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Emil_Kiellerup). The ship visited Tranquebar, Pondicherry, Madras and Calcutta in India. Tranquebar was reached in October 1845, whereas Madras was reached later in the same month for maintenance and resupply (http://www.navalhistory.dk/ Danish/Historien/1814_1848/ Galathea1845.htm). The purpose of the visit to Tranquebar was to transfer sovereignty of the Danish Colony to the British East India Company. In November 1845 the ship reached Calcutta and the Danish possession of Serampore (“Frederiksnagore”), where Westermann lived from 1801 to 1811 (Pont 1995).
Homodexia obscuripennis Bigot, 1885a, 1885b. HOLOTYPE ♂ (NHMUK), labelled (1) Holo- / type [circular white label with red rim]; (2) Ceylon. / Ex coll. Bigot. / Pres. By / G. H. Verrall, / Oct. 1904. / 1904–274. [printed except first line, which is handwritten]; (3) BMNH (E) # / 241225 [printed on underside of label]; (4) H. obscuripennis. ♂. / omodexia / Ceylan. / J. Bigot [white label with black frame and three thin lines, handwritten by Bigot; the letters in the second line are handwritten obliquely downwards from the capital H in the first line, and appear not to be written in Bigot’s hand] [The wings are sooty, but the thoracic dorsum, pleuron and abdomen are yellow; abdomen with narrow black bands, about a sixth of the length of the tergites; all legs are present on both sides; the ST5 flap is visible].
Gangelomyia evafoneae Lehrer, 2005. Described based on the male holotype and two male paratypes. HOLOTYPE ♂ (NHMUK), labelled (1) HOLO / TYPE. [white circular label with red margin; printed]; (2) HOLOTYPUS [red label with black print]; (3) Dhimbam / Biligirirangan Hills / S. India 28-IV-37 [printed, except date]; (4) Bengalia ♂ / evafoneae Lehrer n. sp. / HOLOTYPUS / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / 2004 [printed] (Fig.
120) [On the left side of the holotype the mid and hind legs are in place but the foreleg is lost; the right foreleg is glued to a piece of card on the pin, above the labels, but the mid and hind right legs are lost; T1+2 with a narrow dark marginal band, T3 and T4 with broad bands, almost half the length of the tergites; T5 with a narrow dark marginal band; terminalia removed directly from under the abdominal tip, kept by Lehrer in glycerol in a big plastic vial; elements of the terminalia are infused with a substance partly blocking the penetration of light, thus making photography under a compound microscope futile; terminalia transferred to a glass microvial by me; the infused substance is most likely Canada balsam since the specimen was used for the preparation of Lehrer (2005: 116, fig. 50)]. PARATYPES (NHMUK): 1 ♂, labelled (1) Hot Wells, / Trincomali [=Trincomalee], / Ceylon. / 3.viii.1890. / Lt.col.Yerbury. / 92.192 [handwritten in pencil]; (2) O. obscuripennis ♂ Bigot / demandé en communication [handwritten by Surcouf?]; (3) Bengalia ♂ / evafoneae Lehrer n. sp. / Det. Dr. A. Z. LEHRER / 2004 [printed] [Dissected by Lehrer; terminalia moved from Lehrer’s big plastic vial to a small glass microvial by me]; • 1 ♂, labelled (1) CEYLON: / Suduganga. / 17.ii.1925. / In lab. [printed, except last two lines]; (2) Bengalia / lateralis, Macq. / det. R.Senior White. [handwritten except last line, which is printed]; (3) Purchd. From / R. Senior White / B.M.1938-460. [printed] [Head lost; dissected by Lehrer; terminalia moved from Lehrer’s big plastic vial to a small glass microvial by me; terminalia in a good state of preservation, apparently not infused with Canada balsam].
Other material examined. CNC. Sri Lanka: 1 ♂, labelled (1) Kahalla X-1967 / Katugastota C.P. / Ceylon 1600' / P.B. Karunaratne [printed, except date] (Fig. 111) [Dissected by me; abdominal tergites glued to a piece of card pinned above the label; terminalia in glycerol in glass microvial pinned below label]; 1 ♂, labelled (1) Okkampitiya. / U.P. CEYLON / 1-10.XII.67 / P.Karunaratne [printed] (Fig. 112) [Not dissected, but ST5 flap visible]. SMNS. Sri Lanka: 2 ♂, labelled (1) Ceylon / Maschwitz leg. [handwritten by Herting]; (2) Bengalia / jejuna F. / B. Herting det. [handwritten by Herting except last line, which is printed]; (3) Bengalia (m) / jejuna / (Fabricius, 1787) / K. Rognes det. 0 9 [printed, except handwritten 09] [ST5 flap visible]. WSU. India: 1 ♂, labelled (1) Coimbatore / S. INDIA XI-63 / P.S. Nathan [handwritten]; (2) 4 [number handwritten in pencil on small yellow label] [Terminalia extruded and distiphallus well visible (Fig. 125)]. [See also below, under B. kanoi, for other specimens from India placed in WSU under B. jejuna but misidentified.]
description: Published as part of Rognes, Knut, 2018, Revision of the Bengalia torosa Wiedemann, 1819 species-group (Diptera: Calliphoridae), with notes on the systematic position of B. robertsi Kurahashi, 1987 and B. subnitida James, 1964, pp. 1-71 in Zootaxa 4391 (1) on pages 27-34, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4391.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/1193860