The Sarcophagidae (Diptera) Described by C

© Entomologica Fennica. 12.X.1993 The Sarcophagidae (Diptera) described by C. De Geer, J. H. S. Siebke, and 0. Ringdahl ThomasPape Pape, T. 1993: The Sarcophagidae (Diptera) described by C. De Geer, J. H. S. Siebke, and 0. Ringdahl.- Entomol. Fennica 4:143-150. All species-group taxa described by or assigned to C. De Geer, J.H.S. Siebke, and 0. Ringdahl are revised. Musca vivipara minor De Geer, 1776 and Musca vivipara major De Geer, 1776 are considered binary and outside nomenclature. The single species-group name ascribed to Siebke is shown to be unavailable. A lectotype of Sarcophaga vertic ina Ringdahl, 1945 [= S. pleskei (Rohdendorf, 1937)] is designated and Brachicoma borealis Ringdahl, 1932 is revised and resurrected as a distinct species. Thomas Pape, Zoological Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copen hagen, Denmark 1. Introduction specimens concerned or to the taxonomic deci sions made. Original labels of primary type All Sarcophagidae described by the Scandinavian specimens have been cited, with text from differ authors Fabricius, Fallen, and Zetterstedt were ent labels separated by semicolons. Alllectotypes treated by Pape (1986), and the single species de have been given a red label stating their status as scribed by Linnaeus was revised (for the first time!) such. Paralectotypes, if any, have been recovered by Richet (1987). Other Scandinavian authors of and are discussed separately under the entry 'ad taxa in this family include Charles (or Carl) De ditional material.' Geer and Oscar Ringdahl, who have each proposed two species-group names, and it is the purpose of 3. Results the present paper to revise these taxa and to comment on their identity and availability. Also included is a 3.1. Charles De Geer (1720-1778) single species-group name, which has erroneously been credited to J. H. S. Siebke. Biographical information: Persson et al. (1984). 2. Format and depositories De Geer (1776) considered only two species group taxa within the Sarcophagidae, Musca References are given to published biographies of vivipara major and Musca vivipara minor, but the authors in question, and biographical notes apart from Villers (1789:480), who listed a are included only when they relate directly to the "Vivipara minor", no other author has ever rec- 144 Pape: Sarcophagidae of De Geer, Siebke and Ringdahl • ENTOMOL. FENNICA Vol. 4 ognized De Geer's Sarcophagidae in their origi estate in Leufsta, Sweden,(= Lovsta, 60 km north nal form. Actually, apart from Villers (1789) I of Uppsala) from which locality he most prob have only recovered one other reference to De ably obtained his specimens]. The taxon Sar Geer' s sarcophagid taxa, namely the mention of cophaga carnaria was revised by Richet (1987), "vivipara (De Geer)" as a junior synonym of who designated a lectotype and argued that Sarcophaga carnaria (Linnaeus) in the catalogue carnaria is the valid name of the taxon of Bezzi & Stein (1907:477). This synonymy Sarcophaga schulzi Mi.iller (see Povolny & Ver was repeated in the catalogue of Verves (1986: ves 1987 for further information on synonymies). 181). One can only guess which of the common Persson et al. ( 1984) considered all names species of Sarcophaga Meigen De Geer had in proposed by De Geer ( 177 6) to be binominal, front of him, but most probably there were more and where species-group names appeared as two than one. It is evident from the description, word combinations these were united. As is ex drawings and biological notes that De Geer saw plained by Thompson & Pont (in press), these a lot of specimens. He obviously did not employ two word combinations do not refer to single a strict type concept, neither did his contempo entities and joining them thus conflicts with the raries, and he was in the main more interested in Code [ICZN: 11 (h) v]. It could be argued that biology than species limits. I have tried to trace the names were trinomina, but the evidence is the material of Musca vivipara major in the col little convincing. Especially for De Geer names lection of De Geer (Swedish Mus. Nat. Hist., like Musca minor larvarum and Musca major Stockholm), but only a single specimen could be larvarum, it is evident that De Geer did not pro found. It is a female in good condition, with the pose formal trinomina but descriptive binary handwritten label "carnaria", and it belongs to names (see Thompson & Pont (in press) for fur Sarcophaga in the broad sense used by Downes ther discussion of De Geer names). As binary (1965) and Pape (1988). I have been unable to names, Musca vivipara minor and Musca vivipara identify the specimen, but it does not match any major have no standing in formal nomenclature species known from Scandinavia. Actually, the as currently defined by the Code. I have, however, possibility exists that De Geer received this given a