Priscoearomyia, Morge, 1963

Macgowan, Iain, 2023, World Catalogue of the family Lonchaeidae (Diptera, Cyclorrhapha, Acalyptratae), Zootaxa 5307 (1), pp. 1-96 : 72-80

Genus Priscoearomyia

Note 25. The genus was erected by Morge (1963a: 93). However, up until this date Priscoearomyia has been regarded as a junior synonym of Protearomyia McAlpine, 1962 and the latter name has been used extensively in the literature. It is now evident that Protearomyia was first proposed in McAlpine’s PhD thesis and as such it does not meet the ICZN criteria for publication of a genus name.

Note 26. Priscoearomyia nigra . According to Morge (1962: 397) the female holotype is in good condition but its capture locality is unknown. However, Kovalev & Morge (1984: 250) gave the type locality as “ Germany?” Females of Palearctic Priscoearomyia are not currently identifiable to species level and, with some five Priscoearomyia species now being recorded from Germany, investigation of the holotype by DNA analysis may well be required to confirm if it is actually conspecific with what we currently consider to be males of P. nigra .

Genus Lonchaea

Note 27. Species belonging to the tribe Lonchaeini , in the genera Lonchaea , Silba and Neosilba , which are described from a holotype female with no associated male specimens. In almost all cases confirmation of the identity of species in this tribe depends on examination of the male terminalia. Where a species is described only from a female holotype without any associated allotype or paratype males it can be difficult to identify conspecific males. Males of the same species can potentially be identified as separate species resulting in considerable taxonomic confusion.

Note 28. Last abdominal segments of these holotype male specimens dissected & presumed destroyed ( Ozerov, 2010).

Note 29. These six nominal species were described by Luna (1988) within the context of a key to the Neotropical Lonchaea . As this was a pre-1999 publication, the characters given in the key meet the criteria set out by the ICZN Code ( International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999) for an available name. Luna stated that full descriptions would be made in subsequent papers, but this apparently did not happen.

With regard to the location of the Luna type material, Professor J.R. Loaiza, University of Panama, has informed me that “Professor Ivan Luna died in 2010, and we believe that family members withdrew all of his items, including entomological boxes, from the university entomological collection at that time” Professor Roberto Cambra, Director, Museo de Invertebrados G.B. Fairchild, Universidad de Panamá, additionally informed me that “A few years ago the air conditioners in the university museum were broken, and the lack of dehumidifiers caused many specimens to be destroyed by fungus” .

In his Master’s thesis Luna (1987) stated that the type material of four species, Lonchaea curvicaudata , L papaveroi , L. plumoaristata and L. zamorana was to be deposited in the Museu de Zoologia, USP, S„o Paulo, Brazil However, Professor Carlos Lamas of that institution has informed me that “Luna had the specimens that Dr. Nelson Papavero loaned him in the 1980s, but these were never returned. In the MZUSP collection, we have only unidentified material of Lonchaea , which includes 33 specimens from Nova Teutônia (Santa Catarina, Brazil); 9 from Eug. Lefreve, Campos do Jord„o (S„o Paulo, Brazil) and one from Boca do Cuminá-Miri (Pará, Brazil). These are type localities of the “new species” proposed by Luna, but there are no identifications or type labels on them”.

Luna (1987) also stated that the holotypes of L. chinchinaia and L. pseudoaculeata were to be deposited in the Museum of Entomology, La Molina National Agrarian University, Lima, Peru (MEKRB). I have contacted Professor Clorinda Vergara, curator of entomology at this institution, who has not been able to locate these specimens in the collection.

