Table Of ContentZOOSYSTEMATICA ROSSICA, 26(2): 337–368 25 DECEMBER 2017
The taxonomy of species globally described in or formerly included
in the genus Elachiptera and new combinations with Lasiochaeta
and Gampsocera (Diptera: Chloropidae)
Таксономия видов, описанных в роде Elachiptera или ранее
включенных в него, и новые комбинации с Lasiochaeta и Gampsocera
(Diptera: Chloropidae)
M. VON TSCHIRNHAUS
М. ФОН ЧИРНХАУС
M. von Tschirnhaus, Biological Collection, Faculty of Biology, University of Bielefeld, P.O. Box 100131, 33501
Bielefeld, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]
The taxonomic history for all species of a species-rich genus of the Chloropidae (Diptera) is
briefly presented for the first time, by the example of the genus Elachiptera Macquart, 1835.
Here, all names of the species group ever combined with the generic name Elachiptera are
listed together with the references and the first pages of their descriptions, their first transfer
into the valid genus, their senior and junior synonyms and further important references to
their taxonomical status. In addition, all names of the genus group that have ever been associ-
ated with these species names are listed together with their type species. Thirty new combi-
nations are introduced in order to transfer species from Melanochaeta Bezzi, 1906 (a syno-
nym of Oscinella Becker, 1909) to the valid genera Lasiochaeta Corti, 1909 and Gampsocera
Schiner, 1862. The known zoogeographical distribution of each of the 81 valid Elachiptera
species and 74 valid species in other genera is briefly summarized. Selected exemplary data on
larval habitats of Elachiptera are discussed.
На примере рода Elachiptera Macquart, 1835 впервые кратко рассмотрена история так-
сономического изучения всех видов для крупного рода из семейства Chloropidae (Dip-
tera). Составлен список всех названий группы вида, когда-либо использовавшихся в
сочетании с родовым названием Elachiptera; для каждого названия группы вида приво-
дятся ссылки на публикацию с первоописанием, на его первую страницу и на публика-
цию, в которой название впервые употребляется в сочетании с валидным родовым на-
званием; приводятся старшие и младшие синонимы и важнейшие ссылки, касающиеся
таксономического статуса. В дополнение составлен список всех названий группы рода,
которые когда-либо использовались в сочетании с этими видовыми названиями; приве-
дены их типовые виды. Предложено 30 новых комбинаций для видов, ранее относимых
к роду Melanochaeta Bezzi, 1906 (синоним Oscinella Becker, 1909), с валидными родовы-
ми названиями Lasiochaeta Corti, 1909 и Gampsocera Schiner, 1862. Кратко суммированы
данные по географическому распространению 81 валидного вида из рода Elachiptera и
74 видов, относящихся к другим родам. На отдельных примерах обсуждаются биотопы
развития личинок Elachiptera.
Key words: review, annotated bibliography, taxonomy, distribution, bionomics, Diptera,
Chloropidae, Elachiptera, Gampsocera, Javanoscinis, Lasiochaeta, Melanochaeta, new combi-
nations
Ключевые слова: обзор, аннотированная библиография, таксономия, распростране-
ние, биология, Diptera, Chloropidae, Elachiptera, Gampsocera, Javanoscinis, Lasiochaeta,
Melano chaeta, новые комбинации
© 2017 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes
338 M. VON TSCHIRNHAUS. TAXONOMY OF ELACHIPTERA
INTRODUCTION similar species in the genus Elachiptera.
Other authors also tried to separate those
I dedicate this article to the late Terry genera which were difficult to distinguish
Wheeler (8.VI.1960 – 25.VII.2017), one of in keys, namely, Corti (1909), Enderlein
the few world experts on Chloropidae since (1911), Becker (1910: 113; 1911b: 418;
his first of 37 publications on this family of 1912a: 73; 1912b: 159), Séguy (1938), and
flies in the year 1994. Cherian (2012a). The more helpful keys to
When reviewing the article of Liu et al. the relevant genera (Table 2) are listed here,
(2017) published in this volume it became in chronological order: Duda (1932–1933),
useful to put together all names of chlorop- Collin (1946), Sabrosky (1951), Anders-
ids worldwide which had ever been includ- son (1977), Nartshuk et al. (1970; English
ed in the genus Elachiptera Macquart, 1835 translation, 1989), Kanmiya (1983), Sabro-
at any one time. The main objective of this sky (1987), Ismay & Nartshuk (2000), and
paper is to give a complete overview on all Wheeler (2010). Keys to the Oriental and
names formerly used in combination with Australasian regions are missing since the
the taxon Elachiptera and all valid world antiquated keys of Becker (1911a: 85) and
species in this genus (see section “The in- Malloch (1940).
formation on the Tables” for the details).
Another aim of this publication is to update MATERIAL AND METHODS
the taxonomic status of species wrongly
placed into the genus Melanochaeta Bezzi, The author has collected 10488 pub-
1906. lished articles and books on Chloropidae.
