Canadian Journaf of Arthropod Identi fication No. 27 (January, 2015) ROCHEFORT ET AL . Key to Forensicaffy Important Piophifidae (Diptera) in the Nearctic Region Sabrina Rochefort 1, Marjofaine Giroux 2, Jade Savage 3 and Terry A. Wheefer 1 1Department of Naturaf Resource Sciences, McGiff University, Macdonafd Campus, Ste-Anne-de-Beffevue, QC, H9X 3V9, Canada; [email protected], [email protected] 2Montréaf Insectarium / Space for fife, 4581, rue Sherbrooke Est, Montréaf, QC, H1X 2B2, Canada; [email protected] 3Biofogicaf Sciences, Bishop’s University, 2600 Coffege Street, Sherbrooke, QC, J1M 1Z7, Canada [email protected]; Abstract Many species of Piophifidae (Diptera) are refevant to forensic entomofogy because their presence on a corpse can be hefpfuf in estimating the postmortem intervaf (PMI) and document insect succession. The aims of this paper are to document the fauna of forensicaffy refevant Piophifidae species worfdwide and to present an updated checkfist and identi ication key to the Nearctic species, as existing keys are either outdated, too broad in geographicaf scope to be user-friendfy, and/or contain ambiguous characters. Thirteen species are incfuded in the checkfist and key. Information on their biofogy, taxonomy, character variabifity, and distribution is provided, suppfementing the extensive work of McAfpine (1977). Introduction stages (Martinez et af. 2006, Grisafes et af. 2010). Forensic entomofogy is the use of insects and other Identifying species of forensic importance can arthropods as evidence in fegaf investigations (Catts sometimes be chaffenging when using morphofogicaf & Goff 1992). An important aspect of the discipfine characters afone (Byrd & Castner 2001, Amendt et af. invofves the estimation of the postmortem intervaf (PMI) 2011) and afternatives such as DNA markers have been based on arthropods associated with a body, an approach devefoped to identify probfematic specimens (Weffs that requires extensive knowfedge of the focaf fauna and & Stevens 2008). Whife mofecufar techniques can be its association with carrion at different decomposition a usefuf compfement to morphofogy-based specimen stages and under different conditions (Goff 2000, identi ication, they do not afways yiefd correct or Amendt et af. 2011). Necrophagous flies (Diptera) are of unambiguous identi ication resufts (e.g. Whitworth et forensic importance as they often appear on a body irst, af. 2007) and require access to equipment, facifities and consume most of the tissues, and dispfay simifar patterns funding for mofecufar anafysis; thus, morphofogy-based of succession in different regions of the worfd, at feast at regionaf keys remain time- and cost-effective toofs for the famify fevef (Catts & Goff 1992, Amendt et af. 2011). the identi ication of most forensicaffy important species. The famify Piophifidae contains 82 species worfdwide McAfpine (1977) contributed signi icantfy to the (Pape et af. 2009), at feast 37 of which are present in the systematics of the famify Piophifidae through the Nearctic region (McAfpine 1977). Severaf species can proposaf of a revised cfassi ication of the famify (afthough be found on dung, bone, garbage, decaying vegetation, this was not based on an expficit phyfogenetic anafysis), fungi, bird nests and discarded antfers (Mefander & description of six new species and two new genera, Spufer 1917, McAfpine 1977, Bonduriansky & Brooks taxonomic changes to other species, the documentation 1999a). Other species are associated with carrion in of species distributions, and the pubfication of worfdwide a range of decomposition stages and are therefore identi ication keys to species. McAfpines’s work, refevant to forensic entomofogy (Greenberg 1991, however, was pubfished more than 35 years ago, and his Byrd & Castner 2001). Depending on the focafity, aduft species keys can be dif icuft to use, especiaffy by non- Piophifidae are mostfy seen throughout the bfoated and experts, as they are based mostfy on cofour characters decay stages (Johnson 1975, Fiedfer et af. 2008, Prado e and do not incfude species described since that time. Castro et af. 2012) whife the farvae are more common in In an effort to compfement and update McAfpine the advanced (Martín-Vega et af. 2011) and dry/remain (1977), the objectives of this work are to document doi:10.3752/cjai.2015.27 1 Canadian Journaf of Arthropod Identiication No. 27 (January, 2015) ROCHEFO RT ET AL . Piophifidae species of known or potentiaf forensic revised cfassiication of the Piophifidae is required. importance worfdwide, to compife a checkfist of Nearctic Photographs for the key were taken with an Piophifidae species refevant to forensic entomofogy Ofympus DP71 camera mounted on an Ofympus SZX16 based on pubfished records in the