The conclusion at this stage must be that the holotype material of all these species described by Luna is lost. Paratypes of two species, Lonchaea curvicauda (unfortunately both females) and L. pseudoaculeata , are in the MUIP collections

Note 30. Lonchaea aenea . Treated as doubtful species by Kovalev & Morge (1984: 252) who also stated that it is “probably a senior synonym of Earomyia lonchaeoides Zetterstedt ”. Morge 1975 Plate 135 Figure 7 illustrates this specimen in Meigen’s book of plates. The figure shows a female specimen in dorsal view. It has entirely black legs, the eye width is 0.75x the width of the frons, the apical section of the anal vein is distinctly curved towards the wing margin, and the veins surrounding the costal cell are shown in black unlike those in the other lonchaeids illustrated, an extended oviscape is evident. However, the wing does not show the shading of the wing veins which is characteristic of E. lonchaeoides females. Morge (1959a: 3) stated the type should be in the Natural History Museum in Vienna but it does not appear in their online catalogue.

Note 31. Lonchaea andina . McAlpine (1974: 778) noted that this species “is very similar if not identical with Lonchaea pilifrons Hennig, 1949 . [...] Unfortunately, andina is known only from the single female holotype and pilifrons from the single male holotype. Until associated sexes are discovered it will be difficult to ascertain whether these two holotypes represent the same or different species”.

Note 32. Lonchaea angustitarsis . In his unpublished key to the Nearctic species of Lonchaea McAlpine (1981) regarded L. angustitarsis (described from the holotype female without any associated type material) as a junior synonym of Lonchaea deutschi Zetterstedt, 1838 - this status is accepted in this catalogue.

Note 33. Lonchaea aucklandica . According to Harrison (1959: 213) “the holotype has not been examined and cannot be found in the collections of the Canterbury Museum or Cawthron Institute in New Zealand. No other specimens referable to the genus Lonchaea are in collections and no information beyond Hutton’s original description is available. The description needs elaboration before the species can be recognised and there must be some doubt as to the correct generic placing of Hutton’s species until specimens are available” .

Note 34. Lonchaea brasiliensis . Walker (1853: 378) described this species as having “poisers [=halteres] yellow” so it is almost certainly not a species of Lonchaeidae . It is not included in the key to Neotropical Lonchaea ( Luna 1988) or the list of Neotropical Lonchaea species (Korytowsi & Ojeda 1988: 100). It was (as of January 2023) listed by Evenhuis & Pape 2022 as being a valid name in the Lonchaeidae . See also second paragraph of Note 42.

Note 35. Lonchaea bukowskii . The species is described from a male from Crimea and a female from St. Petersburg, but the holotype was not indicated in the description. According to Nartshuk et al. (2021: 928) Morge attached a “ lectotype ” label to the St. Petersburg female in the ZIN collection but no publication with the lectotype designation could be found. However, Morge (1963a: 287: Figure 115) does illustrate the antenna of the female lectotype. The male was associated and terminalia figured by MacGowan (2012).

Note 36. Lonchaea chalybea . The male was described and figured by Korytkowski & Ojeda (1988: 104 Figures 26a & 26b.)

Note 37. Lonchaea contraria . According to Hackman (1956: 90) syntypes from Finland belong to several different species and a holotype is not clearly identified .

Note 38. Lonchaea corusca . Originally described from female specimens.Associated males were described by later authors under the various junior synonyms. Czerny (1934: 14) stated that Stackelberg caught a female of this species in “Gouv. Leningrad” [= St. Petersburg area]; and also listed a further female bred from alder ( Alnus ) in Lithuania, which was originally determined by Loew as L. hyalipennis Zetterstedt, 1847 which is presumably in Loew’s collection in Berlin.

Kovalev & Morge 1984: 254 gave the type localities as Lithuania and Leningrad implying that the type material consists of syntypes. According to Morge (1963a: 226) a syntype of L. corusca from Jukki, Leningrad (= St. Petersburg) is actually a specimen of L. chorea Fabricius. It is unclear if this is the specimen referred to by Czerny (1934: 14) from the Leningrad area or if it relates to another specimen.

Note 39. Lonchaea cyaneonitens . McAlpine (1977: 226) included this species in the Catalog of Diptera of the Oriental Region. However, the only record provided is from Papua New Guinea in the Australasian-Oceanian Region. Records of this species from Fiji were removed by MacGowan (2014c: 549).