The genus Elachiptera is included in a A file system facilitates the counting of the
monophyletic tribe Elachipterini Lioy, 1864 number of references to each scientific name
(l. c.: 1317), junior name Elachipteri Lioy, of the family (i.e. 4198 valid and invalid taxa
1895 (l. c.: 293), together with eight further of the species group) and to each individual
genera (see Nartshuk, 2012: 4, but Cerato- page of each publication on which a certain
barys Coquillett, 1898 was excluded as an name is treated. This source makes it pos-
accepted synonym of Elachiptera on page sible to count the number of references for
13 in the same article). Cherian (2012a: each name of the world Chloropidae.
3) widened this concept by including two This paper intends to give access to the
synonymous genera and the following literature as quick as possible. Hence, in
three valid genera, Allomedeia Mlynarek et many places of the text I cite exact pages if
Wheeler, 2010, Goniaspis Duda, 1930 and it is time-consuming and difficult to locate
Parameijerella Cherian, 1991. However, he the very information, especially for readers
has also used results of an unpublished M. not speaking German. In particular, long
Sc. thesis of Mlynarek (2009), which is per- books and articles by Enderlein, Duda and
manently available in the internet. Nothing Becker may be confusing as they are written
is cited or used of that thesis in the present in a very complicate German. The method
article. Julia Mlynarek (pers. comm.) in- applies also to other voluminous books like
formed me that a changed version is submit- Kanmiya (1983).
ted for publication. A long discussion about In this paper, author and year as part of
the difficulty of distinguishing the genera each taxon often stand also for the cited ref-
Elachiptera, Gampsocera Schiner, 1862, erence itself.
Gaurax Loew, 1863, Macrostyla Lioy, 1864, In order to minimize rows in Table 1,
Melanochaeta and Oscinella Becker, 1909 the following abbreviations are used: for
was published by Duda (1932: 22, 33; 1934: zoogeographical regions: Pa – Palaearctic,
63–65). In the latter key to Elachiptera of Na – Nearctic, Nt – Neotropical, Af – Afro-
the Oriental Region he lumped all those tropical, Or – Oriental, Au – Australasian;
© 2017 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes, Zoosystematica Rossica 26(2): 337–368
M. VON TSCHIRNHAUS. TAXONOMY OF ELACHIPTERA 339
for the names of genera: Cr. – Crassiseta, slightly shorter version of his generally cit-
C. – Cyrtomomyia, E. – Elachiptera, G. – ed later paper (Strobl, 1904).
Gampsocera, L. – Lasiochaeta, M. – Mela- All species ever treated for a certain time
nochaeta, O. – Oscinella. in Elachiptera are also included in Table 1.
Their actual systematic position is outlined
RESULTS with the relevant references.
The column “Pub.” (= number of titles
INFORMATION ON THE TABLES of published papers for each species) in Ta-
ble 1 partially demonstrates how dominant
In all modern catalogues of the Chlorop-
a certain species is in the chloropid fauna
idae of the six main zoogeographic regions
of its range and it can give an impression as
(Nartshuk, 1984; Sabrosky, 1965b, 1977b,
to how important a certain species may be
1980b, 1989; Sabrosky & Paganelli, 1984;
economically, phytopathologically, faunisti-
Paganelli & Papavero, 2007) together with
cally, ecologically, taxonomically or because
the listed synonyms, no sources are given
of peculiar morphological or behavioural
to indicate where the synonymy was es-
details. It may be helpful in deciding if an
tablished. This gap is closed for the species
intended research on a certain species could
listed in Table 1.
be promising. The section “Relation be-
The main objective of this paper is to
tween the number of species and the num-
give a complete overview of all names for-
ber of belonging publications” and Table 3
merly used in combination with the taxon
focus on the content of this column.
name Elachiptera and all valid world spe-
cies in this genus, namely, their junior
TAXONOMIC TRANSFERS
synonyms, errors or misspellings of their
OF SPECIES
names, justified or unjustified emendations,
transfers to the actually accepted valid ge- The separation of one of those genera
nus, stating in which genus a name has orig- mentioned in the introduction, Lasiochaeta
inally been described, listing of all genera in Corti (= Melanochaeta auctt., nec Bezzi),
which a species or name was treated in the is in part very problematical. Nartshuk &
past, listing of the sources with their exact Tschirnhaus (2012) discussed some of its
page on which a nomenclaturally important characters, e.g. tiny projections at the base
statement was first published, exact source of the scutellar setae, which can easily be
with page number for further noted infor- overlooked or may be interpreted as small
mation, the zoogeographical region from tubercles or homologues with the elongate
which a species or its junior synonyms was scutellar projections typical for the genus
described or successively reported. Elachiptera. The interspecific variation in
The exact year of description or nomen- the shape and length of those structures
clatural act is not always easy to find out does not allow a clear cut difference be-
as journals or single fasciculi of them often tween these genera. Kanmiya (1983: 100)
were later issued or distributed than print- had already noted a lack of constant dif-
ed on the flyleaf of the whole volume or on ferences in the ground pattern of the male
the separata, posted by the authors. Some of genitalia between these genera. Also, the
such cases are considered in the cited refer- surface structure of the scutum (= mesono-
ences, too. The year of the volume is set in tum), smooth or slightly punctate or rugose,
round brackets behind the volume number acrostichals evenly distributed or in rows,
in this case. An example is the Ethiopian do not distinguish the genera either. Many
synopsis of Becker (1911b); the species de- species of both taxa have been moved to and
scribed in it often are cited with year 1910. fro between the genera. Since the suppres-
Strobl (1902) published a Serbo-Croatian, sion of Melanochaeta Bezzi (Tschirnhaus
© 2017 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes, Zoosystematica Rossica 26(2): 337–368
340 M. VON TSCHIRNHAUS. TAXONOMY OF ELACHIPTERA
& Nartshuk, 2012; ICZN, 2014) in favour Gaurax, too. Emilia Nartshuk reviewed this
of Oscinella Becker, most species of the for- paper and communicated that in the past
mer genus Melanochaeta auctt. are not yet she had studied the types of three species
formally transferred to a valid genus. An from China, described in the genus Melano-
exception is the type species Lasiochaeta chaeta. Based on the first three characters
pubescens (Thalhammer, 1898) transferred mentioned above she has concluded that
by Tschirnhaus & Nartshuk (2012). Five they must be transferred to Gampsocera.
