Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 83. (Budapest 1991)

Papp, L.: Notes on the genus Richardsia L. Papp (Diptera, Sphaeroceridae)

Female terminalia 42/ T6 sclerotization rather strong, 2/3 as long as T5, S6 very small, ca. 1/4 width of T6; 43/ S7 and T7 sclerotization rather strong, also S7 wide, both with long marginal setae; (see more below); 44/ 2 spermathecae in the 6th segment; 45/ no spermathecal apodeme; 46-47/ spermathecae globular, without external collar, neck moderately long and weakly sclerotized; 48/ spermathecal sculpturing line-like: Male terminalia 49/ sternites 6 and 7 of an intricate form (Fig. 1); 50/ size of genital arch normal (Fig. 8 of PAPP 1973); 51/ epandrium normal with 8-10 very long macrosetae (Fig. 4); 52/ surstylus (Fig. 3) broad, with a short blunt posterior lobe, with several moderately long setae on lateral (outer) surface and with numerous short setae (thornlets) on medial (inner) surface; 53/ aedeagal apodeme robust though not long (Fig. 5); 54/epiphallus small, reduced but distinct (Figs 5, 7); 55-56/ preepiphallus absent; 57-62/distiphallus (Figs 5-6) very broad with a striking dorsal (? dorsolateral) pair of thin processes; 63/ arm of paramere without a cylindrical lobe (Fig. 8); 64/ paramere (Fig. 8) with a mesal lobe (or rather with a large anteromedial "hypandrial" lobe, see Fig. 2). For more details on body characters see the original desription. Other features of the terminalia: Male: no sclerotized cerci, at most a very narrow lath fused to epandrium; latter with a small cleft present ventrally and rather posteriorly (below surstyli); hypandrium in 3 parts (hypandrial apodeme and two lateral arms) with rather caudally placed parameres, connection to parameres very strong (Fig. 2); no postphallic sclerite. i.e. no direct sclerotized connection between basiphallus and epandrium; no ejaculatory apodeme of the usual form but transformed into a sclerotized "sperm pump" (Figs 5 and 7) joining to and merged with basiphallus; basiphallus short and stout; parameres of a rather characteristic shape and with large anteromedial "hypandrial" lobes; apical (dorso-apical) fleshy parts of distiphallus touching female terminalia in copulation, only dorsal (dorso-lateral) thin processes penetrate into the female postabdomen. Female: though postabdomen telescoping, howewer, S7 and T7 rather large and cover the more caudal parts in rest as well as when ovipositing (there are no flexible and stretching integumentum between the sclerites of the 7th segment and the more caudal sclerites; T8 an intricate structure (roughly H-shaped with numerous long and medium-sized setae) with a pair of cranially directed subdorsal processes, medially (sagittally) weakly sclerotized but not divided, dorsally covers (shields) cerci; cerci with 7 pairs of longwavely bent setae; epiproct forms a very narrow half of a ring only bearing a single medial pair of setae; S8 tripartite (with short hairs only): a pair of convex lateral parts and one long narrow medial part; S9 bipartite with several medium long setae, S9 cranial parts "interrupt" S8, i. e. inserted between lateral and medial part caudally; S8 and S9 form a semiglobular structure beneath T8 (and T7). In my opinion, Richardsia deserves a generic rank, indeed. However, it is not easy to decide on its position in the phylogenetic system of Copromyzini. As it was shown above, male genitalia are with a number of plesiomorphic features: epandrium with lateral cleft (though small), a well-developed hypandrial apodeme present, no postphallic sclerite, small but distinct epiphallus present, remnants (? if any) of cerci fused to epandrium. Several autapomorphies have been found: e. g. 2 rows of postoculars, much thickened costal vein, reduction of male cerci, enlarged ejaculatory apodeme transformed into a special "sperm pump" and fused basiphallus, the whole female terminalia are unique. However, there are several features in the above list which are shared apomorphies with Norrbomia and Achaetothorax (as for the genitalia, its short and stout basiphallus). The polarity of some characters used in the taxonomy of Copromyzini is still questionable and as it was mentioned in the introduction, not all genera have been revised hitherto. The way of the presentation of its characters allows an easy comparison to any copromyzine genus but no cladistic analysis is given here. The aim