Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:29:43.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A REVISION OF THE NEARCTIC SPECIES OF THE TACHYDROMIINE FLY GENUS STILPON LOEW (DIPTERA: EMPIDOIDEA)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J.M. Cumming  and
B.E. Cooper
J.M. Cumming
Affiliation:
Biological Resources Division, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Agriculture Canada, Research Branch, Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6
B.E. Cooper
Affiliation:
Biological Resources Division, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Agriculture Canada, Research Branch, Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This revision recognizes 13 species of Stilpon Loew in the Nearctic Region, including nine new species. A key is provided for the identification of adult specimens, all species are described, and their geographical distributions are mapped. Two informal species groups are recognized in the Nearctic Region, with the following included species: (1) S. graminum group — S. campestris Cumming sp.nov. (type-locality Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Canada); (2) S. varipes group — S. chillcotti Cumming sp.nov. (type-locality 10 km E Evergreen, Alabama, USA), S. ctenistes Cumming sp.nov. (type-locality Salmon Creek, New York, USA), S. curvipes Melander, S. limitaris Cumming sp.nov. (type-locality Sapelo Island,Georgia,USA), S. pauciseta Melander, S. pilomus Cumming sp.nov. (type-locality Franconia, New Hampshire, USA), S. spinipes Melander, S. tribulosus Cumming sp.nov. (type-locality Gatlinburg, Tennessee, USA), S. tyconyx Cumming sp.nov. (type-locality Bedford, Massachusetts, USA), S. varipes Loew, S. vockerothi Cumming sp.nov. (type-locality Ottawa, Ontario, Canada), and S. wirthi Cumming sp.nov. (type-locality Dennisport, Massachusetts, USA). A world list of described species of Stilpon, including synonyms, is provided. Stilpon pectiniger Melander is a new junior synonym of S. varipes Loew and S. demnatensis Vaillant is indicated as a nomen nudum. Stilpon pleuriticus Melander, previously considered to belong within Stilpon, is excluded from the genus, and S. obscuripes Adams is transferred as Crossopalpus obscuripes (Adams) comb.nov. Lectotypes are designated for S. pauciseta Melander and S. pectiniger Melander. Homologies of previously confused structures of the male and female terminalia are summarized with reference to other Empidoidea. The monophyly of Stilpon is justified, including discussion of the phylogenetic relationships of the genus to the remainder of the Tachydromiinae. All described species of Stilpon, including extralimital species, are assigned to one of three proposed informal species groups (S. divergens, S. graminum, or S. varipes group), and zoogeographic patterns are discussed.

Résumé

Cette révision reconnaît 13 espèces de Stilpon Loew dans la région néarctique, dont neuf espèces inédites. On trouvera ici une clé d’identification des adultes, une description de toutes les espèces ainsi que des cartes de leurs répartitions géographiques. Deux groupes informels d’espèces sont reconnus dans la région néarctique, parmi lesquels on retrouve les espèces suivantes : (1) dans le groupe S. graminum — S. campestris Cumming sp.nov. (localité type, Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Canada); (2) dans le groupe S. varipes — S. chillcotti Cumming sp.nov. (localité type, 10 km à l’est d’Evergreen, Alabama, É.-U.), S. ctenistes Cumming sp.nov. (localité type, Salmon Creek, New York, É.-U.), S. curvipes Melander, S. limitaris Cumming sp.nov. (localité type, Sapelo Island, Géorgie, É.-U.), S. pauciseta Melander, S. pilomus Cumming sp.nov. (localité type, Franconia, New Hampshire, É.-U.), S. spinipes Melander, S. tribulosus Cumming sp.nov. (localité type, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, É.-U.), S. tyconyx Cumming sp.nov. (localité type, Bedford, Massachusetts, É.-U.), S. varipes Loew, S. vockerothi Cumming sp.nov. (localité type, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) et S. wirthi Cumming sp.nov. (localité type, Dennisport, Massachusetts, É.-U.). Une liste à l’échelle mondiale des espèces décrites de Stilpon, synonymes inclus, est proposée. Stilpon pectiniger Melander est un nouveau synonyme récent de S. varipes Loew et S. demnatensis Vaillant devient nomen nudum. Stilpon pleuriticus Melander, considéré précédemment comme un Stilpon, est exclus du genre et S. obscuripes Adams est transféré au genre Crossopalpus, devenant Crossopalpus obs-curipes (Adams) comb.nov. DeslectotypesdeS. pauciseta Melander et de S. pectiniger Melander ont été choisis. L’homologie de certaines structures des genitalia mâle et femelle, au sujet desquelles il y avait de la confusion, a été redéfinie par comparaison à d’autres Empidoidea. La monophylie de Stilpon est justifié et les relations phylogénétiques entre ce genre et les autres Tachydromiinae sont examinées. Toutes les espèces décrites de Stilpon, y compris les espèces existant hors des limites de l’étude, ont été classifiées dans l’un des trois groupes informels proposés (groupes S. divergens, S. graminum ou S. varipes) et leurs répartitions zoogéographiques font l’objet d’une discussion.