further species were already placed in a new She has agreed that those three new com-
combination with Lasiochaeta by Deeming binations are published here as follows (all
& El-Dhafer (2012): L. atricornis (Adams, pages on which the species are mentioned
1905), L. scapularis (Adams, 1905), L. flavo- in the paper with their original description
frontata (Becker, 1903), L. umbrosa (Becker, are added). So I propose the following new
1924), and L. vulgaris (Adams, 1905). combinations with Gampsocera:
The research revealed that the follow- Gampsocera beijingensis (Ch. Yang et
ing 28 taxa have to be formally removed D. Yang, 1990): 202, 204.
from Melanochaeta, after the decision of Gampsocera separata (Ch. Yang et
the ICZN (2014) being a synonym of Os- D. Yang, 1991b): 478–480, 482, 483.
cinella. The author has not seen any type Gampsocera separata fujianensis
specimen and it may be that certain species (D. Yang et Ch. Yang, 2004): 531, 539.
will be transferred in the future to the genus Gampsocera zhejiangensis (Ch. Yang et
Gampsocera Schiner, 1862 (see the chapter D. Yang, 1990): 202, 204.
Outlook). Species of that Elachiptera-like A task to investigate all the other type
genus have been treated by Cherian (2015), specimens is not in sight. The transfer to
but a phylogenetic study based also on mo- Lasiochaeta in this article is only a formal
lecular data is necessary to distinguish them act to give all those species a valid generic
from Elachiptera or Lasiochaeta species. name. The taxon Lasiochaeta means the
A different shape of the first flagel- same as the former name Melanochaeta
lomere (= third antennal segment) with sensu auctorum, nec Bezzi, 1906. At the mo-
anterodistal corner greatly extended (kid- ment, a reexamination of the type material
of all transferred 24 species is not necessary.
ney-shaped), lighter coloration of thorax
Below, a preliminary diagnosis of the genus
or spotted wings in males of some species
Lasiochaeta Corti, 1909 in the sense of Nar-
and all frontoorbital setae more or less
tshuk & Tschirnhaus (2012) is put together
equal in length, actually are the features
based on different descriptions and on the
for separating Gampsocera from the other
examined original material of the type spe-
two genera. Following Andersson (1977) I
cies L. pubescens and also on the material
re-investigated males of the type species G.
collected by me in the Afrotropical region.
numerata Heeger, 1858 collected by me in
This preliminary diagnosis should ease a fu-
Germany and by Hideyuki Mitsui in Japan.
ture study of the types of those 24 species,
Microscopic preparations of the mid femur
transferred below.
revealed that the typical femoral sensory
organ described by Ismay (1975) for males
Genus Lasiochaeta Corti, 1909
of 15 genera in the Oscinellinae is absent,
while it is well developed in Lasiochaeta Preliminary diagnosis. Thorax and ab-
pubescens (8–11 tubercles in an irregu- domen never black but brownish or ochre
lar row with sensillae of double length of or bicolorous; femora not thickened; mid
the diameter of a wart at the base of each femur in males with dorsal femoral organ;
sensilla). This result coincides with the ob- hind tibia with a distinct dorsal sensory
servation of Ismay (1975) and Andersson area (tibial organ), without a strong spur;
(1977) that the organ is absent in the genus anepisternum (= mesopleuron) without
© 2017 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes, Zoosystematica Rossica 26(2): 337–368
M. VON TSCHIRNHAUS. TAXONOMY OF ELACHIPTERA 341
hairs; facial carina absent, face flat; each Lasiochaeta comoroensis (Sabrosky,
side of labellum with three pseudotracheae; 1979): 320, 326, 327.
postocellar setae erect, convergent or cru- Lasiochaeta diabolus (Becker, 1913): 155.
ciate; ocellar setae upright (slightly pro- Lasiochaeta dubia (Lamb, 1918b): 386.
clinate) and divergent; scutum subshining, Lasiochaeta eunota (Loew, 1872): 104, 105.
moderately dull, without deeply impressed Lasiochaeta freyi (Duda, 1934): 67.
grooves; scutellum of the Oscinella-type, Lasiochaeta grandipunctata (Ch. Yang et
much broader than long and not rugose D. Yang, 1990): 201, 202, 204.