Note 40. Lonchaea desantisi . The illustration of the male terminalia for this species provided by Luna 1987: 312 is most probably refers to Lonchaea choreoides Bezzi, 1923 . Luna (1987) gave details of the specimens he examined but none of these were collected either by Blanchard or at the type locality. The status of this species may remain in doubt until the holotype is located and examined.

Note 41. Lonchaea . deutschi . McAlpine (1958: 406) stated that the L. deutschi of Coquillett (1900: 459) from Alaska is not referable to Lonchaea sens. str.

Note 42. Lonchaea discrepans . Walker (1861: 322) described this species as having “halteres white” and thus it cannot be a Lonchaeid. Although this species is listed by Melander 1913: 79 it is not listed as a Lonchaeid by subsequent authors. It was (as of December 2022) listed by Evenhuis & Pape (2022) as being a valid name in the Lonchaeidae but the reference given for this (Guimar„es, 1971) is a paper dealing with the Tachinidae of South America. I cannot find discrepans Walker, 1861 in the index to this paper although there is a Distichona discrepans Wulp, 1890 . It is removed from the Lonchaeidae in this catalogue.

Lonchaea albimanus . This is another Walker species from South America described as having white halteres ( Walker, 1858: 222). As far as I can ascertain it is not listed as a lonchaeid by any other authors. Evenhuis & Pape (2022) give the status as “(Available, Valid) Unplaced or Nomen Dubium ” but with white halteres it is clearly not a lonchaeid and is removed from the family.

The Walker collection, which would contain these species, is in the BMNH. Duncan Sivell, Curator of Diptera has informed me “the collection has been checked but specimens of Lonchaea brasiliensis or L. discrepans could not be located. These species are not on the BMNH database either which inclines me to believe they are not in BMNH. Some of Walker’s British material has been kept together, but his non-British material was incorporated into the main collection, so if these specimens existed, they should be among the Lonchaeidae ” (Duncan Sivell, March 2023, personal communication).

Note 43. Lonchaea foxleei . In his manuscript key McAlpine (1981) stated that this species “seems undistinguishable” from Lonchaea subneatosa Kovalev, 1974 . If this proves to be the case, L. subneatosa would be regarded as a junior synonym.

Note 44. Lonchaea freyi . Described from a single female, but Hackman (1956: 105) described an associated male and illustrated the terminalia. Hackman also noted that “the ovipositor of the female holotype of L. freyi is unfortunately lost”

Note 45. Lonchaea fulvicornis . Kovalev & Morge (1984: 259) stated “probably not a lonchaeid”.

Note 46. Lonchaea impressifrons . Described from the female holotype from Ghana. A male from the Democratic Republic of Congo was associated with this species by McAlpine (1960: 361). However , given the large number species now known in the L. impressifrons species-group in the Afrotropical Region, there must be some doubt regarding this association .

Note 47. Lonchaea indistincta . Listed in Systema Dipterorum ( Evenhuis & Pape, 2022) as a junior synonym of Lonchaea rufitarsis Macquart , which itself is a junior synonym of L. polita Say. The original description is of a female specimen with “tawny halteres” and as a result its placement as a junior synonym of L. polita , or even as a lonchaeid may be doubtful.

Note 48. Lonchaea laticornis . What was originally considered as a single species is now recognised as representing a larger species-group with species distinguishable only by examination of the male terminalia. At present it is not possible to allocate the holotype female of L. laticornis to any of these more recently named species and the name Lonchaea laticornis is at the present time applied only to the holotype pending further taxonomic evidence becoming available.

Note 49. Lonchaea leucostoma . Kovalev & Morge (1984) listed L. leucostoma as a doubtful species but did not actually state that it is not a lonchaeid. Morge (1959a: 3) stated the type should be in the von R̂der collection in the University of Halle but also stated that he could not find the types there. He suggested that “the type may not have been lost at all, but the labels may have been removed or lost during rearrangements to the collection”. Enquiries made for the preparation of this catalogue to Karla Schneider, curator of the R̂der collection, confirm that this specimen could not be located.

