Cordilura Fallén, 1810

Šifner, František, 2008, A catalogue of the Scathophagidae (Diptera) of the Palaearctic region, with notes on their taxonomy and faunistics, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 48 (1), pp. 111-196 : 116-117

Cordilura Fallén, 1810

Cordilura Fallén, 1810: 15 . Type species. Musca pubera Linnaeus, 1758 – misidentified type species. Cordylura rufipes Meigen, 1826 , designated by VOCKEROTH (1965: 827). See the Note.

Mosina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830: 670 . Synonymized by WESTWOOD (1840: 144).

Paratidia Malloch, 1931: 432 . Synonymized by VOCKEROTH (1965: 827).

Cordylura: FALLÉN (1819: 6) , MEIGEN (1826: 229). Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Note. J. R. Vockeroth sent me a part of his unpublished manuscript in 2005. I take the liberty to quote from it: ‘ FALLÉN (1810: 15) gave a brief diagnosis of the genus Cordilura and assigned to it the single species Musca pubera L. His subsequent description ( Fallén, 1819) of Cordilura (as Cordylura ) and of C. pubera show that he used the name Musca pubera L. for the species to which the name Cordilura pubera has been applied by almost all subsequent authors and for which the name Cordilura pubera is used in this paper. I have examined the collection of Linnaeus in the Linnean Society, London; it contains a single male labelled Musca pubera and, immediately beside it, a male and female on the same pin and a third male. The three males, at least, are specimens of the genus Themira Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Sepsidae) […] The original description of Musca pubera ( Linnaeus, 1758, p. 598) is very brief, but Linnaeus (1761, p. 457) later gave a much longer description which agrees with the males in the Linnean collection under the name Musca pubera and not at all with either sex of the species to which Fallén applied the name. It therefore appears that Fallén based the genus Cordilura upon an erroneously determined species. According to Opinion 158 of the International Commision on Zoological Nomenclature the case must be submitted to the commision; pending their decision thereon the genus Cordilura should be considered as of doubtful status. Since I have not yet been able to examine the type specimen of Cordylura rufipes Mg. (the name rufipes may be a synonym of pubera auct.) […] In this paper the name Cordilura is used for the genus described under that name by Fallén, and the name Cordilura pubera auct. (nec L.) is used for the type species of that genus.’

Earlier, SABROWSKY (1999: 97) wrote: ‘The problem is one of misidentified type species. The type of Cordilura can be whatever name is found valid for Cordilura pubera sensu Fallén , not Linnaeus. GORODKOV (1986: 13) and EVENHUIS (1994: 456) listed the type species as Cordilura rufimana Meigen, 1826 (Cordylura) , but Gorodkov showed the synonym of pubera to be another species C. rufipes Meigen 1826 , as already cited by VOCKEROTH (1965: 827). The Commision and/or specialist should clarify this situation’.

In this paper I accept the priority of the opinion by VOCKEROTH (1965: 827) and consider Cordylura rufipes Meigen, 1826 , as the type species of the genus Cordilura Fallén, 1810 .