An extended list of Fanniidae and Muscidae (Diptera) of Belarus Vikhrev, Nikita E. Makovetskaya, Ekateryna V. Amurian Zoological Journal 2020 XII 3 260 274    N. Vikhrev, 1♂. 61.  Phaonia amabilisMeigen, 1826—  NEW   Material:  Minskreg.: Krupki distr., Somryenv., 54.061°N 29.349°E,  28 May 2019, A. Semionova, 1♀. Other material examined:  RUSSIA, Moscowreg., Rusaenv., 55.66°N 36.05°E, E. Erofeeva,  11–20 May 2018, 1♀;   21–30 June 2019, 1♀.   Remarks.This female is characterized by the following: entirely dark body; yellow femora and tibiae; prealar seta long, prst acabsent, dc2+3; arista plumose. Thus, according to the key given in Gregor et al. (2003), the choice is between 4 species:  P. amabilisMeigen, 1826(=  P. rufisetaZetterstedt, 1860 sensu Hennig (1963)and d’Assis-Fonseca (1968));  P. mysticaMeigen, 1826(=  P. vittiferaZetterstedt, 1846 sensu Hennig (1963)and d’Assis-Fonseca (1968));  P. profugaxPandelle, 1899, and  P. villanaRobineau-Desvoidy, 1830(=  P. mysticaMeigen, 1826 sensu Hennig (1963)and d’Assis-Fonseca (1968)). Our female from Minsk regionhas subshining grey mesonotum with black unpaired median vitta visible in posterior or postero-lateral view (Fig. 3). Such mesonotal pattern is unusual in  Phaonia(typically 1 or 2 pairs of vittae are present), it fits the understanding of  P. amabilisby previous authors ( Hennig 1963; d’Assis-Fonseca 1968 and Gregor et al. 2003 inother wording). Also, the postpedicel of the Belarusian female is distinctly yellowish at base (Fig. 5). On the other hand, our specimen has 2 hairs near posterior notopleural seta, which contradicts the understanding of  P. amabilisby Hennig (1963); d’Assis-Fonseca (1968) and Gregor et al. (2003). We compared 2 femalesfrom Moscow regionlisted above and the female from Minsk region, they surely belong to the same species: apart from mesonotal pattern and yellowish base of postpedicel, they share translucent yellowish and widened palpi (less widened than in female of  P. palpataStein, 1897but quite distinct). However, females from Moscowhave notopleuron entirely bare, so we came to the conclusion that the presence of 1–2 or 0 hairs on notopleuron is a variable character and consequently identified the Belarusian female as  P. amabilis. We collected 2 more females from Mozyr, which belong to the same group of 4 species. In the identification key from Gregor et al. (2003) they run to  P. mystica, because they have notopleuron bare except for 2 strong setae. However, these females have aristal hairs barely longer than the width of postpedicel and rather short postpedicel, so these characters disagree with  P. mysticabut fit Hennig’s (1963, 859) description given for 1st generation of  P. profugax. Again, we supposed that singular hairs on notopleuron are variable and identified these females as  P. profugax. The studied females differ from each other as follows: — Mesonotum subshining grey with black unpaired median vitta visible in posterior or postero-lateral views. Bases of postpedicel and arista yellow. Postpedicel longer, 3–4x as long as wide. Aristal hairs 1.5x as long as width of postpedicel. Palpi widened (less so than in female of  P. palpataStein, 1897but quite distinctly); palpi translucent yellowish under grey dusting......................  ♀ amabilisMeigen — Mesonotum densely brownish-grey dusted, without any shining, with 2 pairs of black vittae. Postpedicel and arista entirely black. Postpedicel shorter, 2.5–3x as long as wide. Aristal hairs as long or shorter than width of postpedicel. Palpi black, not widened.....................  ♀ profugaxPandelle We would like to emphasize that the remarks above are not intended to solve taxonomic problems in the genus  Phaonia, since  Figs. 3–6. 3–4: mesonotum in posterior view: 3 — P. amabilis, ♀; 4 — P. profugax, ♀; 5–6: antenna and arista: 5 — P. amabilis, ♀; 6 — P. profugax, ♀  Рис. 3–6. 3–4: среΔнеспинка сзаΔи: 3 —  P. amabilis, ♀; 4 — P. profugax, ♀; 5–6: антенна и ариста: 5 — P. amabilis, ♀; 6 — P. profugax ♀ we are not yet able to offer a satisfactory solution. Our goal is to make it clear for our colleagues which flies we have included in the Belarusian list under the names  P. amabilisand  P. profugax. NEW N. Vikhrev 7 267 1 1 2019-05-28 A. Semionova 54.061 Somry 64 29.349 Krupki distr. 7 267 1 1 Minsk 2018-05-11 2018-05-20 2018-05-11 E. Erofeeva Russia 55.66 Rusa 637 36.05 7 267 1 1 Moscow [430,695,982,1011] 2019-06-21 2019-06-30 2019-06-21 E. Erofeeva Russia true 55.66 Rusa 637 36.05 7 267 1 1 Moscow