Note 50. Lonchaea megacera . According to McAlpine (1970: 443) “this species is extremely similar to, and perhaps is identical with, L. dasyscutella McAlpine,1964b from Northern Queensland. Unfortunately, L. megacera is only known from a single female and L. dasyscutella only from males. Until the sexes are properly associated it seems best to treat them as separate entities”.

Note 51. Lonchaea melanaria . Morge (1963: 229) identified this species as a junior synonym of Lonchaea sylvatica Belling, 1873 , but this cannot be the case as the description of L. melanaria predates that of L. sylvatica . In a footnote Morge explained that he considered this is a questionable synonymy with L. sylvatica as the type of Aricia melanaria is damaged, but confirms that A. melanaria belongs to the genus Lonchaea . Kovalev & Morge (1984: 257) repeated this synonymy without explanation and it is further repeated in more modern databases As Morge considered this synonymy questionable and as the specific identity of the holotype of Arcia melanaria has not been established the species is regarded as doubtful in this catalogue.

Note 52. Lonchaea pumila . Kovalev & Morge (1984) listed L. pumila as a doubtful species but do not actually state that it is not a lonchaeid. Morge (1959a: 3) stated the type should be in the von R̂der collection in the University of Halle but he could not find the types there. He suggested that “the type may not have been lost at all, but the labels may have been removed or lost during rearrangements to the collection”. Enquiries made to Karla Schneider, curator of the R̂der collection, for the preparation of this catalogue, confirm that this specimen could not be located.

Note 53. When the genus Setisquamalonchaea was synonymised, S. intermedia MacGowan, 2007 was placed in the genus Lonchaea . However, t he name Lonchaea intermedia was preoccupied by L. intermedia ( Hennig, 1949) resulting in the need for a replacement name - Lonchaea orientalis MacGowan, 2013 . The species authority Lonchaea orientalis MacGowan, 2007 in MacGowan & Okamoto 2013: 201 is incorrect.

Note 54. Lonchaea peregrina . Becker (1895: 336) stated in the original description [in translation] “a male in Loew’s collection”. The Loew collection is in NHMB but on making enquiries regarding this specimen Jenny Pohl of NHMB stated “According to our Diptera general catalogue, a specimen Lonchaea peregrina Becker, 1895 , from the Loew collection is registered under the number “11674”. Unfortunately, neither my colleague nor I could find the specimen after an intensive search in our main collection and in the supplements. It seems lost” The last published reference is by Kovalev (1981) who examined the holotype male which was sent to him by Gunter Morge, Eberswalde, Germany.

Note 55. Lonchaea palpata . Morge (1963a: 229, 287, 288) considered L. palpata to be a junior synonym of Lonchaea peregrina . However, Kovalev (1981) subsequently described five males from the Moscow region which he attributed to this species. Subsequently Kovalev & Morge (1984: 256) included L. palpata Palearctic Diptera checklist. Based on the examination of modern material, I would agree with Morge that L. palpata is a junior synonym of L. peregrina as the characters provided by both Czerny (1934) and Kovalev (1981) for L. palpata fall within the variation encountered in L. peregrina .

Note 56. Lonchaea sibirica . According to Nartshuk et al. (2021: 941) the end of the abdomen (and presumably the genitalia) is missing in the holotype. A paratype male is in the collections of ZMUM, it is not known whether genitalia are present with the paratype .

Note 57. Lonchaea stigmatica . Described from the holotype female from eastern Russia, this name was subsequently applied to species in the European fauna by several authors. However, what was originally considered as one species is now recognised as a larger species-group with many cryptic species distinguishable only by the male terminalia.At present it is not possible to allocate the holotype female to any of these more recently named species and the name now is applied only to the holotype until further taxonomic evidence is available .

Note 58. Lonchaea subneatosa . According to Nartshuk et al. (2021: 942) the tip of the abdomen (and presumably the genitalia) is missing in the holotype.