above, disc convex, rounded apically (not Lasiochaeta indistincta (Becker, 1911a):
trapezoidal) with slender long apical setae, 132, 134.
those not approximated; only one or two Lasiochaeta jinghongensis (Ch. Yang et
subapical marginal scutellar setae; marginal D. Yang, 1991b): 480, 481, 483.
setae of scutellum not born on distinct tu- Lasiochaeta kaw (Sabrosky, 1948): 365,
bercles or projections, but tiny warts as 366, 371, 372.
their basis may be present; 1+2 notopleural Lasiochaeta kunmingensis (Ch. Yang et
bristles, the upper hind one weaker, a small D. Yang, 1991b): 480, 481, 483.
upper anterior one partly present; vein R Lasiochaeta lii (Ch. Yang et D. Yang,
2+3
not exceptionally short; wing cell r below 1991b): 477–479, 482.
1
end of vein R not distinctly broader than Lasiochaeta lindbergi (Sabrosky, 1957):
1
cell r at the same level; head not much 5–7.
2+3
deeper than long, long axis of eye vertical; Lasiochaeta longistriata (Ch. Yang et
eye with pubescence; face in profile with D. Yang, 1991a): 472, 473, 475.
rounded vibrissal angle not exceeding an- Lasiochaeta melampus (Becker, 1912a):
terior edge of eye; frons with two or three 82, 84, 105.
strongly developed frontoorbital setae or Lasiochaeta menglaensis (Ch. Yang et
setae-like hairs, in front of them, between D. Yang, 1991a): 473, 475.
and behind them much shorter frontoorbit- Lasiochaeta neimengguensis (D. Yang et
als; frontal triangle not pitted, with at most Ch. Yang, 1990): 309, 310.
one row of fine interfrontal hairs along side Lasiochaeta nigritibiella (Becker, 1911b):
edge; frontal triangle smooth with moder- 434, 437.
ate pruinescence, or slightly dusted with Lasiochaeta opaca (Duda, 1932): 23, 30.
shining patches or edges, in tropical spe- Lasiochaeta palmata (Loew, 1852): 661.
cies partly shining; third antennal segment Lasiochaeta parca (Ch. Yang et D. Yang,
(= first flagellomere) rounded, its antero- 1991b): 481, 483.
distal corner not greatly extended as in Lasiochaeta pilosula (Becker, 1911b):
Gampsocera, its depth not exceeding twice 420, 421.
its length; arista subapical, never white, Lasiochaeta unimaculata (Ch. Yang et
slightly or distinctly thickened and partly D. Yang, 1991b): 476–478, 482.
slightly flattened, densely long-haired, in Lasiochaeta yunnanensis (Ch. Yang et
tropical species these characters partly less D. Yang, 1991b): 479, 480, 483.
distinct; body coloration in many species Sabrosky published 104 papers on Chlo-
strongly variable, colour influenced by the ropidae between 1935 and 1999. He studied
temperature during larval development. numerous chloropid types but did not al-
The following 24 species are listed here ways publish his findings. During the 17th
as new combinations with Lasiochaeta International Congress of Entomology in
Corti, 1909 preventing their automatic Hamburg, 1984, he organized a workshop on
transfer to Oscinella: Chloropidae and handed a draft of a “Check
Lasiochaeta bimaculata (Ch. Yang et List of the Chloropidae of the World (Di-
D. Yang, 1991b): 476–478, 482. ptera)” to selected participants including
© 2017 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes, Zoosystematica Rossica 26(2): 337–368
342 M. VON TSCHIRNHAUS. TAXONOMY OF ELACHIPTERA
the author of this paper. His provisional list name as a variety of E. cornuta. Attention is
excluded a large number of synonyms in or- needed as in the same paper (Strobl, 1894:
der not to prejudice decisions in the forth- 119) a new variety Oscinis frit nigripes Stro-
coming edition of the Palaearctic Catalogue bl, 1894, preoccupied by Oscinis nigripes
(Nartshuk, 1984). On the other hand, the Zetterstedt, 1848 (now in Aphanotrigo-
list of Sabrosky included unpublished re- num Duda, 1932) is described. Repeatedly,
sults of his taxonomic studies, among which among 119 articles on “O. frit nigripes” by
were two taxa for the first time listed in the the later authors the variety was used with
genus Melanochaeta, namely, Oscinis basi- a wrong author or a wrong genus. This puz-
laris Adams, 1905 (Adams, 1905: 192) and zling fact complicates sorting the identi-
Oscinella nigripalpis Becker, 1912 (Becker, cal names into the correct genus. Luckily,
1912c: 248). Both are herewith transferred Morge in his 14 publications on Strobl’s
from Oscinella to Lasiochaeta and are listed collection in Admont (Austria) which treat
as new combinations: Chloropidae, listed E. cornuta nigripes from
Lasiochaeta basilaris (Adams, 1905): 192. Strobl’s collection (Morge, 1978: 91, 129;
Lasiochaeta nigripalpis (Becker, 1912c): see also Morge, 1976). Thus, it should be
248. possible to compare Strobl’s material with
that collected now, a hundred years later. If
the old and new material is not conspecific,
THE NECESSITY OF SPLITTING
the question arises whether one of the other
ELACHIPTERA CORNUTA AND
synonyms of E. cornuta is conspecific with
DESCRIBING NEW SPECIES
the unnamed species from my own collec-
Splitting of some well-known species tions from high altitudes.
