Linnean species of Conops (Diptera: Conopidae, Muscidae, Sciomyzidae, Syrphidae & Tachinidae), with designation of lectotypes

8 Pages·1997·2.6 MB·English

by  F Christian Thompson

Vol. 108,No.4,September&October, 1997 265
LINNAEAN SPECIES OF CONOPS (DIPTERA:
CONOPIDAE, MUSCIDAE, SCIOMYZIDAE,
SYRPHIDAE, & TACHINIDAE), WITH
DESIGNATIONS OF LECTOTYPESi
F.ChristianThompson^
ABSTRACT: Linnaeusdescribed 13species inthegenus Conops, whicharenowplacedinthe
familiesConopidae,Muscidae,Sciomyzidae,SyrphidaeandTachinidae.Astudyispresentedof
thetypesandothermaterial ofthesespecies inhiscollection. Lectotypesaredesignatedfor 10
names (C. vesicularis Linnaeus 1761, C. macrocephala Linnaeus 1758, C. aculeata Linnaeus
1761, C.flavipes Linnaeus 1758, C.ferruginea Linnaeus 1761, C.petiolataLinnaeus 1761, C.
atomaria Linnaeus 1767, C. testacea Linnaeus 1767, C. buccata Linnaeus 1758 & C.
subcoleoptrataLinnaeus 1758).Threenewsynonyms(C. macrocephala=Physocephalaniara
DeGeer, C.petiolata=Physocephala rufipesFabricius, C. testacea=MyopaextricataCollin)
andonenewcombination(C. atomaria=Euthyceraatomaria)areproposed.
Names are the keys to knowledge as they serve as short tags forcomplex
objects. In biology, scientific names are tags for species as well as groups of
species.Thesenamesmeanthatallorganismsthathave the same name share at
leastsomecharacteristics incommon.The scientific naming system inbiology
began with Linnaeus who perfected his system through a series ofbooks that
attemptedtoclassify all livingthings intoone natural system.Heentitledthese
works SystemaNaturae, the system ofnature. Subsequent biologists have fol-
lowed the system established by Linnaeus. So, as ourcurrent system ofscien-
tific names is derived from Linnaeus, the need exists to re-examine the initial
state ofthe system.This paperdoes thatas thatsystem relatestoasmall group
offlies.
Linnaeusrecognized 10groups (genera) offlies. One ofthese groups was
Conops,basedonfliesthathadelongatemouthparts. Inhisfinaledition(12th,
1767)ofhissystemofnature,Linnaeusincluded 13speciesinthegenusConops.
Common farm pests, such as the stable and horn flies, as well as parasites of
bees and wasps, scavengers in cow dung, etc., were included in Conops. As
there is a need to fix the identity of Conops testacea Linnaeus (see Camras
1994), all the species that Linnaeus included in Conops are reviewed. Fortu-
nately,theactualspecimensonwhichLinnaeusbasedhisspeciesarepreserved
inLondon(FordetailsontheLinnaeanCollection, itscurationandhistory,see
Day & Fitton 1978; on Linnaean insectpins, see Mikkola 1983).
Two Linnaean Conops species are currently considered nomina dubia
(Chvala & Smith 1988). Their identities are here resolved. Linnaeus defined
anothertwoConopsspeciesbroadly,thedefinitionsofthesearehererestricted
' ReceivedAugust22, 1996.AcceptedMarch22, 1997.
2Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, NHB-168 Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.20560.
ENT.NEWS 108(4): 265-272,September&October, 1997
266 ENTOMOLOGICALNEWS
bylectotypedesignation.Ihavedesignatedlectotypesforwhataretodayunique
specimens following the recommendation (73F) ofthe International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature. Each species included in Conops is listed, in the
order that it appears in the 12th edition, along with its current status (family,
validname)andanindicationofthevouchermaterialavailable intheLinnaean
Collection.ForConopidae,Ihavefollowedthespeciesconceptsusedby Smith
(1969) and Chvala (1961, 1963 & 1965).