Note 59. Luna (1987: 250) stated (in translation) that “the types of L. chalybea Wiedemann , L. orchidearum Townsend , L. wiedemanni Townsend and L. ecuatoriana = L. metatarsata Becker require to be redescribed as the existing descriptions do not allow for their adequate identification or taxonomic placement. In addition, some names may have been improperly assigned to these species. Lonchaea chalybea was re-described by Korytkowski & Ojeda (1988: 104) but the others still require attention”.

Note 60. There was primary homonymy between Lonchaea metatarsata Kertész, 1901 and Lonchaea metatarsata Becker, 1919 and as a result Becker’s 1919 name required to be replaced. The fact that Kertész’s name was subsequently moved to Lamprolonchaea is irrelevant, the primary homonymy still exists. As there are no junior synonyms of Becker’s name from which to choose, a new name was required. Luna (1987:186) proposed L. ecuatoriana , a name which is unavailable as under ICZN rules the thesis is not considered a publication. However, Luna (1988: 20) published this name again in his key to the Neotropical Lonchaea species thus making it available.

Genus Neosilba

Note 61. This genus was first proposed in J.F. McAlpine’s PhD thesis ( McAlpine, 1962). As such it does not meet the criteria of the I.C.Z.N. for publication of a genus name. Morge (1967: 173) used the name Neosilba but only as part of a general text on genera within the Lonchaeini . Korytkowski & Ojeda (1971) in their revision of the Peruvian Lonchaeidae were apparently unaware of McAlpine’s thesis and did not use the genus name Neosilba or cite McAlpine, 1962 as a reference. Romero & Ruppel (1973) described Silba perezi in 1973, but despite the description clearly indicating that this was a Neosilba species as indicated by the keys in McAlpine (1962) they did not use this genus name, and again McAlpine (1962) was not cited. In the USA Boza (1977) did use the name Neosilba perezi and provided notes on its biology in his M.S. thesis for the University of Florida, but again this thesis publication does not meet the criteria for establishment of a genus name. It was not until Waddill & Weems (1978: 1) used the name Neosilba perezi (Romero & Ruppel) in a February 1978 Entomology Circular that the genus name was formally made available. The I.C.Z.N. stated that it does not require inclusion in a taxonomic paper to make the genus name available. All that is necessary (pre-2000) is that characters (whether biological, behavioural or morphological) and a single valid species are provided, criteria which are met by Waddill & Weems (1978).

Note 62. Combinations which were published before the genus name Neosilba was made formally available by Waddill & Weems in 1978.

Note 63. The name Neosilba certa was first published by Walker in Insecta Saundersiana. Volume 1 which has a publication date for the completed volume of 1856. However, the book was published in 5 parts between 1850 and 1856. Page 364, with the description of Anthomyia certa , falls within part 4 (pages 252–414), which was published in 1853. As a result, the publication date of the description for N. certa given by McAlpine & Steyskal

(1982: 109) of 1852, McAlpine & Steyskal (1982: 112) of 1850–1856, Urrutia (2004: 19 & 20) of 1852 and Fernandez & Couri (2016: 569) of 1850 can be refined and corrected.

Note 64. Neosilba delvechioi . Strikis (2011: 77) stated “Unfortunately, there is no type specimen of this species, only the drawings of the male genitalia made by Prado and Del Vechio, which is considered by the author (Strikis) to be enough, once Dr. Angelo Pires do Prado, a renowned entomologist, was assured that the drawings belong to a male of genus Neosilba , moreover the most important structure in identifying a species, in this particular genus, is the male genitalia”. In this case a neotype requires to be designated .

Note 65. Neosilba glaberrima . Described from a holotype female, a male was associated and described by McAlpine & Steyskal (1982: 115). It was listed by McAlpine (1965) from Florida but it is considered here to occur in the Neotropical part of the state.

Genus Silba

Note 66. Silba adipata . According to McAlpine (1956b: 526) “The holotype, allotype, and one paratype are in Dr. Sacca’s collection (now held in the Sapienza University of Rome ), three paratypes are in the British Museum (Natural History) and two are in the Canadian National Collection at Ottawa, type number 6273” .