with many described subspecies or variet- One example from collecting chloropids
ies becomes necessary on the basis of stud- worldwide using a photoeclector (Černý &
ies of the genitalia or on other criteria (e.g. Tschirnhaus, 2014) may demonstrate the
the development of the diagnostic male mid dominance of Lasiochaeta species and most
femoral organ). The most abundant Pa- similar Elachiptera species and the necessity
laearctic species of Elachiptera, E. cornuta of continuing alpha-taxonomy. The author
(Fallén, 1820) with its seven synonyms and swept only ten minutes below a bridge in a
varieties (Table 1) is such a case. Recently river bed above gravel and water plants in
Nartshuk & Andersson (2013: 92–94) ad- Ethiopia (Province Welo, 25 km north of
dressed the problem. Ismay (pers. comm.), Desē, 11°22´96´´N, 39°38´53´´E, 1662 m a. s.
Ebejer & Kettani (2016) and the author l., 17.III.1995). The sample contained 2343
chloropids belonging to 38 species. Of those,
(unpublished) stated that this abundant
1400 specimens belonged to eight species of
Palaearctic species has at least one uniden-
Lasiochaeta and Elachiptera: 586 specimens
tifiable sibling species differing in morpho-
of L. 1 (undescribed), 301 of L. scapularis,
logical details of the epandrium. Before de-
252 of E. tarda, 123 of L. atricornis, 106 of
scribing it, a search and study of the types
L. flavofrontata, 21 of L. 2 (undescribed), 6 of
is needed to evaluate if this species already
E. simplicipes, and 5 of E. tecta, respectively.
has a valid name unrecognized in its syn-
onyms and varieties.
AN UNSOLVED JAVANOSCINIS
Moreover, after the field work in the
PROBLEM
Austrian Alps the author established that
the high-alpine variety E. cornuta nigripes Meroscinis meijerei Becker, 1911 was
Strobl, 1894 deserves a full specific rank on repeatedly spelled meyerei by de Meijere
the basis of coloration and morphological himself in several papers, though he wrote
characters. The 21 publications (Table 1) his author name in the same articles with-
using Strobl’s name continue to treat this out ‘y’. In the years around 1900, he wrote
© 2017 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes, Zoosystematica Rossica 26(2): 337–368
M. VON TSCHIRNHAUS. TAXONOMY OF ELACHIPTERA 343
his name partly de Meyere, but his emenda- a certain taxonomic group of Diptera and
tion is unjustified as during the year, when the number of cross references to a certain
Becker (1911a) dedicated this species to species. This possibility was used here on
him he always published under his name de the basis of scientific papers, book chapters
Meijere. First, Enderlein (1911: 220, 204) and books (internet articles strictly omit-
transferred the Becker’s species to the ge- ted) dealing with Chloropidae, at least one
nus Coryphisoptron Enderlein, 1911, subse- single species of this family. This literature
quently Bezzi (1919: 176–177) included it collection of 25234 titles was only focused
in Rhodesiella Adams, 1905 without citing on chloropids and the purely phytophagous
Enderlein, and later Malloch (1931: 67–68) leaf miner flies, Agromyzidae. A compari-
included it in Macrostyla Lioy, 1864 (nec son may be added: though chloropids being
Winnertz, 1846). Duda (1934: 71), appar- much more harmful to agriculture, 10488
ently unaware of this, redescribed it again publications contain chloropid information
in the genus Elachiptera. Andersson (1977 but 16720 articles deal with agromyzid in-
[published 6.IV.1977]) also neglected all formation. Table 3 contrasts the countings
this and designated it as the type species of for the 195 names of Table 1 with the num-
a new genus Javanoscinis Andersson, 1977. bers of references dealing with each species.
Again, not citing all previous generic place- Table 3 is self-explanatory and the two ex-
ments, Sabrosky (1977b: 301 [published amples in the legend are not repeated here.
4.XI.1977]) transferred it from Meroscinis It is of special interest that most species
Meijere, 1908, a junior synonym of Rho- are mentioned only a few times in the lit-
desiella, to Stenoscinis Malloch, 1918. Thus, erature. A small peak shows that 24 species
automatically Javanoscinis became a junior are dealt with in four publications each. As
synonym of Stenoscinis. Nevertheless, Is- the other extreme example, the table shows
may (1986) treated both genera as valid in that for few species much higher number of
his short discussion on the Javanoscinis ge- publications could be found, and more than
nus group. Cherian (2002: 321) restricted 40 references for one species applying only
Stenoscinis with its North American type for 17 species worldwide. All species with
species to species in the New World, and more than 100 relevant publications refer-
left the Old World species of the genus in ring to them are European, a mirror for the
Javanoscinis with its Oriental type species number of dipterists collecting. Elachiptera
“Meroscinis” meijerei. It is irrelevant to the bimaculata (Loew, 1845) is the most abun-
aim of this paper to clarify the phyloge- dant species in the Mediterranean (mir-
netic position of “M.” meijerei. In Table 1, roring holiday collecting), the brachypter-
line 103, the species is listed in Javanoscinis ous ant-like E. brevipennis (Meigen, 1830)
according to the taxonomic decision of (colour images in Nartshuk & Tschirnhaus,
Cherian (2002) fixing the latest unneces- 2012) mirrors the interest in an exceptional
sary generic splitting by Andersson (1977). fly on and near the ground of grassland, and
Except Macrostyla and Meroscinis the five Lasiochaeta pubescens mirrors the fact that
further genera mentioned in this section this species being abundant in North Africa
are valid today. and in all Mediterranean countries is rapid-
ly spreading northwards during the climate
warming (e.g. Clemons, 2009; Kubík &
RELATION BETWEEN THE NUMBER
Roháček, 2009; Tschirnhaus, 1982). Gamp-
OF SPECIES AND THE NUMBER OF
socera numerata holds 88 publications as
RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS
aestheticians among the entomologists like
Hitherto the author has not seen a (sim- the nice iridescent picture wings of this tiny
ple) statistic data on the frequency scale fly. Like Dek et al. (2016), they may want to
between the number of publications about report it for their country.