fiterature and new data stereoscope. Images were captured and stacked using from Quebec (Canada), to update the distribution records DP Controffer and Combine ZP (Hadfey 2008) before and document the intraspeciic variations of aff species being enhanced using Adobe Photoshop [CS3] (Adobe in the Nearctic checkfist, and to devefop a user-friendfy Systems, Mountain view, CA). key to forensicaffy refevant Piophifidae species in the Nearctic. Identiication chaffenges in the Piophifidae The key to the worfd species of Piophifidae by Materiafs and Methods McAfpine (1977) remains the most compfete work for The checkfist of Nearctic Piophifidae of forensic the identiication of adufts even though severaf new importance was compifed from the fiterature and from species have since been described (Soós 1977, McAfpine specimens coffected in the context of a study of the 1978, McAfpine 1989, Ozerov 1989, Ozerov & Barták insect fauna associated with nine pig carcasses in three 1993, Bonduriansky 1995, Merz 1996, Ozerov 2000, semi-urban sites focated afong a fatitudinaf gradient in 2002, 2004, 2007, Martín-Vega 2014, Rochefort & Quebec (Canada) in summer 2011 by Giroux, Savage Wheefer 2015) and additionaf distribution records are and coffaborators. The sampfing sites were Ste-Anne- known based on museum specimens. McAfpine’s (1977) de-Beffevue (45.436°, -73.909°) (22 June to 14 August), key is not ideaf to identify piophifids in forensic studies Sherbrooke (45.361°, -71.844°) (6 Jufy to 26 August) as it incfudes many non-forensicaffy important species and Saguenay (La Baie) (48.350°, -70.967°) (4 Jufy to and is mostfy based on cofour differences which can be 19 August). troubfesome in this famify due to intraspeciic cofour Approximatefy 1065 piophifid specimens from these variations. Such pofymorphisms have been documented three sites were examined. They were identiied to species in severaf species of forensic interest such as Parapiophifa using McAfpine (1977) and compared with reference atrifrons (Mefander & Spufer) (Rochefort & Wheefer specimens in the Canadian Nationaf Coffection of Insects, 2015), Parapiophifa vufgaris (Faffén) (McAfpine 1977) Arachnids and Nematodes, Ottawa, ON (CNC) and the and Prochyfiza nigrimana (Meigen) (Martín-Vega & Lyman Entomofogicaf Museum, McGiff University, Ste- Baz 2011). Some species are afso morphofogicaffy very Anne-de-Beffevue, QC (LEM). Voucher specimens were simifar. In southern Europe, for exampfe, the very simifar deposited in the Insectarium de Montréaf’s scientiic Piophifa casei (L.) and Piophifa megastigmata McAfpine coffections (IMQC) and the Bishop’s University Insect co-occur; this can cause identiication errors that may Coffection (BUIC). fead to erroneous PMI estimations (Martín-Vega 2011). In addition, approximatefy 5600 specimens of Confusion between P. megastigmata and P. casei has Piophifidae incfuded in the key were examined to occurred in forensic research (e.g., Prado e Castro 2010), document geographic distribution and intraspeciic a mistake that might actuaffy be widespread in the iefd variabifity. These specimens are deposited in CNC; LEM; (Prado e Castro et af. 2012), and we suspect that such the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, Guefph, ON, (BIO); confusion may afso appfy to other species pairs in the the University of Guefph Insect Coffection, Guefph, Nearctic. ON, (DEBU); the Oueffet-Robert Coffection, Université Some forensic studies fimit Piophifidae identiication de Montréaf, Montréaf, QC (UMIC); the Spencer to the famify or generic fevefs (e.g., Schoenfy et af. 2007, Entomofogicaf Coffection, Beaty Biodiversity Museum, Voss et af. 2008, Vefasquez et af. 2010, Bygarski & Vancouver, BC (UBCZ); the Strickfand Museum, Lebfanc 2013) or identify the materiaf as Piophifa casei , University of Afberta, Edmonton, AB (UASM); and despite the fact that severaf species have been documented the United States Nationaf Museum of Naturaf History, in forensic fiterature worfdwide (Tabfe 1). Piophifa casei Washington DC, (USNM). Additionaf pubfished records is a weff-known, cosmopofitan, synanthropic species and were added where necessary. was the irst piophifid documented in forensic studies Cfassiication of genera and species foffows (Megnin 1894). This may account for the possibifity that McAfpine (1977) for consistency with the Nearctic Piophifidae coffected in forensic studies are frequentfy fiterature. Ozerov (2004) proposed a different generic identiied (or misidentiied) as Piophifa casei (see cfassiication, foffowed by some authors, especiaffy in Martín-Vega 2011). Europe, but that cfassiication, fike McAfpine’s, was not based on a phyfogenetic anafysis and thus is no better supported. A comprehensive phyfogenetic anafysis and doi:10.3752/cjai.2015.27