Note 67. Silba albisquama . The holotype is a female but McAlpine (1970: 447) associated and described a male specimen from Friedrich-Wilhelmshafen, New Guinea, which had been determined by Kertész as albisquama .

Note 68. Silba apodesma . Listed as occurring in Madagascar by McAlpine (1980: 632). At that time S. apodesma was the only known member of the Silba admirabilis species-group known from the Afrotropical Region. In the review of the species-group, MacGowan (2015: 525) described S. spiculata from several localities in Madagascar. Subsequently MacGowan (2019: 236) stated that “It is very likely that the previous records of S. apodesma from Madagascar actually relate to the rather similar S. spiculata and as a result S. apodesma is removed from the Madagascar checklist”.

Note 69. Silba arcana . Described from a female holotype, according to McAlpine (1960: 369) the allotype is a headless male.

Note 70. Silba atratula . McAlpine (1956: 533) stated “According to Dr. J. R. Vockeroth, there are four specimens in the British Museum (BMNH) standing under the name L. atratula Wlk. , none of which bear Walker’s type label”. However, McAlpine (1975b: 998) indicated that the holotype was in the BMNH and listed the data labels on the specimen pin. He also stated that he added a further label to indicate that this specimen is the holotype – whether this actually constituted a lectotype designation is unclear. McAlpine (1975b: 998) also stated that Walker (1860a: 146) misidentified the sex of the holotype in the original description and that the specimen is in fact a male.

Note 71. Silba calva . The holotype is a female but McAlpine (1956b: 534) described and illustrated the terminalia of a male from southern India which he considered to be conspecific. Records from Fiji by Bezzi (1928: 99) were removed by MacGowan (2014c: 549).

Note 72. Silba citricola . Bezzi (1920: 207) stated “described from the Philippines (Los Baños), also two males from Darwin, Northern Territories, Australia. Fay & MacGowan (2022: 115) stated “specimens of Silba citricola ( Bezzi, 1913) recorded by Bezzi 1920: 207 as Lonchaea citricola Bezzi, 1913 from Darwin, Northern Territory have, on further examination by IM, proved to represent specimens of Silba septuosa ”.

Pitkin (1989: 478) listed S. citricola as occurring in Australia, from the Northern Territories and in Queensland. The Northern Territories record is discussed above and I can find no record of Queensland specimens. As a result, it is considered that S. citricola is not a confirmed Australian species.

Note 73. Silba consentanea . According to Bezzi (1920: 204) (footnote) Lonchaea = Silba consentanea, Walker 1860a: 146 , from Macassar, Indonesia is described as having white halteres and thus cannot be a member of the Lonchaeidae . However, S. consentanea is referred to by Kertész (1901: 84), is included in the key to the Silba abstata species-group by McAlpine (1975b: 1003) and is listed by Pitkin (1989: 478). The holotype female, which is in poor condition, is in the British Museum Natural History. I have examined photographs of the specimen and the halteres, although having a pale stem, have a darkened knob. However, without an associated male it is not possible at present to know if any other described Silba species might be a junior synonym of S. consentanea .

Note 74. Silba devians . This is the only Silba species known from the Neotropics and indeed the only Silba species known from the Americas apart from the introduced Silba fumosa . It was placed in the genus Neosilba in the species key of McAlpine (1962) but subsequently returned to the genus Silba by McAlpine & Steyskal (1982). Further research is required to establish whether it is possibly an aberrant Neosilba species or perhaps even an introduced of a Silba species from the Old World.

Note 75. Silba eximia . This is a very unusual lonchaeid, in describing the holotype McAlpine (1964b: 706) stated that “at first glance this unusual specimen might be interpreted as being teneral or otherwise abnormal. However, close inspection affirms that it is extremely well formed in every way; the entire integument appears perfectly tanned and hardened. If normal, the pale colour of the legs, pleura, and halteres is uniquely different from any other species in this family”. This species is still only known from the female holotype captured in 1958. Until further material including attributed males are obtained the status of this species must remain somewhat uncertain.