brief account on what we can deduce on specimen from abroad, at least he states that their identity, partly for historical reasons, partly specimens of Musca vivipara major "se trouvent for the convenience of discarding them safely. egalement en Pensylvanie" (p. 69). On the other hand, there is no evidence or indication that it could not be a later addition, and as it has no vivipara major significance for the nomenclatoral decisions and little, if any, significance for the interpretation of Musca vivipara major De Geer, 1776:63 (vernacular name De Geer' s original concept of his Musca vivipara +description in French on p. 62). Unavailable binary major, I will not discuss it further. We have, name (and an unnecessary replacement name for Musca however, one important clue to the identity of at earn aria Linnaeus, 1758 [= Sarcophaga carnaria least one of the specimens definitely seen by De (Linnaeus, 1758)]). Geer: His illustration of the male terminalia (Fig. Identity. Persson et al. (1984) argued con 1). This is interesting and deserves proper mention vincingly that those names, where one or more as the figure represents the first published obser synonyms were given, should be treated as un vation of the clasping and intromittent structures necessary replacement names, thereby avoiding in the Sarcophagidae. These structures were more any problems with potential types and availabil than a century later recognized as the sine qua ity by subsequent usage. As a replacement name, non for a reliable identification. De Geer sug the identity is tied to the type material of the gested tentatively that this structure could replaced name, here= Musca carnaria. Accord "caracterise le sexe", and his description runs as ingly, Musca vivipara major has no type locality follows: "il y a une longue partie ecailleuse tres [given as "France" by Verves (1986:181) although singuliere, divisee en quelques articles & garnie De Geer made most of his observations at his au bout de plusieurs pointes ecailleuses un peu ENTOMOL. FENNICA Vol. 4 • Pape: Sarcophagidae ofDe Geer, Siebke and Ringdahl 145 / ' ,/ I ,u ll ,' -b Fig. 1-2. Sarcophaga simi/is, male terminalia. -1: complete terminalia, from De Geer (1776}.- 2: phallus and gonocoxite + gonocoxital lobe, from Pape (1987). courbees" (p. 69). Considering the rather few specimens may be recovered from his collection Sarcophaginae, which are known from central or from any other source, we will never be able Sweden (Pape 1987b), the figure leaves no doubt to trace the actual number of specimens (and that the specimen examined and illustrated by species) involved. The original description gives De Geer was a male of Sarcophaga simi/is Meade, few clues as "cette Mouche [= Musca vivipara 1876 (compare Figs. 1, 2). minor] est si semblable aIa precedente [=Musca vivipara major], tant en figure qu'en couleurs, qu'une meme description convient absolument a toutes les deux" (p. 70), and the only diagnostic vivipara minor feature given by De Geer to separate this species from the similar Musca vivipara major is its Musca vivipara minor De Geer, 1776:70. Sweden. Un smaller size ("Ia moitie plus petite que !'autre available binary name. [=Musca vivipara major]'' p. 71). Size alone is Identity. I have been unable to recover any generally a poor indicator of specific assignment, original specimens in De Geer' s collection, and and especially so in the genus Sarcophaga, where the identity- or more probably identities- can size ranges of species are usually broadly over only be an informed guess comparing De Geer's lapping. A restricted larval food source will pro biological information with current knowledge duce strongly undersized specimens, and the of which species are common in southern and smallest individuals of a species are often less central Sweden_ There is no doubt that De Geer' s than half the length of the largest. species concept was based on a fairly large Large numbers of specimens of Sarcophaga number of specimens, some of which were dis s.str. (= Sarcophaga of Pape l987b) is a very sected while others were observed in nature and characteristic element of the fauna of Sarcopha never collected. Whether or not one or a few type ginae in rural and suburban biotopes in central 146 Pape: Sarcophagidae of De Geer, Siebke and Ringdahl • ENTOMOL. FENNICA Vol. 4 and northern Europe (Draber-Monko 1985). Thus, Remarks. Two unlabeled female Sarcophagi it is reasonable to assume that De Geer's concept dae in the De Geer collection were found stand of Musca vivipara minor included one or more ing under the name Musca minor larvarum De species of Sarcophaga s.str., of which four are Geer, 1776:25. They are identified by me as known from Uppland, the faunal district contain Sarcophaga sp. and Sarcophaga (Helicophagella) ing Lovsta: S. carnaria (Linnaeus), S. lasiostyla melanura Meigen, 1824 respectively.

Load more