[Traduit par la rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 124 , Issue 6 , December 1992 , pp. 951 - 998
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, C.F. 1905. Diptera africana, I. Kansas University Science Bulletin 3: 149–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, P. 1981. Nemedina alamirabilis sp. n., a new genus and species of Diptera Eremoneura, of uncertain affinities, from Hungary. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 27: 103–113.Google Scholar
Chillcott, J.G., and Teskey, H.J.. 1983. A revision of the New World genera allied to Megagrapha Melander (Diptera: Empididae). The Canadian Entomologist 115: 1291–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chvála, M. 1975. The Tachydromiinae (Dipt. Empididae) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 3: 1–336.Google Scholar
Chvála, M. 1983. The Empidoidea (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. II. General Part. The families Hybotidae, Atelestidae and Microphoridae. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 12: 1–279.Google Scholar
Chvála, M. 1988. A new species of Stilpon Loew (Dipt., Hybotidae) related to S. nubilus Collin from England and western Europe. The Entomologist's Monthly Magazine 124: 225–231.Google Scholar
Chvála, M., and Kovalev, V.G.. 1989. Hybotidae. pp. 174–227 in Soós, A., and Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaeartic Diptera. Vol. 6. Therevidae – Empididae. Amsterdam. 435 pp.Google Scholar
Cockerell, T.D.A. 1917. Fossil Insects. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 10: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collin, J.E. 1926. Notes on the Empididae (Diptera) with additions and corrections to the British list. The Entomologist's Monthly Magazine 62: 146–159.Google Scholar
Collin, J.E. 1961. Empididae. In British Flies. Vol. 6. Cambridge. 782 pp.Google Scholar
Crosskey, R.W., and White, G.B.. 1977. The Afrotropical Region. A recommended term in zoogeography. Journal of Natural History 11: 541–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, J.M. 1989. Book review of Chvála, M. 1983. The Empidoidea (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. II. The families Hybotidae, Atelestidae and Microphoridae. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica, Volume 12. The Canadian Field Naturalist 103: 620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, J.M. 1990. Phylogenetic relationships within the Tachydromiinae (Diptera: Empidoidea). Second International Congress of Dipterology, Bratislava, Abstract Volume, p. 44.Google Scholar
Cumming, J.M., and Cooper, B.E.. 1989. The identity of Micrempis anatolica Chillcott and M. bomboxynon Chillcott (Diptera: Empididae), with remarks on allied Nearctic species. The Canadian Entomologist 121: 565–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, J.M., and Sinclair, B.J.. 1990. Fusion and confusion: Interpretation of male genitalic homologies in the Empidoidea (Diptera). Second International Congress of Dipterology, Bratislava, Abstract Volume, Third Supplement, p. 334.Google Scholar
Dahl, F. 1909. Die Gattung Limosina und die biocönotische Forschung. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 1909: 360–377.Google Scholar
Davidse, G. 1984(1983). Biogeographical relationships between temperate eastern Asia and temperate eastern North America: The Twenty-ninth Annual Systematics Symposium. Annals of Missouri Botanical Garden 70: 421–422.Google Scholar
Delfinado, M.D., and Hardy, D.E. (Eds.). 1973. A Catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region. Vol. 1. Honolulu. 618 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallén, C.F. 1815. Empidiae Sveciae. Lundae. 16 pp.Google Scholar
Frey, R. 1936. Die Dipterenfauna der Kanarischen Inseln und ihre Probleme. Commentationes biologicae 6: 1–237.Google Scholar
Griffiths, G.C.D. 1972. The phylogenetic classification of Diptera Cyclorrhapha, with special reference to the structure of the male postabdomen. Series Entomologica 8: 1–340.Google Scholar
Griffiths, G.C.D. 1980. Preface. pp. v–vii in Griffiths, G.C.D. (Ed.), Flies of the Nearctic Region. Vol. 1. Handbook, Part 1. History of Nearctic Dipterology. Stuttgart. 62 pp.Google Scholar
Griffiths, G.C.D. 1983. Book review of Chvála, M. 1983. The Empidoidea (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. II. The families Hybotidae, Atelestidae and Microphoridae. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica, Volume 12. Quaestiones Entomologicae 19 (3/4): 483–485.Google Scholar
