Marilia simulans Forsslund 1935

Marilia simulans Forsslund 1935

(Fig. 12)

Marilia simulans Forsslund 1935: 27 A no 31, 7–8, f 6a–6c. Type locality: China (Si-chuan).

Material examined. Holotype male with the following labels: Pencil label handwritten with cursive writing appearing to be the following: “ror 7” Pencil label, handwritten with upper and lower case block letters: “Sven Hedins exp. [indecipherable] CenterAsien Leg. Dr. Hummel.” Printed label: “N.O. Szechuan: Ufer von Kia-ling-ho swischen Naupo Und Pao-ning-fu 16.V.1930 [Hummel leg.]” Pencil label, handwritten with upper and lower case block letters: “ Marilia simulans Forssl. Typus ♂ n. sp. ” Printed label: “NHRS-TOBI 000000856” Printed label: “Loan 0 0 1/2016 NHRS-TOBI 000000856” This holotype specimen is missing the following body parts: Left flagellum beyond segment 3; Maxillary and labial palps; Left foreleg; Right wings; Abdominal segments VI–X. The remaining specimen has been cleared and is mostly transparent. The left wings remain, but are frayed, without setae other than the bristles on the forewing anal vein, and the dorsal and ventral cuticular layers have separated, so that parts of these wings could not be illustrated.

Remarks. The wing venation of this species closely resembles that of M. discaulis. Each hind wing has a small posterobasal lobe (not shown in Fig. 12 Fp); any long basal brush of setae is missing, but the lobe has many setal alveoli, suggesting that the brush was present in the undamaged specimen. Also, the compound eyes are separated from each other and the intervening setal warts are poorly defined, as in M. discaulis. The genitalia were illustrated in lateral and ventral views by Forsslund (1935). Marilia simulans differs from M. discaulis by the following characters: (1) the lateral view of tergum X was depicted as a slender and acute structure in M. simulans, but is nearly rounded in M. discaulis (Fig. 10A); 2) the harpago of each inferior appendage is about 3 times as long as its width and is almost 1/3 as long as the coxopodite in lateral or ventral views in M. simulans, but it is only 2 times as long as its width and is not quite 1/5 as long as the coxopodite in lateral or ventral views in M. discaulis (Figs. 10A, 10C). Despite these apparent differences, until modern specimens of M. simulans can be found, we cannot know with confidence whether M. simulans and M. discaulis are different species. Because of the need to be able to speak about readily identifiable species, we choose to consider them distinct species unless and until better evidence becomes available.

Distribution. Oriental Biogeographic Region, southern China (Si-chuan).