20 © Sahlbergia Vol. 12: 20–32, 2007 Checklist of Finnish flies: superfamilies Tephritoidea and Sciomyzoidea (Dip- tera: Brachycera) Kaj Winqvist & Jere Kahanpää Winqvist, K. & Kahanpää, J. 2007: Checklist of Finnish flies: superfamilies Tephritoidea and Sciomyzoidea (Diptera: Brachycera). — Sahlbergia 12:20-32, Helsinki, Finland, ISSN 1237-3273. Another part of the updated checklist of Finnish flies is presented. This part covers the families Lonchaeidae, Pallopteridae, Piophilidae, Platystomatidae, Tephritidae, Ulididae, Coelopidae, Dryomyzidae, Heterocheilidae, Phaeomyii- dae, Sciomyzidae and Sepsidae. Eight species are recorded from Finland for the first time. The following ten species have been erroneously reported from Finland and are here deleted from the Finnish checklist: Chaetolonchaea das- yops (Meigen, 1826), Earomyia crystallophila (Becker, 1895), Lonchaea hirti- ceps Zetterstedt, 1837, Lonchaea laticornis Meigen, 1826, Prochyliza lundbecki (Duda, 1924), Campiglossa achyrophori (Loew, 1869), Campiglossa irrorata (Fallén, 1814), Campiglossa tessellata (Loew, 1844), Dioxyna sororcula (Wie- demann, 1830) and Tephritis nigricauda (Loew, 1856). The Finnish records of Lonchaeidae: Lonchaea bruggeri Morge, Lonchaea contigua Collin, Lonchaea difficilis Hackman and Piophilidae: Allopiophila dudai (Frey) are considered dubious. The total number of species of Tephritoidea and Sciomyzoidea found from Finland is now 262. Kaj Winqvist, Zoological Museum, University of Turku, FI-20014 Turku, Finland. Email: [email protected] Jere Kahanpää, Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140, FI-00251 Helsinki, Finland. Email: kahanpaa@iki.fi Introduction new millennium there was no concentrated The last complete checklist of Finnish Dipte- Finnish effort to study just these particular ra was published in Hackman (1980a, 1980b). groups. Consequently, before our work the Recent checklists of Finnish species have level of knowledge on Finnish fauna in these been published for ‘lower Brachycera’ i.e. Xy- families was very heterogeneous particularly lophagidae – Empididae by Kahanpää & Win- with regard to Tephritoidea. qvist (2005), Dolichopodidae by Kahanpää & In Tephritidae the monograph by Merz Grichanov (2004) and Syrphidae by Haarto & (1994) covers not only the Central European Kerppola (2004). This paper presents a new fauna but also the Northern European species. checklist of the 151 Finnish species in the su- This work proved very helpful in updating the perfamily Tephritoidea and 111 species in the list of FinnishTephritidae. North European superfamily Sciomyzoidea. Pallopteridae are adequately covered by An- The superfamilies Tephritoidea and Sci- dersson (1990), Morge (1963) and Rotheray omyzoidea have not exactly been neglected (1999). Both Finnish species of Platystoma- in Finland, but before the beginning of the tidae and most ulidids are included in Rich- Winqvist & Kahanpää: Tephritoidea and Sciomyzoidea 21 ter (1989a, 1989b) keys for European part tion of the Finnish dryomyzids is covered by of Russia. An important paper on the ulidid Ozerov (1987) and Stackelberg (1988). The genus Homalocephala was published by An- Finnish fauna of superfamily Sciomyzoidea is dersson (1991). well-known and only a few additions can be Yet, Tephritoidea includes two problema- expected. tic families where the taxonomical situation and existing literature are far less comprising. Material and methods In Piophilidae, the most important key to be The material and methods used were docu- used is still the revision of world Piophilidae mented in the previous part of the checklist by McAlpine (1977). This family includes a published by the authors (Kahanpää & Win- number of poorly known and recently descri- qvist 2005). The majority of examined speci- bed arctic and boreal species, some of which mens are stored in the Diptera Fennica collec- may be present in Finland. One such new spe- tion of the Zoological Museum, University of cies was found during the course of this work Helsinki (MZH). and it will be described in a separate article by The material in the insect collections of Winqvist & Kahanpää (unpublished). the Department of Applied Biology in Viik- The situation was a bit better in Loncha- ki, now part of MZH, Zoological Museum of eidae, where Hackman (1956) had conducted Turku and Natural History and Conservation a good basic study of the Finnish species and Society in Forssa were gone through. Also his work was continued by Nuorteva (1967). several individual collections (coll. Haarto in Also Kovalev (1984) made some important Mietoinen perhaps being the most important) additions to the North European lonchaeids, were checked. Malaise trap and yellow tray but the most helpful contribution in this fami- material caught by