© 2017 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes, Zoosystematica Rossica 26(2): 337–368
344 M. VON TSCHIRNHAUS. TAXONOMY OF ELACHIPTERA
EXAMPLES OF LARVAL HABITATS barys eulophus Loew, 1872 (today included
OF ELACHIPTERA in Elachiptera) has been reared from human
excrement together with six further chlo-
Elachiptera species predominantly de-
ropid species (Kilpatrick & Schoof, 1956).
velop as phytosaprophagous larvae nor-
The flies of European species repeatedly
mally attacking monocot and more rarely
have been reported as hibernating below
dicot plants which are already infested
litter, in dry plant stems, in galls of sev-
by other phytophagous insect larvae or
eral species of Lipara Meigen, 1830 and in
bacterial diseases. Ferrar (1987) gives a
weather-exposed bird nests. The author’s
short worldwide overview of the rearings
studies with photoeclectors confirm such
of 13 species and Nartshuk & Anders-
observations.
son (2013) listed many rearing results for
E. cornuta. An exemplary case may be the
OUTLOOK
Nearctic E. nigriceps (Loew, 1863) which
is mentioned in at least 56 articles (Table The main aim of this compilation was to
1): Coquillett (1898b) reported Iris (Irida- include all primary taxonomic information
ceae) to be attacked by larvae of Pyrausta on the taxon Elachiptera to facilitate future
Schrank, 1802 (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) research. An examination of publications
as host substrate, Chittenden (1902) re- revealed that for the majority of the 81 spe-
corded “cabbage” (Brassica sp., Brassica- cies nearly nothing is known of their biology.
ceae), Brown (1956) identified Symplocar- Chloropid specialists, in informal discus-
pus (Araceae), and Eisemann et al. (2016) sions, agree on the need to reduce the num-
mentioned Caltha (Ranunculaceae) as lar- ber of genera by synonymizing several of
val substrates. All further 52 references to them including those within the tribe Ela-
E. nigriceps indicate a puzzling picture of chipterini as had been expressed already by
the biology of this species. But the “phyto- Duda (1934: 63). In contrast to this agree-
saprophagy” of the larvae combines these ment, the “Javanoscinis problem” outlined
host records from mono- and dicots mak- above is a bad example of the confusion in
ing the meticulous collecting of concealed chloropid taxonomy and only comes to light
literature worthwhile. A multitude of ap- after an extensive study of literature, while
plied entomological articles report the Pa- all authors previously omitted it. The phy-
laearctic E. cornuta as an agricultural pest logenetic position of the genus Gampsocera
species. However, true phytophagy is rare with 51 species similar in habitus, placed
in Chloropidae (Tschirnhaus, 2002) and, into the tribe Botanobiini Malloch, 1913 (p.
concerning Elachiptera spp., has only been 239, as Botanobiinae) seems to be justified.
presumed in the description of E. orizae Sé- The discussed absence of the male femoral
guy, 1949 and possibly for E. cornuta var. organ is a conclusive argument for a separate
rufifrons Duda, 1932 (Batalla, 1978). True tribe Botanobiini close to the Elachipterini.
zoophagy cannot be ruled out but is not The Botanobiini as a tribe was first pro-
yet confirmed for the genus. Smith (1855) posed by Nartshuk (1983) and accepted in
observed E. brevipennis “on the back of a her later papers (Nartshuk, 2012: 3). Be-
hemipterous insect, Nabis subaptera, in cause of the lack of well definable “either …
the act of inserting its ovipositor under the or” characteristics in morphology, Anders-
elytra” and the same brachypterous spe- son (1977) after a prolonged phylogenetic
cies has been reported from a colony of the study on the last page of his book expressed
ant Lasius brunneus Latreille, 1798 under a a slightly pessimistic opinion about his own
stone (d’Aguilar, 1945), where an aberrant study: “The family could be too young and
life history may be presumed. Coprophagy diversified to fit the phylogenetic method”.
may also occur in Elachiptera as Cerato- The Acalyptratae are not yet known from
© 2017 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes, Zoosystematica Rossica 26(2): 337–368
M. VON TSCHIRNHAUS. TAXONOMY OF ELACHIPTERA 345
the Cretaceous Period and Tschirnhaus & Batalla J.A. 1978. ¿Un diptero cloropido, nuevo
Hoffeins (2009) demonstrated that a long enemico del arroz en la zona de Sevilla?. Ar-
series of 46 specimens of the amber inclusion roz, 17(62): 8–9.