1)rostrataLinnaeus 1758: 604. Syrphidae,Rhingiarostrata (Linnaeus).A 9
and2 CfCf. Both CfCf are Smith specimens. SeeThompson,etalii 1982: 159.
2)calcitransLinnaeus 1758: 604. Muscidae, Stomoxys calcitrans(Linnaeus).
Lectotype CT,paralectotypes 9 SeePont(1981: 168)fordesignationandfull
•
information.
3) irritans Linnaeus 1758: 604. Muscidae, Haematobia irritans (Linnaeus).
Lectotype 9' paralectotype 9 See Pont (1981: 169) fordesignation and full
•
information.
4) vesicularis Linnaeus 1761: 468. Conopidae, Conops vesicularis Linnaeus.
A single Cf here designated as lectotype. This specimen corresponds to the
,
currentconcept ofthe name.
5) macrocephala Linnaeus 1758: 604. Conopidae, Physocephala nigra (De
Geer).Asingle 9 whichisheredesignatedlectotype.Inthemostrecentcatalog
(Chvala & Smith•> 1988: 252), this name is stated to be "probably a senior
synonymofConopsvesicularisLinnaeus."Muchpaperwaswastedonwhether
MosesHarris'misidentification(Harris 1776)ofthisspecieswasanindependent
proposal, and, hence, a valid name for the species now known as Rhingia
campestris Meigen 1822 (Collin 1946, 1947, 1948; Goffe 1946, 1947, 1948,
1949). Given the confusion over this epithet, macrocephala is best left as a
forgotten name and current usage ofnigra be continued.
6)aculeataLinnaeus 1761: 468. Conopidae,Dalmanniaaculeata (Linnaeus).
A single CT here designated as lectotype. This specimen corresponds to the
currentconcept ofthe name.
l)flavipesLinnaeus 1758: 604.Conopidae,ConopsflavipesLinnaeus.Asingle
CT withnohead ishere designatedas lectotype.This specimencorresponds to
the current concept ofthe name.
S)ferruginea Linnaeus 1761: 468. Conopidae, Sicusferrugineus (Linnaeus).
A single 9 here designated as lectotype. This specimen corresponds to the
currentconcept ofthe name.
9)petiolataLinnaeus 1767: 1005.Conopidae,Physocephalarufipes(Fabricius).
Three CfCT,oneoftheseisclearlyaspecimensubsequentlyaddedbySmithas
Vol. 108,No.4,September&October, 1997 267
it is labelled as from "Angl.", anotherprobably also a Smith specimen as it is
onadifferentandnon-Linnaeanpin.Thethird Cf heredesignatedaslectotype.
In 1761,Poda(1761: 118)describedEmpispetiolata,aspeciesthatisclearly
a conopid. Unfortunately, whether this name applies to a Conops or Physo-
cephalacannotbedeterminedfromtheoriginaldescriptionand,unfortunately,
the types are lost (Thompson & Pont 1994: 37). Forpragmatic reasons, I con-
siderPoda's species tobelong tothecurrentconceptofPhysocephala. Hence,
the Poda name becomes the senior homonym of the Linnaean name. Thus,
ConopsrufipesFabricius 1781 mayremainthe validname forthe speciesfirst
described by Linnaeus aspetiolata.
Chvala& Smith (1988: 256) lista Conopspetiolata Donovan (1808: pi. 451)
as an available name and a synonym ofrufipes Fabricius. However, Donovan
clearly and correctly identified the Linnaean species giving the appropriate
citation to the name in the then most recent edition of the Systema Naturae
(13th; Gmelin 1790). If subsequent workers had been as careful as Donovan
then today I would not have been forced to twist my interpretation of the
literature to suppress the Linnaean name and preserve current usage!
