An annotated checklist of the Dutch tachinid flies (Diptera: Tachinidae)* Theo Zeegers ZEEGERS, TH., 1998. AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE DUTCH TACHINID FLIES (DIPTERA: TACHI¬ NID AE). - ENT. BER., AMST. 58(9): 165-200. Abstract: A checklist of the Dutch tachinid flies is presented, based on a re-examination of all available material. Altogether 316 species are listed for The Netherlands, of which 111 are recorded here for the first time. Weegschaalstraat 207, 7521 CH Enschede, The Netherlands. Introduction History of the study of Tachinidae in The Netherlands The family of tachinid flies (Diptera: Tachi- nidae) is a large family of flies whose larvae F. M. van der Wulp may be called the first live as internal parasites in insects and centi¬ specialist of Dutch tachinid flies. He did study pedes (Herting, 1960). The species of tachinid the family in the second half of the 19th centu¬ flies are often not easily separated and there¬ ry, although his interest in Dutch Tachinidae fore the family has got little attention in The diminished significantly after 1875. He has Netherlands. Up till now, the most complete collected many tachinid flies, especially checklist of the Dutch Tachinidae has been around Den Haag. Only part of his collection published by De Meijere in 1939 as part of his has been conserved, most of it in rather bad “Naamlijst van Nederlandse Diptera”. condition. Fortunately, Van der Wulp has left Since then, much new material has been a manuscript in which he has described all collected in The Netherlands, not only by species present in his collection. This manu¬ hand, but the last ten years also quite a lot with script is still present in the library of the malaisetraps. The vast majority of this mate¬ Nederlandse Entomologische Vereniging in rial has remained unpublished. Moreover, a Amsterdam. At the end of his career Van der critical revision of the older material was bad¬ Wulp published a checklist of Dutch Diptera, ly wanted, given the progress in tachinid taxo¬ together with his student J. C. H. de Meijere nomy due to Mesnil, Herting and others. (Van der Wulp & De Meijere, 1898). In this article I provide a new checklist of A fine collection in good shape from the sa¬ the Dutch Tachinidae. This checklist is based me period is that of J. G. de Man, now in the on a critical review of all the material present Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam. De Man in the major Dutch collections. All the species did work for a short time ( 1883-1893) but qui¬ mentioned in the checklist have actually been te intensively on Tachinidae, especially on seen by me. Altogether 316 species of tachi¬ Walcheren and at Dinther. nid flies are listed as Dutch, of which 111 spe¬ In the beginning of this century J. C. H. de cies are new for the Dutch fauna. Species new Meijere succeeded Van der Wulp as leading for The Netherlands have been annotated with dipterologist and published six supplements to information on localities and dates of captu¬ the checklist of 1898. His work resulted in a res. new checklist, the Naamlijst van Nederlandse Diptera (De Meijere, 1939). De Meijere has collected a large number of tachinid flies, * To Bob van Aartsen and Volkert van der Goot. especially in the beginning of this century. His 166 Ent. Ber., Amst. 58 (1998) material is the basis of the collection of Dutch tachinid flies of the Zoölogisch Museum in Amsterdam. The checklist of 1939 marks the beginning of thirty years of little work on Tachinidae in The Netherlands. At the Laboratorium voor Entomologie of the former Landbouwhoge¬ school in Wageningen some host-studies have been carried out, for instance on Brachyderes by De Fluiter (1933, 1934), on Bupalus by Klomp (1956, 1958) and Herrebout (1969) and on Diprion by Franssen (1937) and Don¬ ker and Luitjes (1961). Only in the late sixties W. J. Kabos, a for¬ mer student of De Meijere, started working in¬ tegrally on Dutch Tachinidae again. This re¬ sulted in a monograph on Dutch Tachinidae (Kabos, 1974), which contained only a few new species. For reasons unclear to me, Kabos omitted many species already correctly inclu¬ Fig. 1. Distribution of records of Tachinidae in The ded in the list of De Meijere (1939). Kabos lis¬ Netherlands. Small dots: records before 1960 only; large ted 156 species, whereas De Meijere (1939) dots: (also) records since 1960. had already listed 187 species as Dutch! The work of Kabos encouraged a new genera¬ Ten years later a popular key to the larger tion of dipterologists to study tachinid flies. J. tachinid flies of The Netherlands appeared Bax worked only a few years (1971-1975) on from my hand (Zeegers, 1992). In this key 20 Tachinidae, but did so very intensively. Most species have been mentioned as Dutch for the of his material, now in the Zoölogisch Mu¬ first