Heeger, E. 1852. Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte der Insecten. Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Klasse Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche 9: 774–781.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1970. Insektenfossilien aus der unteren Kreide II. Empididae (Diptera, Brachycera). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde 214: 1–12.Google Scholar
Kovalev, V.G. 1974. A new genus of Diptera of the family Empididae and its phylogenetic relationships. Paleontologicheshii zhurnal 1974: 84–94. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Kovalev, V.G. 1978. A new fly genus (Empididae) from Late Cretaceous retinites of the Taymyr. Paleontological Journal 12: 351–356.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1859. Neue Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Dipteren. Sechster Beitrag. Programm der Königlichen Realschule zu Meseritz 1859: 1–50.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1862. Diptera Americae septentrionalis indigena. Centuria secunda. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 6: 185–232.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1864. Ueber die schlesischen Arten der Gattungen Tachypeza Meig. (Tachypeza, Tachista, Dysaletria) und Microphorus Macq. (Trichina und Microphorus). Zeitschrift für Entomologie, Breslau 14: 1–50.Google Scholar
McAlpine, J.F. 1981. Chapter 2. Morphology and terminology: Adults. pp. 9–63 in McAlpine, J.F. et al. , (Eds.), Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 1. Agriculture Canada Monograph 27: 1–674.Google Scholar
Meigen, J.W. 1830. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europäischen zweiflügeligen Insekten. Vol 6. Hamm. 401 pp.Google Scholar
Melander, A.L. 1902. A monograph of the North American Empididae. Part 1. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 28: 195–367.Google Scholar
Melander, A.L. 1928(1927). Diptera, Fam. Empididae. In Wytsman, P. (Ed.), Genera Insectorum. Fasc. 185. Louis Desmet-Verteneuil, Bruxelles. 434 pp.Google Scholar
Meunier, F. 1908. Monographie des Empidae de l'ambre de la Baltique et catalogue bibliographique complet sur les Diptères fossiles de cette résine. Annales des Sciences naturelles (Zoologie), (ser. 9) 7: 81–135, pl. 3–12.Google Scholar
O'Hara, J.E. 1983(1982). Classification, phylogeny and zoogeography of the North American species of Siphona Meigen (Diptera: Tachinidae). Quaestiones Entomologica 18: 261–380.Google Scholar
Oldenberg, L. 1924. Die Empididen v. Rosers in Stuttgart (Dipt.). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1924: 226–236.Google Scholar
Perris, E. 1852. Seconde excursion dans les Grandes-Landes. Annales de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon 1850/1852: 145–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Séguy, E. 1950. Un nouveau genre de Corynétine du Midi de la France (Dipt., Empididae). Vie et milieu 1: 83–87.Google Scholar
Smith, K.G.V. 1964. A remarkable new genus and two new species of Empididae (Tachydromiinae, Drapetini) from the Cook Islands. Pacific Insects 6(2): 247–251.Google Scholar
Smith, K.G.V. 1965 a. Diptera from Nepal. Empididae. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology 17: 63–112.Google Scholar
Smith, K.G.V. 1965 b. A new species of Stilpon Loew, 1859 (Diptera: Empididae) from Portugal. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London (B) 34: 48–50.Google Scholar
Smith, K.G.V. 1969. The Empididae of southern Africa (Diptera). Annals of the Natal Museum 19: 1–342.Google Scholar
Smith, K.G.V., and Davies, R.G.. 1965. Gland-like abdominal structures of possible epigamic function in the Diptera. Nature 207: 321–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soós, A., and Papp, L. (Eds.). 1984. Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera. Vol. 9 Micropezidae–Agromyzidae. Amsterdam. 460 pp.Google Scholar
Ulrich, H. 1972. Zur Anatomie des Empididen-Hypopygiums (Diptera). Veröffentlichungen der Zoologischen Staatssammlung, München 16: 1–28.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1956. Recherches sur la faune madicole (hygropétrique s.l.) de France, de Corse et d'Afrique du nord. Mémoires du Muséum nationale d'histoire naturelle, Série A, Zoologie 11: 1–258.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1978. Empididae. pp. 465–469 in Illies, J. (Ed.), Limnofauna Europaea. Stuttgart. 532 pp.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1835. Notes on Diptera. The Entomological Magazine (London) 3: 178–182.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1851. Diptera. In Insecta Britannica. Vol. 1. London. 314 pp., 10 pls.Google Scholar
Woodley, N.E. 1989. Chapter 115. Phylogeny and classification of the “Orthorrhaphous” Brachycera. pp. 1371–1395 in McAlpine, J.F., and Wood, D.M. (Eds.), Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 3. Agriculture Canada Monograph 32: 1333–1581.Google Scholar