Becker Th. 1903. Aegyptische Dipteren (Fort-
Protoscinella electrica Hennig, 1965 from
setzung und Schluß). Mitteilungen aus dem
the Eocene agrees nearly exactly with the
zoologischen Museum in Berlin, 2(3): 67–195,
extant genus Tricimba Lioy, 1864, with the
tab. 4b–4e.
exception of two minute morphological dif-
Becker Th. 1905. Cyclorrhapha Schizophora:
ferences. They wrote: “Nearly fifty million Holometopa. Addenda et corrigenda. In:
years passed without any new evolutionary Becker Th., Bezzi M., Kertész K. & Stein P.
process based on progressive developments (Eds.). Katalog der paläarktischen Dipteren
concerning the ground pattern of bristle ar- IV. Budapest. iii + 330 p. [With pagination
rangement or other morphological details.” 327–328 wrongly repeated].
Becker Th. 1907. Die Ergebnisse meiner dip-
This paper on one tribe of the family may be
terologischen Frühjahrsreise nach Algier
a spotlight on the unloved taxonomy back-
und Tunis. 1906. Zeitschrift für systematische
ground for phylogenetical insights.
Hymenopterologie und Dipterologie, 7: 33–61,
97–128, 225–256, 369–407, 454–455.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Becker Th. 1908. Dipteren der Insel Madeira.
Mitteilungen des zoologischen Museums Ber-
Sincere thanks are given to four specialists lin, 4: 181–206, tab. 4.
of Chloropidae who critically read and corrected Becker Th. 1909. Collections recueillies par
the manuscript as referees, John C. Deeming M. Maurice de Rothschild dans l’Afrique
(Cardiff, UK), Martin J. Ebejer (Colwinston, orientale anglaise. Insectes: Diptères nou-
UK), John W. Ismay (Long Crendon, UK), veaux. Bulletin du Muséum national d’His-
and Emilia P. Nartshuk (St Petersburg, Rus- toire naturelle, 15(3): 113–121.
sia). Thanks also to Panameduthatil T. Cherian Becker Th. 1910. Chloropidae. Eine monogra-
(Trivandrum, India) who handed me his latest phische Studie. I. Teil. Paläarktische Region.
publications during his visit in Germany. Archivum zoologicum, 1(10): 33–174, tab.
ii–iii.
REFERENCES Becker Th. 1911a. Chloropidae. Eine monog-
raphische Studie. III. Teil. Die indo-aus-
Adams C.F. 1904. Notes on and descriptions of tralische Region. Annales historico-naturales
North American Diptera. Kansas University Musei nationalis hungarici, 9: 35–170, tab.
Science Bulletin, 2(14): 433–455. i–ii.
Adams C.F. 1905. Diptera africana, I. Kansas Becker Th. 1911b (1910). Chloropidae. Eine
University Science Bulletin (new Series), 3(6): monographische Studie. II. Teil. Aethiopis-
149–208. che Region. Annales historico-naturales Mu-
Adams C.F. 1908. Notes on North American spe- sei nationalis hungarici, 8(2): 377–443, tab.
cies of Crassiseta v. Ros. Journal of New York xii. [Often erroneously cited as 1910].
entomological Society, 16: 151–152. Becker Th. 1912a. Chloropidae. Eine monogra-
Agassiz J.L.R. 1847 (1846). Nomenclatoris zoo- phische Studie. IV. Teil. Nearktische Region.
logici [4.] index universalis, continens nomina Annales historico-naturales Musei nationalis
systematica classium, ordinum, familiarum et hungarici, 10(1): 21–120, 256, tab. i.
generum animalium omnium, tam viventium Becker Th. 1912b. Chloropidae. Eine monogra-
quam fossilium, secundum ordinem alphabe- phische Studie. V. Teil. Neotropische Region.
ticum unicum disposita, adjectis homonymiis Annales historico-naturales Musei nationalis
plantarum, nec non variis adnotationibus et hungarici, 10(2): 121–222, 256, tab. i.
emendationibus. Soloduri (= Solothurn): Becker Th. 1912c. Chloropidae. Eine monogra-
Jent et Gassmann. viii, 393 p. (In Latin). phische Studie. Nachtrag. Annales historico-
Andersson H. 1977. Taxonomic and phyloge- naturales Musei nationalis hungarici, 10(2):
netic studies on Chloropidae (Diptera) with 235–255.
special reference to Old World genera. Ento- Becker Th. 1912d. Berichtigungen zur Monog-
mologica scandinavica, Supplement 8: 1–200. raphie der Chloropiden. Annales historico-
© 2017 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes, Zoosystematica Rossica 26(2): 337–368
346 M. VON TSCHIRNHAUS. TAXONOMY OF ELACHIPTERA
naturales Musei nationalis hungarici, 10: la physiologie des animaux articulés par
645–646. M. Brullé. In: Laporte F.L. (Ed.). Castel-
Becker Th. 1913. Chloropiden aus Abessynien nau’s Histoire naturelle des animaux articulés,
gesammelt von E. Kovács. Annales histori- annelides, crustacés, arachnides, myriapodes
co-naturales Musei nationalis hungarici, 11: et insectes. Tome troisième. Paris: P. Duménil.
