Psychoda Latreille, 1796

Cordeiro, Danilo, Bravo, Freddy & De, Claudio J. B., 2011, Taxonomy of Brazilian Psychoda Latreille, 1796 (Diptera, Psychodidae) with the description of thirteen new species, Zootaxa 3101, pp. 1-37 : 3-4

Psychoda Latreille, 1796

Psychoda Latreille, 1796: 152 . Type species: Tipula phalaenoides Linnaeus , by monotype, according to Ježek (1984). Tinearia Schellenberg, 1803: 40 . Type species: Psychoda alternata Say , by subsequent designation, Coquillett 1910. Trichoptera Meigen, 1803: 261 . Type species: Tipula phalaenoides Linnaeus , by subsequent designation, Coquillett 1910. Psicoda Rondani, 1856: 178 (lapsus)

Logima Eaton, 1904: 58 . Type species: Psychoda erminea Eaton , by original designation. Psycoda Tokunaga, 1961: 454 (lapsus)

Copropsychoda Vaillant, 1971 nomen nudum

Psycholda Wagner, 1978: 70 (lapsus)

Psychodocha Ježek, 1984: 135 . Type species: Psychoda cinerea Banks , by original designation. Psycha Ježek, 1984: 136. Type species: Psychoda grisescens Tonnoir , by original designation. Psychomora Ježek, 1984: 137 . Type species: Psychoda trinodulosa Tonnoir , by original designation. Chodopsycha Ježek, 1984: 138. Type species: Psychoda lobata Tonnoir , by original designation. Psychodula Ježek, 1984: 138. Type species: Psychoda minuta Banks , by original designation. Ypsydocha Ježek, 1984: 140. Type species: Psychoda setigera Tonnoir , by original designation. Copropsychoda Ježek, 1984: 143. Type species: Psychoda brevicornis Tonnoir , by original designation. Falsologima Ježek & van Harten, 1996: 73. Type species: Psychoda savaiiensis Edwards , by original designation. Psychana Ježek & van Harten, 2005: 207. Type species: Psychoda rujumensis Ježek & van Harten, by original designation. Apsycha Ježek, 2007: 146 , syn. nov. Type species: Psychoda pusilla Tonnoir , by original designation.

Diagnosis. Vertex generally short (not extending above the eyes more than a distance equal to the width of the eye bridge). Labellum flattened, bearing 3–6 digitiform setae (teeth) on apex. Premental apodeme absent. Antenna with 12–14 flagellomeres, the ones apical to the 11th always reduced, fused or not in different combinations, and sometimes with small digitiform setae (“spines”). Ascoids generally Y-shaped, but in some species with one posterior and tree anterior branches (Ψ-shaped). Vein R5 ending at acute wing apex, radial fork always apical to the medial fork. Gonocoxites widely separated by the hypandrium, male surstylus bearing a single apical tenaculum. Aedeagus nearly always asymmetrical with a single paramere. Female subgenital plate bilobed, rarely trilobed, genital digit frequently present.

Comments. Albeit we have adopted here the broad definition of Psychoda by Bravo et al. (2006), we do not use their subgeneric classification, which correspond to genera previously proposed by Ježek (1984) and Ježek & van Harten (1996, 2005). Bravo et al. (2006) considered the classification proposed by Ježek (1984) and Ježek & van Harten (1996, 2005) to represent an advance in the taxonomy of the group, because it allowed the recognition of morphological units not previously recognized by Quate (1959a) and Vaillant (1990), but they did not find justification to maintain separate genera.

Even though dividing of a group as large as Psychoda might be desirable, we believe that such units should follow a cladistic hypothesis, in the aim to represent natural groups, and that the emphasis given to the variations seen on the antenna apex morphology in the groups of Ježek (1984) and Bravo et al. (2006) may be in fact oversplitting the taxa and maybe also masking other important characters. As can be seen in the comments for each species in this work, most of them do not agree with all diagnostic characters of one subgenera (only two of our new species can be classified in one of the subgenera: Psychoda serrana sp. nov. and Psychoda speculata sp. nov., both in the subgenus Psychodocha ). If we were to use the subgenera proposed by Bravo et al. (2006) or the genera of Ježek (1984), we would have to erect new subgenera/genera for our remaining new species and also for some previously described ones, to account for variations in the apical flagellomeres. If we want to make a classification based on a hypothesis of evolution, we believe that this morphological variation alone should not be considered to propose new names. As stated by Ježek & van Harten (2005), broader comparative morphological studies that take other characters into consideration, besides the apical flagellomeres, are necessary to recognize natural groups within Psychoda . Description of males of all species in this work would surely improve the discussion about the subgeneric/generic classification, but still the variations of antenna apex would require a redefinition of these groups and maybe also new names.