Note 76. The holotype male of Silba nigritella has had the terminalia carefully removed leaving the abdomen almost complete. Fragments of the terminalia are mounted in Canada balsam on a separate microscope slide. In this condition it is difficult to obtain an overall impression of the shape of the genitalia and the phallus is not evident or perhaps missing .

Note 77. Silba pallicarpa . Originally described from a single female captured in the Philippines ( Bezzi, 1920; 208). The type description makes it evident that, with partly pale tarsomeres, this species is a member of the S. admirabilis species-group but without an associated male its identity remains unclear. The characters identified in the holotype description; entirely bare scutellar margin, antennal postpedicel black apart from being “a little brownish along the inner border”, plumosity of arista as wide as the depth of the first antennal flagellomere and wings with diverging third and fourth veins, may be an aid in determining the corresponding male. This description does not immediately associate it with other members of the S. admirabilis species-group which are found in the region ( MacGowan 2015: 532).

Note 78. Silba perplexa . Described from a female holotype with associated male, described and illustrated by McAlpine (1956b: 538 Figs. 36, 37, 45) as a junior synonym Silba filifera ( Bezzi, 1913) .

Note 79. Silba setifera . McAlpine (1975b: 1004) stated “the occurrence of setifera on Taiwan ( Hennig 1941) is doubtful. Specimens in the Hungarian National Museum and in the Canadian National Collection from the same localities as those listed by Hennig belong to Silba srilanka McAlpine, 1975 . I have not seen any representatives of setifera from Formosa (= Taiwan)”.

MacGowan (2014c: 551) stated “McAlpine (1975) in a general statement on wider distribution listed S. setifera as occurring in Fiji. No further data was presented. Pitkin (1989) apparently followed McAlpine in his listing of this species from Fiji. I have not seen specimens of this species in the Terrestrial Arthropod Survey of Fiji material or in museum collections. I would propose that, until a definite specimen from Fiji is located, that this name is removed from the Fiji checklist”.

Note 80. Silba taciturna . Described from a single female specimen. I can find no further reference to this species apart from by McAlpine (1975b: 1000) who stated that it is related to Silba cupraria (de Meijere, 1910) but provided no further details or information.

Note 81. Silba ungulifera . According to McAlpine (1964a: 710) the holotype is deposited in Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. However, MacGowan (2019: 240) reported that the holotype specimen could not be located in Paris. The holotype does appear on the Canadian National Collection database and was possibly on loan to McAlpine but never returned.

Note 82. At the time of publication of this catalogue type material of these species belonging to ZIN is temporarily on loan in the collections of ZMUM ( Nartshuk, 2021). The published list of type material in ZMUM ( Ozerov, 2010) does not make this situation clear.

Note 83. Despite making enquiries with Argentinian institutions, I have not been able to identify the location of the type material of these species. Blanchard (1948: 172) stated that specimens of Lonchaea crossi were taken at the Estación Experimental Tucumán. However, Emilia Perez, of the successor institution to the Estación Experimental Tucumán - the Miguel Lillo Foundation, Tucumán, has told me that the type is not in their collections .

Note 84. Evenhuis et al. (2015: 35) stated that “Townsend’s collections are found in an array of depositories. The early Diptera collections made by Townsend (up to 1894) were deposited in the University of Kansas. Some Californian collections made in 1895 were deposited in the California Academy of Sciences but were destroyed in the earthquake and fire of 1906.”

APPENDIX 1. Summary of taxonomic and nomenclatural changes established in this work.

The nomenclatural changes established in the foregoing catalogue are summarized below in their appropriate categories. The order is alphabetical, and in the tables of synonyms the invalid junior names are cited first.

NEW STATUS OR AUTHORITY

Genus-group names

Priscoearomyia Morge, 1963a (for Protearomyia McAlpine, 1962 ). Necessary due to the previously used name not meeting ICZN publication standards, new status.

