Ragadidae Sinclair, 2016
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2019.521 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:40C3F1EE-5EE3-4DA8-ADE0-6D57BAC23C26 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3489132 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A6B675-FFFB-FFFD-0232-D3D8FAC0B5B2 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Ragadidae Sinclair, 2016 |
| status |
|
Family Ragadidae Sinclair, 2016
Figs 2 View Fig A–C, 3, 4A–C, 5
Diagnosis
The Ragadidae are separated from the Dolichopodidae and the Hybotidae Meigen, 1820 by the presence of unrotated and symmetrical male genitalia, and with a point of origin of R S at a distance from crossvein h being equal to, or longer than, crossvein h. The family is distinguished from the Atelestidae Hennig, 1970 in having a circumambient costa. It is separated from the Empididae by a prosternum that is separated from the proepisternum (except in species of Hydropeza ). The representatives of Hydropeza are distinguished by the presence of a recurved labrum, which is straight in the Empididae .
Description
Labrum truncate apically. R S origins at a distance from crossvein h as long as or longer than crossvein h itself; subcosta reaches costa (except in Hydropeza spp.); R 4+5 branched (except in Anthepiscopus spp.); costa circumambient. Prosternum separated from proepisternum (except in Hydropeza spp.);
laterotergite bare (except in Dipsomyia spp.). Males: terminalia symmetrical and unrotated; postgonites present; cercus weakly sclerotized.
Comments
The diagnostic characters showed below are based on the results of Wahlberg & Johanson (2018), reflecting the expanded concept of including the Iteaphilinae in the family. The Ragadidae are recorded from all the biogeographic regions except Antarctica, and fossil records in Baltic amber suggest this group to be at least 40 million years old ( Sinclair 1999).
Included subfamilies
Subfamily Ragadinae Sinclair, 2016.
Subfamily Iteaphilinae Wahlberg & Johanson, 2018.
Key to the subfamilies and genera
1. Fore coxa with stout spine like setae on anterior face ( Fig. 6A View Fig ).…........................…(Ragadinae) 2
– Stout spine like setae on anterior face of fore coxa absent ( Fig. 6C View Fig ) .........................(Iteaphilinae) 5
2. Postgena with stout spine like setae ( Fig. 6A View Fig , 7C View Fig ); wings without costal bristle; spine like setae present on inner ventral margin of fore trochanter ( Figs 6A View Fig , 7G View Fig ) ..........................…..3
– Postgena bare or with setae, not spine like ( Figs 6C View Fig , 7 View Fig A–B); costal bristle present; fore trochanter without spine like setae on inner margin ( Figs 6C View Fig , 7F View Fig ) ......……............................…4
3. Eyes pubescent ( Fig. 7C View Fig ); in wings, CuA recurved ( Fig. 9D View Fig ); fore coxa with tubercle ( Fig. 7G View Fig ) ...................................................................................................................…. Zanclotus Wilder, 1982
– Eyes bare ( Fig. 6A View Fig ); in wings, CuA straight ( Fig. 9A View Fig ); fore coxa without tubercle ( Fig. 6A View Fig , cf. 7D–F) …..……………...............................................................................…………….. Ragas Walker, 1837
4. Eyes pubescent ( Fig. 7B View Fig ); prosternum fused with proepisternum forming a precoxal bridge ( Fig. 7E View Fig ); laterotergite without setae ….............................................… Hydropeza Sinclair, 1999
– Eyes bare ( Fig. 7A View Fig ); prosternum separated from proepisternum forming an isolated sclerite ( Fig. 7D View Fig ); laterotergite with setae …….....................................................................… Dipsomyia Bezzi, 1909
5. In wings, costal bristle present; CuA straight ( Fig. 9G View Fig ); scape always bare ( Fig. 8A View Fig ) ………............ ....…………….................................................................……………. Hormopeza Zetterstedt, 1838
– In wings, costal bristle absent; CuA recurved ( Figs 9 View Fig E–F); scape always with setae ( Fig. 6B View Fig )...6
6. In wings, R 4+5 branched into R 4 and R 5 ( Fig. 9E View Fig ) ….....................… Iteaphila Zetterstedt, 1838 View in CoL
– In wings,R 4+5 unbranched ( Fig. 9F View Fig ) ……..........................................…… Anthepiscopus Becker, 1891 View in CoL
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.