Synopsis top ↑
In the present work discussion of the relationships between the genera
of Anthomyiidae and the characterization of the family itself will be
postponed until after the treatment of genera and species. This will
allow prior publication of the generic revision by Dr. Verner
Michelsen (based on his thesis defended in 1981), which promises to
contain new information.
The recent monograph of Palaearctic Anthomyiidae by Hennig (1966a—76a)
made considerable progress towards clarifying the identity of the
Palaearctic species, which were previously in extensive confusion due
to inadequate descriptions and lack of study of type
specimens. Hennig’s work will be used here as the authority for the
identity of species described from the Palaearctic Region, where no
contrary information has since come to light. However, it should be
remarked that Hennig’s study of the older European types was
incomplete, and some nomenclatural changes are resulting from further
studies of old collections by Michelsen and Pont.
Knowledge of the Nearctic fauna of Anthomyiidae lags behind that of
the Palaearctic fauna, a situation which it is the aim of this
publication to rectify. The work of Dr. Hugh Huckett, for sixty years
the only North American taxonomist working on the family, while an
improvement over earlier literature has several deficiencies. Many
species cannot be recognized from his descriptions due to lack of
information on the terminalia. His association of the sexes was often
conjectural and unreliable (many of his “allotypes” not belonging to
the same species as his holotypes). And he proposed many synonyms for
species already described from Europe. In order to place the taxonomy
of this family on a firmer basis, it is intended to examine the
terminalia of as many as possible of the holotypes of species
described from the Nearctic Region.
The limits of the family Anthomyiidae as a monophyletic group still
need final confirmation. In most of the character sequences so far
analysed the genera included in Anthomyiidae show relatively primitive
(plesiomorphous) conditions, and the suspicion thus arises that we may
not be dealing with a monophyletic group but with a non-monophyletic
assemblage of primitive subgroups of Calyptratae. In his discussion of
this problem Hennig (1976a: ii) has, however, been able to indicate
one modification (apomorphous character) which suggests that the
Anthomyiidae in the sense of his work are indeed monophyletic. This is
that the partially fused cerci (mesolobus) have continuous sclerotized
connections with the inner surfaces of the gonostyli (called surstyli
in Hennig’s work), instead of forming articulated joints with them
(Zapfenverbindung) as in most other Calyptratae. The author agrees that this is
an important apomorphous character, and it convinces me to accept
Hennig’s family concept at least provisionally. Further review of this
problem must await publication of Michelsen’s work.
No attempt will be made to describe larvae (or other immature stages)
in this treatment. The larvae have been described for so few Nearctic
species that any comprehensive treatment is impossible at this
time. But where larval descriptions have been published, the
references will be given.