Abstract
With 552 species group names available (excluding misspellings), the Microdontinae constitute the smallest of the three subfamilies of Syrphidae. Paradoxically, this subfamily is taxonomically the least organized of the three: 388 species names were previously classified in a single genus, Microdon Meigen, 1803. The present paper introduces a new generic classification of the Microdontinae, relying partly on the results of phylogenetic analyses of morphological and molecular data as published in other papers, and partly on examination of primary type specimens of 347 taxa, plus additional material, and original descriptions. A total number of 67 genus group names (excluding misspellings) are evaluated, redescribed, diagnosed and discussed, with several implications for their taxonomic status. Of these, 43 names are considered as valid genera, 7 as subgenera, 17 as synonyms. Two generic names (Ceratoconcha Simroth, 1907, Nothomicrodon Wheeler, 1924) are left unplaced, because they are known from immature stages only and cannot be reliably associated with taxa known from adults. The following 10 new genera are described by Reemer: Domodon, Heliodon, Laetodon, Menidon, Mermerizon, Metadon, Peradon, Piruwa, Sulcodon and Thompsodon. A key to all genera, subgenera and species groups is given. A total number of 26 new species are described in the following genera: Archimicrodon Hull, 1945, Ceratrichomyia Séguy, 1951, Domodon, Furcantenna Cheng, 2008, Heliodon, Indascia Keiser, 1958, Kryptopyga Hull, 1944, Masarygus Brèthes. 1908, Mermerizon, Metadon, Microdon, Paramixogaster Brunetti, 1923, Piruwa, Pseudomicrodon Hull, 1937, Rhopalosyrphus Giglio-Tos, 1891, and Thompsodon. New lectotypes are designated for Ceratrichomyia behara Séguy, 1951 and Microdon iheringi Bezzi, 1910. A total number of 267 new combinations of species and genera are proposed. New synonyms are proposed for 19 species group names. Three replacement names are introduced for primary and secondary junior homonyms: Microdon shirakii nom. n. (= Microdon tuberculatus Shiraki, 1968, primary homonym of Microdon tuberculatus de Meijere, 1913), Paramixogaster brunettii nom. n. (= Mixogaster vespiformis Brunetti, 1913, secondary homonym of Microdon vespiformis de Meijere, 1908), Paramixogaster sacki nom. n. (= Myxogaster variegata Sack, 1922, secondary homonym of Ceratophya variegata Walker, 1852). An attempt is made to classify all available species names into (sub)genera and species groups. The resulting classification comprises 454 valid species and 98 synonyms (excluding misspellings), of which 17 valid names and three synonyms are left unplaced. The paper concludes with a discussion on diagnostic characters of Microdontinae.
Highlights
(= Microdon tuberculatus Shiraki, 1968, primary homonym of Microdon tuberculatus de Meijere, 1913), Paramixogaster brunettii nom. n. (= Mixogaster vespiformis Brunetti, 1913, secondary homonym of Microdon vespiformis de Meijere, 1908), Paramixogaster sacki nom. n. (= Myxogaster variegata Sack, 1922, secondary homonym of Ceratophya variegata Walker, 1852)
Cheng and Thompson (2008) point out the confused taxonomic history of Ceratophya. Unlike these authors, who consider the group as a subgroup of Microdon, it here treated as a separate genus. This is done because of the phylogenetic results of Reemer and Ståhls and because it does not agree with the diagnosis of Microdon as defined in the present paper
The male collected in Bekily (Madagascar) belongs to a new species of Ceratrichomyia, which is described in the present paper as C. bullabucca spec. n
Summary
The phylogenetic results of Reemer and Ståhls (in press) are used as a first cue for the generic classification. Generic or subgeneric ranks as indicated by Cheng and Thompson (2008) are mostly maintained, unless these are contradicted by the results of the phylogenetic analyses of Reemer and Ståhls (in press). This is mainly relevant in the case of the genus Microdon. Given the uncertainties in the deeper branches of Microdontinae-phylogeny, these new group names could have been given subgeneric rank within Microdon This would suggest a close affinity with that genus, despite the fact that this is not indicated by the phylogenetic results. In some cases this diagnosis will not add much to the characters given in the key, but in other cases it will provide a ‘short-cut’ to the recognition of the genus
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