147–167. 672 p., 155 pl.
Becker Th. 1916. Neue Chloropiden aus dem Brown W.L. [Jr.] 1956. Drosophilid and chlo-
Ungarischen National Museum. Annales his- ropid flies bred from skunk cabbage. Psyche,
torico-naturales Musei nationalis hungarici, 63(1): 13.
14(42): 423–453. Brunetti E. 1917. Diptera of the Simla District.
Becker Th. 1924. H. Sauter‘s Formosa-Aus- Records of the Indian Museum, 13: 59–101.
beute: Chloropidae (Dipt.). Entomologische Cherian P.T. 1975. Indian species of Elachiptera
Mitteilungen, 13(4–5): 117–124. (Diptera: Chloropidae). Oriental Insects,
Becker Th. & Meijere J.C.H., de. 1913. Chlo- 9(1): 9–21.
ropiden aus Java. Tijdschrift voor Entomolo- Cherian P.T. 2002. The fauna of India and the
gie, 56(3): 283–307, 355. adjacent countries – Diptera. Volume IX.
Beschovski V.L. 1981. On the systematics of the Chloropidae (Part 1): Siphonellopsinae and
genus Tricimba Lioy, 1864 (Diptera, Chloro- Rhodesiellinae. Kolkata: Publication Divi-
pidae). Reichenbachia, 19(21): 119–122. sion by the Director, Zoological Survey of
Beschovski V.L. & Krusteva C. 1998. Two India. xvi, 368 p.
new Elachiptera species from Bulgaria (In- Cherian P.T. 2012a. The genus Elachiptera Mac-
secta: Diptera: Chloropidae). Reichenbachia, quart (Diptera: Chloropidae: Oscinellinae:
32(50): 329–332. Elachipterini) from India: a revision and
Bezzi M. 1892 (1891). Contribuzione alla fauna description of three new species. Hexapoda
ditterologica della provincia di Pavia. Parte (Insecta indica), 19(2): 1–13.
Prima. Bulletino della Società entomologica Cherian P.T. 2012b. Review of the taxonomic
italiana, 23(1–2): 21–91. [Reprint: 1–73]. status of some and revised key to all the gen-
Bezzi M. 1894. I ditteri del Trentino. Saggio di era of the tribe Elachipterini (Diptera: Os-
un elenco delle specie di ditteri osservati nel cinellinae) and description of a new species
Trentino. Atti della Società veneto-trentina di of Myrmecosepsis Becker from India. Biosys-
Scienze naturali. Seria II, 1(2): 275–353. tematica, 5(2): 13–20.
Bezzi M. 1895. Contribuzioni alla fauna ditte- Cherian P.T. 2015 (2014). Revision of the genus
rologica italiana. I. Ditteri della Calabria. Gampsocera Schiner (Diptera: Chloropidae:
Bulletino della Società entomologica italiana, Oscinellinae) from India with descriptions
27: 39–78. of seven new species. Entomon, 39(1): 15–41.
Bezzi M. 1906. Noch einige neue Namen für Chittenden F.H. 1902. Notes on dipterous leaf-
Dipterengattungen. Zeitschrift für system- miners on cabbage. [With chapter:] The na-
atische Hymenopterologie und Dipterologie, tive clover leaf-miner (Agromyza diminuata
6(1): 49–55. Walk.). In: Some insects injurious to vegetable
Bezzi M. 1918. Studi sulla ditterofauna nivale crops. A series of articles dealing with insects
delle Alpi Italiane. Memorie Società italiana of this class. United States Department of
di Scienze naturali e Museo civico di Storia Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Bulletin
naturale di Milano, 9: 1–164, tab. 1–2. (new Series), 33: 75–77.
Bezzi M. 1919. On the genus Rhodesiella Clemons L. 2009. Notes on Melanochaeta pube-
C.F. Adams (Diptera). Journal of the New scens (Thalhammer, 1898) (Diptera, Chlo-
York entomological Society, 27: 174–179. ropidae) in Kent. Dipterists Digest, second
Bigot J.M.F. 1892 (1891). Voyage de M.Ch Al- Series, 16(1): 15–20.
luaud aux îles Canaries (Novembre 1889 – Cole F.R. & Lovett A.L. 1921. An annotated list
Juin 1890). Diptères. Bulletin de la Société of the Diptera (flies) of Oregon. Proceedings
zoologique de France, 16: 275–279. of the California Academy of Sciences, fourth
Blanchard É. 1840. Histoire naturelle des insec- Series, 11(15): 197–344.
tes. Orthoptères, névroptères, hémiptères, Collin J.E. 1939. On various new or little
hyménoptères, lépidoptères et diptères. Avec known British Diptera, including several
une introduction renferment l’anatomie et species bred from the nests of birds and
© 2017 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Scienсes, Zoosystematica Rossica 26(2): 337–368
