---

Hi! I think I found some Carnids! They are a bit under 2 mms. On animal dropping. Male:

---

female. Look the nice yellow halteres!

---

3

---

Correct. Some Meoneura

---

Thanks! The male is so small, that I'mafraid if I tried do cut terminalia off and put it in KOH I'd destroy it, so I think I1ll cut the whole abdomen off. But later, now I have hundreds of fresh specimens of every kind (atrhropods mainly), so no time for microscope...

---

Hi, can this Carnid be determined? What is that appendage?

---

2

---

2

---

3

---

I'll ask Andrey Ozerov :@

---

Irina Brake should be able to tell you as well.

---

Andrey needs lateral view of genitalia and frons colour.

---

Thank You, I'll make lateral shots at weekend (the thing just did not want to show the side...). All the head was black.

---

Hi, I made new pics, hopefully they help!

---

2

---

3

---

According Andrey Ozerov it is
M. cf. pseudotriangularis L.Papp

---

Thank You very much and many thanks for Andrey Ozerov. When was it described? How could it be more sure?

Again, I found a species decribed by Papp :)

---

PS: Too bad, Dr. Papp does not seem to use his email-adress... So I can't ask him about his opinion.

---

I did someresearch on this one, and I managed to find the article in University Library describing this species:

Papp, L. Milichiidae and Carnidae (Diptera) from Mongolia. (1976) Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hun. 22 (3-4) 369-387.

Holotype male: Central aimak: Ulan-Baator, Nucht im Bogdo ul, 12 km SE vom Zentrum, 1650 m, 3. VI, 1967 (Nr. 762), Dr. Z. Kaszab.

It has a middle-long secription, so far I can tell that halters of my specimens are consistent to the description. But tarsal joints should be black. Genitalie more or less fit, but now I see that I will have t make new photos of them, maybe clear it a bit more in NaOH. Also, pics of frons are needed.

I'm really excited aboute this specimen, it may be a new species to the family of Europe! AFAIK, it is known only by the holotype from Mongolia :D

---

This is the original description of Meoneura pseudotriangularis:

A moderately pruinose species with black thorax and legs. Frontal triangle shiny, terminating in anterior 7/17 of frons. Frons, facial plate and genae black, only anterior margin of frons with some dark reddish tinge. Gena not wide, its narrowest section less than 1/4 of eye lenght. Though dorsal side of holotype rather damaged, surely 3 pairs of dorsocentrals present. Also tarsal joints wholly black; fore femur poseroventrally with 2 strong bristles, joined by a shorter one subapically. Wing brownish, veins darker brown, costa without spiniform setae. Wing dimensions of holotype: 1.06x0.47 mm. Stalk of halteres brown, knob yellow. Basic structure of male genitalia similar to that of triangularis Coll.: no lamellae present, base of surstylus very wide, not triangular but spade-shaped, comparatively larger than in triangularis, its anterior edge with a row of long, thin, setifrom hairs. Genital vault similar to that of triangularis, with some short and ventro-perianally one long and comparatively thick hair. Aedeagus short and thick, basally very stout, apically attenuating. Body lenght: holotype male: 1.20 mm.

M. pseudotriangularis can be distinguished form triangularis Collin by the shape of the male surstylus and the shorter frontal triangle.

And I've re-drawn the original drawings of male genitalia: first the genital vault and surstylus laterally and below surstylus at its greatest expansion.

---

Now here are some new images of genitalia: surstylus is similar but much sharper. But my specimen is really different from any other Meoneura I have a description of.

---

And here is the head: can someone check the forementioned characters?

---

frontal:

---

I have been asked for my opinion, so I will try...

From the last surstylus photo I would say this is probably Meoneura triangularis (see http://diptera.my...iangularis), because as Walter wrote, the surstylus is sharper than in M. pseudotriangularis. However, I am never quite sure with this species, nor with many other Meoneura species for that matter because it is not clear how much variation there is in the male genitalia within one species. I am generally more of a 'lumper', while some of my collegues tend to be 'splitters' describing new species based on small differences.
Anyhow, the genus needs a revision badly, with a detailed study of the male genitalia of all species (types), not forgetting the shape and setation of the distiphallus, which has been sadly overlooked so far.

Irina Brake

---

Thank You very much! It does look more like triangularis than pseudotriangularis, good that I have made new photos with light from above, instead of the old ones with light from under. So, triangularis it should be (until someone splits triangularis up in additional species).

Thank You!!!

Walter