Metsähallitus and SYKE ly came from Scotland, where MacGowan has in 2005 were also included in the study. compiled all the existing knowledge of Euro- Species are listed in alphabetic order un- pean lonchaeids in his draft key. Lonchaeidae der the genus name. Additional names used is however a poorly known and taxonomically for the same species are listed under the valid challenging family, so there will certainly be name. Synonyms are listed here only if they future changes in the Finnish list of Loncha- have been used in major Finnish papers, es- eidae. pecially in the previous checklists. All names The second superfamily, Sciomyzoidea, used in the previous checklists are included. has received more attention in Northern Euro- Preoccupied names (preocc.) and emenda- pe during the last decades. Rozkošný’s world tions (emend.) are labelled accordingly. Mi- catalogue of Sciomyzidae and his book on the sidentifications (misid.) are listed only if the Fennoscandian fauna (including Phaeomyii- species was reported as new for Finland under dae) are slightly out of date but still very use- the given name. In this case the author name ful reference works (Rozkošný 1984, 1995). and year refers to the publification of the Fin- Pont (2002) provides keys and descriptions nish record. Species with notes in Results are of all European species of Sepsidae. During marked with an asterisk (*) after the species these two “Fauna Entomologica Scandinavi- name. ca”-projects the Finnish museum material of Sciomyzidae and Sepsidae had already been Results checked. The world sepsid fauna has recently A total of 151 tephritoid and 111 sciomy- been catalogued by Ozerov (2005). Identifica- zoid flies have been found in Finland. Table 22 Winqvist & Kahanpää: Tephritoidea and Sciomyzoidea 1 shows the total number of Finnish species Hackman (1956). Hackman’s specimens for each family in the current checklist and from Karislojo and Utsjoki were reassig- in previously published works (Frey 1941, ned by Morge (1959a) as paratypes of D. Hackman 1980b). Eight species are recorded perpropinquus Morge and D. trichoster- from Finland for the first time. The follo- nalis Morge respectively. A single female wing species have been erroneously reported of D. occultus Collin (sensu Morge) has from Finland - but not necessarily included since been found in Finland: 1 ♀, Ab: in previous checklists - and are here deleted Nauvo (=Nagu), Högsar, 7.-18.vi.1961, from the list of Finnish species: Lonchaeidae: leg. A. Nordman, in MZH. Chaetolonchaea dasyops (Meigen), Earo- Chaetolonchaea dasyops (Meigen): Deleted myia crystallophila (Becker), Lonchaea hirti- from the Finnish checklist. All records ceps Zetterstedt, Lonchaea laticornis Meigen. are based on misidentified specimens of Piophilidae: Prochyliza lundbecki (Duda). C. pallipennis, q. v. Tephritidae: Campiglossa achyrophori (Loew) Chaetolonchaea pallipennis (Zetterstedt): Campiglossa irrorata (Fallén), Campiglossa New to Finland. Misidentified by Fin- tessellata (Loew), Dioxyna sororcula (Wie- nish authors (Hackman 1956) and others demann), Tephritis nigricauda (Loew). The as Chaetolonchaea dasyops (Meigen). circumstances leading these deletions are dis- Locally common in coastal forests in cussed in the notes, q. v. Three lonchaeid and the southern provinces Al, Ab, N and Ka. one piophilid species are listed as doubtful. Hackman (1956) mentions a specimen from Sa: Joutseno, but we have not been Notes able to confirm this record. Dasiops latiterebra (Czerny): Morge (1959b) Earomyia crystallophila (Becker): Omitted lists one specimen from Finland: 1 ♀, Ja- from the checklist. Finnish according to kobstad, Mus. Hels. No. 2549, Exemplar- Kovalev and Morge (1984), but never Nr. 1970. There is one female from Pietar- mentioned in Finnish checklists. All spe- saari (= Jakobstad) in MZH (16.vii.1955, cimens in MZH under names E. nigrovio- leg. R. Storå). Unfortunately it lacks the lacea (Frey in Lundström & Frey, 1913) serial number labels normally found on and E. parvicornis Czerny, 1934 nec. Zet- Dasiops specimens examined by Morge terstedt, 1847 are from the Kola Peninsula and it remains unclear whether it was ac- in northwestern Russia; this includes the tually seen by Morge. sole type specimen of nigroviolacea. Dasiops mucronatus Morge: New to Fin- Lonchaea albigena Collin: Not listed in land. There are three specimens in MZH: Hackman (1980b). Two females are kno- a female from Pietarsaari (= Jakobstad), wn from Finland: 1 ♀, Sa: Mikkeli (= St. 16.vii.1955, leg. R. Storå, a female from Michel), leg. Nordqvist; 1 ♀, Ta: Pirkkala Helsinki, leg. R. Frey, and a male from (= Birkkala), leg. R. Frey, ID 3517, labels Pakila, Helsinki, 6.iv.1950 (ex. larva), ‘Lonchaea hirticeps Zett. ♀ det. Czerny’/ leg. L. Tiensuu. The female