time, mainly based on the collection of seum, Amsterdam, has been collected around the Zoölogisch Museum in Amsterdam. How¬ Amsterdam and at Hoog Soeren. W. Verhaak ever, no information was given about locali¬ collected tachinids in Noord-Brabant, and Ph. ties and dates of captures. This key did make Pronk, J. Delfos and others collected intensi¬ some younger dipterologists enthusiastic for vely in the dune-area around Wassenaar. But the Tachinidae, resulting in much interesting most importantly, Kabos made B. van Aartsen material from the last years. Especially H. de enthusiastic for Tachinidae in the late sixties. Jong and J. T. Smit jr. caught several new spe¬ Still very active, Mr. Van Aartsen has been cies for the Dutch fauna. collecting Tachinidae all over the country for thirty years, of which the last fifteen years Material and methods very intensively. On his own, he has collected nearly 40% of all Dutch Tachinidae (more In order to make a critical new checklist, I than 8000 specimens), thus contributing in a have reexamined all the material available in major way to this new checklist. the larger Dutch collections, both public and In 1982 L. E. N. Sijstermans started to reexa¬ private ones. All material seen before mine the Dutch Tachinidae. He did not only December 31th, 1996, has been included in find many new species in the recently collected this survey. The following collections have material, but also found some new ones in the been seen, introducing the abbreviations used old material. Unfortunately, he could not com¬ throughout this article. plete this enormous task. Therefore, many of BvA: B. van Aartsen, ’t Harde; HdJ: H. de his discoveries remained unpublished. Jong, Amsterdam; IBN: Instituut voor Bos- en Ent. Ber., Amst. 58 (1998) 167 Natuuronderzoek, both localities Wageningen Zeegers, 1995” or “det Th. Zeegers, 1996”. (“de Dorschkamp”) and Arnhem (including However, specimens already correctly label¬ the former collection of LT.B.O.N.); JTS: J.T. led by L. E. N. Sijstermans have not been re¬ Smit jr., Utrecht; LEW: Laboratorium voor labelled. Entomologie, Wageningen; MEC: Milieu Educatie Centrum, Eindhoven (coll. Ver¬ Information included in the checklist haak); NNM: Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Mu¬ seum, Leiden; PD: Plantenziektenkundige In this checklist the following information is Dienst, Wageningen; SchK: Proefboerderij given for each species: De Schuilenberg, Kesteren; ThZ: Th. Zeegers, Enschede; ZMA: Zoölogisch Museum, Am¬ - Scientific name according to the checklist sterdam (including the collections of De Man, by Herting (1984); De Meijere, Kabos and Bax). Also some small - Reference to the checklist by De Meijere private collections have been seen partly or (1939) or other publications; completely. - “fauna spec, nov.” when the species had not All the tachinid flies in the above mentio¬ been published correctly as Dutch before; ned collections have been determined by the - Localities, dates and hosts (when reared) of author in 1995 and 1996. The material has the new Dutch species; been identified using the keys of Tschorsnig & - Notes. Herting (1994) and Mesnil (1944-1975). Information on locality and date of capture, For the names of genera and species in this collector and host (if a specimen has been checklist I have followed Herting (1984). reared) has been stored in a computerized da¬ Only in the genus Siphona it is necessary to tabase (Faunist, developed by M. van Veen). deviate from this checklist and follow the very Altogether more than 11,000 records based on recent review by Andersen (1996). However, I more than 20,000 specimens have been stored. have only incorporated those changes in na¬ The distribution of the records over the coun¬ mes that are inevitable, i.e. which are associa¬ try and the years is depicted in fig. 1 and 2. ted with a change in taxonomic status. In the¬ All specimens seen have been labelled with se cases, a reference has been made to the their name, followed by the line “det Th. name used by Herting (1984). Fig 2. Distribution of records of Dutch Tachinidae over the years 1860 - 1996, per decennium. 168 Ent. Ber., Amst. 58 (1998) After the species’ name reference has been “Dates:”. Hosts are given in cases of reared made to the checklist by De Meijere if the pre¬ specimen after “Hosts:”. sence of the species on this checklist proved to The collection in which the specimen is lo¬ be correctly. In cases in which the species had cated is indicated using the abbreviations in¬ been listed by De Meijere (1939) under an¬ troduced above. Also the collector, if known, other specific name, “(syn.)” is added. The is given after “leg.”, either in full name or reader can find a cross-reference between the using the abbreviation for the collection. checklist of 1939 and this checklist in Appendix 3.