WORLD BLACKFLIES (DIPTERA: SIMULIIDAE): A COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF THE TAXONOMIC AND GEOGRAPHICAL INVENTORY [2021] Peter H. Adler Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29634-0310, USA [email protected] The World Inventory is dedicated to its original architect, Roger W. Crosskey (1930- 2017)1 2021 1 https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4455.1.2 Inventory Page 1 WORLD BLACKFLIES (DIPTERA: SIMULIIDAE): A COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF THE TAXONOMIC AND GEOGRAPHICAL INVENTORY [2021] Peter H. Adler Introduction to the 2021 Revision The present revision of the Inventory of the world’s Simuliidae continues the intent to provide yearly, fully updated electronic revisions of the World Inventory, which originally was issued in paper format by Crosskey (1988). The current revision, thus, includes all information known to have been published before 1 January 2021. The purpose and format of this inventory remain the same as for previous revisions. Because each yearly update replaces previous web revisions, relevant portions of previous web-based revisions are retained. The Introduction to the 2008 revision and novel text from the Introductions to the 2009-2019 revisions, therefore, can be found before the References, which include literature from all revisions, beginning with 2008. Acknowledgments from previous revisions are combined and included before the References. All nomenclatural changes (e.g., new combinations and new synonyms) and all notes from previous web revisions have also been retained, beginning with 2008. These past changes and notes are summarized at the end of the “Notes for the current (2021) inventory”. Table 1, which summarizes the numbers of formally named species in the genera and subgenera of the world Simuliidae, is updated annually. In this most recent revision of the Inventory, 2,401 species (2,384 living and 17 fossil) are listed as valid (Table 1), representing a net increase of 53 living species since the previous [2020] revision. Acknowledgments for the 2021 Revision Note: Acknowledgments for previous revisions are included in a cumulative list and yearly lists, before the References (below). I thank S. Ciadamidaro for pointing out distributional omissions for Italy, N. Hamada for information on the distribution of S. tergospinosum, S. M. Smith for drawing our attention to an additional incorrect subsequent spelling of S. colombaschense and S. goinyi, H. Takaoka for corrections to the Oriental fauna, and A. I. Vasiliev for providing his publication with records for Moldova. Explanatory information on the Inventory text The explanatory information detailed here is drawn from the 2004 inventory of Crosskey & Howard, except where modified in subsequent years to reflect changes in the approach and updates to each inventory revision. (1) Taxonomic information Scope The Inventory covers nominal taxa of blackflies known to have been described before 1 January 2021. Fossil taxa are included if they are unequivocally Simuliidae, and their palaeontological status is highlighted by enclosure of the entries in square brackets; the geological period is included as part of the provenance data. The following fossils that have been associated with the Simuliidae are excluded on grounds that their assignment to the family is erroneous: Liauningius robustus (Lin, 1976) (Chironomidae), Mesasimulium lahaigouense Zhang, 1986 (family uncertain), Pseudosimulium humidum (Westwood in Brodie, 1845) (Rhagionidae), Simulia pasithea Heyden, 1870 (? Ceratopogonidae), Simulia terribilis Förster, 1891 (? Ceratopogonidae), Simulidium priscum Westwood, 1854 (Rhagionidae), Simuliites brevirostris (Kalugina, 1986) (Kaluginamyiidae), and Simulium ? ventricum Lin, Yao, Xiang & Xia, 1988 (family uncertain). Taxa designated in the literature informally, e.g., by letters, numbers, place names, chromosomal diagnostic features, etc., are recorded and are entered where appropriate in the text in light of present knowledge. However, the simuliid literature is enormous and there is no guarantee that every informal handle for a taxon has been unearthed. The literature is replete with cases where unidentifiable specimens have been given no particular handle and simply referred to as ‘sp.’ (e.g., ‘Simulium sp.’). No attempt has been made to record these or guess at the identities of species to which they might refer when there is no other information. Subspecies and complexes The subspecies category has not been widely used in the Simuliidae and when it has, the concept has usually borne little relation to the ‘Mayrian’ geographically based concept of a subspecies. Its main use has been in various works on the Palaearctic fauna by I.A. Inventory Page 2 Rubtsov and summarised in Rubtsov & Yankovsky (1988). However, Yankovsky (1995) has since ceased to recognise these Rubtsovian subspecies as having separate validity and has disposed of most of them as straight synonyms. In the Inventory, no subspecies as such are listed, but names still sometimes applied to subspecies by a few authors in contemporary literature are indicated by suffixing the names with ‘(ssp.)’ where they are listed in the appropriate species entry. It is now long established that some apparently single species (morphospecies) are complexes of biologically separate cryptic (sibling) species, these usually defined on chromosomal criteria and conveniently called cytospecies. Where a morphospecies is known to be such an aggregate of cryptic species the suffix ‘(complex)’ has been given immediately following the valid species/author/date statement. In many such complexes the precise status of the constituents is often undetermined (i.e., they are not necessarily always of definite specific status) and they still lack formal scientific nomenclature. To deal with this situation, each such name based on chromosomal characterisation is suffixed with the inert term ‘(cytoform)’. This term is to be read as a non-committal umbrella for entities both of undetermined status (cytotypes) and of more or less completely definite species status (cytospecies). When reproductive isolation can be inferred from chromosomal data, the term ‘cytospecies’ is used. The equivalents ‘molecular form’ and ‘morphoform’ have been used for entities based, respectively, on gene sequences and hard-parts morphology but still only informally named. Inventory format Scientific (Latinised) names entering into formal nomenclature are ranged to the left-hand margin if valid but indented if they are synonyms. Valid names are alphabetical, but synonyms are in chronological order to show their relative priorities. Vernacular ‘names’ are similarly ranged left, if on current knowledge, they could pertain to valid species but are indented if they are synonyms. Vernacularly named entities are listed chronologically (alphabetically within year) at the end of the appropriate entry, after the scientific names. Occasionally, when cyto-, molecular, or morphoforms have been more finely divided, the subdivisions are indented under the more inclusive form. For example, ‘Kibwezi’ is a cytoform of S. damnosum, which has been subdivided into two cytoforms, ‘Kibwezi A1’ and ‘Kibwezi A2’. Similarly, when one form is known to be equivalent to another form, it is indented. For example, the ‘Cypress Hills’ cytoform is considered equivalent to cytoform ‘AF’, which in turn is a subdivision of cytoform ‘X’ within S. craigi. Taxonomic rank and validity or invalidity of names are distinguished by lettering style: generic and subgeneric names are in capitals (bold type when valid and lightface italics when synonyms), and specific names in lower case letters (bold type when valid and lightface italics when synonyms). In species-group headings, the specific name is highlighted by the use of capitals, e.g., ‘ORNATUM species-group’. In the rare situation where a species appears to be ‘good’ but its name is at present technically invalid, that name is ranged left and printed in lightface italics to show that it cannot be validly used; see below under ‘Homonyms’ where such cases refer to specific names that are unreplaced homonyms. Nomenclature Spellings, authorship, dating, availability status, and other relevant aspects accord with the requirements of the current (fourth) edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature published in 1999 and effective from 1 January 2000. In accordance with articles 31.2 and 34.2, the spellings of specific names conform to the gender of the generic names with which they are combined; the gender of the subgenus (if any) is not relevant. Nomenclatural annotations. Appropriate annotations are given when necessary, for instance when a name as published is unavailable (e.g., a nomen nudum or proposed for a variety or form after 1960) or was published as a replacement name for a preoccupied (junior) homonym, or the name has the technical status of an incorrect original or incorrect subsequent spelling. Where a name has been the subject of an official Opinion of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the Opinion number is given accompanied where relevant by the word ‘List’ or ‘Index’, the former referring to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology and the latter to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. (There is one instance of ‘Gen. List’ (i.e., Cnetha), this referring to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.) Homonyms. It is necessary to call attention to a terminological change for names used to