Genus-group authority

Neosilba Waddill & Weems : 1978 (for Neosilba McAlpine, 1962 ). Necessary due to the previous authority not meeting ICZN publication standards.

Species group authority details

Priscoearomyia cordillerensis ( McAlpine, 1983) (for Protearomyia cordillerensis McAlpine, 1962 ). Necessary due to the previous authority not meeting ICZN publication standards.

Priscoearomyia greciana ( McAlpine, 1983) (for Protearomyia greciana McAlpine, 1962 ). Necessary due to the previous authority not meeting ICZN publication standards.

Priscoearomyia martinia ( McAlpine, 1983) (for Protearomyia martinia McAlpine, 1962 ). Necessary due to the previous authority not meeting ICZN publication standards.

Lonchaea orientalis MacGowan, 2013 (for Lonchaea orientalis MacGowan, 2007 ) mistake in MacGowan & Okamoto 2013: 201.

Neosilba certa ( Walker, 1853) (for Neosilba certa (Walker, 1850-1856) and Neosilba certa (Walker, 1850)) due to previous uncertainties regarding the publication date.

NEW REPLACEMENT NAME

Species-group names

Silba kuantani MacGowan (for Silba malaysia MacGowan, 2007 ). Necessary due to homonymy, preoccupied by Silba malaysia MacGowan, 2005 .

NEW SYNONYMIES

Genus-group names

Dasyops Bezzi, 1891 (= Dasiops Rondani, 1856 ).

Lonchaba Korytkowski & Ojeda 1971 (= Lonchaea Fallén, 1820 ).

Protearomyia Hennig, 1967 (= Priscoearomyia Morge, 1963a ).

Togocesa Koçak & Kemal, 2010 (= Lonchaea Fallén, 1820 ).

Species-group names

Lonchaea angustitarsis Malloch, 1920a (= Lonchaea deutschi Zetterstedt, 1837 ).

Lonchaea avida McAlpine, 1960 (= Lonchaea choreoides Bezzi, 1923 ).

Lonchaea palpata Czerny, 1934 (= Lonchaea peregrina Becker, 1895 ).

Silba malaysia MacGowan, 2007 (= Silba kuantani MacGowan , this work).

NEW COMBINATIONS

Priscoearomyia cordillerensis ( McAlpine, 1983) from Protearomyia McAlpine, 1962 .

Priscoearomyia greciana ( McAlpine, 1983) from Protearomyia McAlpine, 1962 .

Priscoearomyia hermonensis ( MacGowan & Freidberg, 2008) from Protearomyia McAlpine, 1962 . Priscoearomyia iberica ( MacGowan, 2014a) from Protearomyia McAlpine, 1962 .

Priscoearomyia jonesi ( MacGowan & Reimann, 2021) from Protearomyia McAlpine, 1962

Priscoearomyia mallochi ( McAlpine, 1983) from Protearomyia McAlpine, 1962 .

Priscoearomyia martinia ( McAlpine, 1983) from Protearomyia McAlpine, 1962 .

Priscoearomyia occidentalis (MacGowan, 2016) from Protearomyia McAlpine, 1962 .

Priscoearomyia rameli ( MacGowan, 2014a) from Protearomyia McAlpine, 1962 .

Priscoearomyia trichopleura ( McAlpine, 1983) from Protearomyia McAlpine, 1962 .

Priscoearomyia withersi ( MacGowan, 2014a) from Protearomyia McAlpine, 1962 .

Silba malaysia ( MacGowan, 2005a) from Lonchaea Fallen, 1820 .

FIRST REVISER ACTION Neosilba laura and N. lauraea Strikis, 2011 with N. laura being chosen here as the correct original spelling.

SPECIES REMOVED FROM THE LONCHAEIDAE

Lonchaea albimanus Walker, 1858: 222 .

Lonchaea brasiliensis Walker, 1853: 378 .

Lonchaea discrepans Walker, 1861: 322 .

Figures

FIGURE 7. Protearomyia rameli MacGowan, 2014a. Male. NE-Spessart, Germany. Photo by J̧rgen Kappert.