10)atomariaLinnaeus 1767: 1005.Sciomyzidae,Euthyceraatomaria,probably
aseniorsynonymforEuthycerachaerophylli(Fabricius).Asingle 9 remains,
butitisinpoorcondition.ThespecimenwasidentifiedasEuthycerabyCogan
whenthecollectionwasrecurated in 1974.AsamodemrevisionofEuthycera
is needed (Rozkosny 1984), the nomenclatural implication ofthe identity of
thisLinnaean name is left forfuture workers.
\\)testacea Linnaeus 1767: 1006. Conopidae,Myopa testacea (Linnaeus).A
single 9 here designated as lectotype. The specimen agrees with the current
conceptofMyopatestaceaofChvala(1965),butseemstorun inCollin(1959)
either to extricata Collin or testacea Linnaeus as the specimen has a mixture
ofthecharacteristicsusedbyCollintodistinguishthosespecies.Thespecimen
isclearlyreddishanteriortothescutellumandhassparse,inconspicuousblack
facial pile. The palps are yellow. Unfortunately, David Clements (personal
communication),whoisrevisingthegenusMyopa,hasconfirmedthespecimen
tobe apale representative ofextricata Collin.
TherealquestionofwhattestaceaLinnaeusisgoesbeyondwhatthesyntype
intheLinnaeanCollectionis.Linnaeusalsoincludedinhisconceptoftestacea,
Sicusferrugineus Scopoli and the then unnamed species (potential type of)
Stomoxoides Schaeffer. When the species Sicus ferrugineus Scopoli was
included inConops,theepithetwas identicaltothatofLinnaeus'/<?/T«gmeM5.
Hence, Linnaeus was forced torename the species. Thus, specimensofeither
ofthetwodifferentspeciescouldbedesignatedasthetypeofthenameConops
testaceaLinnaeusandthenthe speciesrepresentedby thattype wouldbecome
the first included species in the genus Stomoxoides (and thus becoming the
type species of Stomoxoides by subsequent monotypy as was recognized by
268 ENTOMOLOGICALNEWS
Coquillett(1910: 609).Tomaintaincurrentusage, I selectthe specimen in the
Linnaean Collection to be lectotype. This action preserves the current
interpretation of Sicus ferrugineus Scopoli. The genus group name,
Stomoxoides, which some authors believe is an available (and valid) name,
wouldbecomethe seniorsynonymofMyopaFabricius(1775)exceptasnoted
below.
ThereisnobasisfortheassumptionthatStomoxoidesSchaeffer(Schaeffer
1766b: pi. 120) is an available name. Schaefferrejected the binominal system
of Linnaeus. His work Elementa Entomologia is best considered binary^ as
that was the nomenclatural system he followed in his other works (for
example,hisIcones[Schaeffer 1766a-1779]). Elementaincludesnoreferences
to species, only orders and genera. The use of Stomoxoides in the Icones is
clearly binary. These species taxa of the Icones only received available
binominalnamesfromPanzer(1804),butPanzerusedMyopa,notStomoxoides.
One couldmake atediousandpedantic argumentthatsincetheElementadoes
not deal with the species category, there is no evidence within the Elementa
itself as to whether Schaeffer's nomenclature would be consistent with the
Principle ofBinominal Nomenclature or not, hence new genus-group names
are available from it underArticle llc(i). But why do so? Thehistorical record
is clear, Schaeffer used a binary system of nomenclature and regardless of
whether Stomoxoides is available or not, the name will remain a synonym,
either an objective junior synonym of Sicus or suppressed subjective senior
synonym ofMyopa (see below).
Collin (1959) was undoubtedly correct in identifying the species figured
by Schaefferas Sicusferrugineus Scopoli.
12)buccataLinnaeus 1758: 605.Conopidae,Myopabuccata(Linnaeus).Three
specimens(1 Cf 2 9) are associatedwiththisname,one isapparently aSmith
addition, the other two are undoubtedly Linnaean specimens. The one male,
associated with the Linnaean name label, is Myopa fasciata Meigen. The
females are buccata ofcurrent authors. The female without antennae (one of
the Linnaean specimens) is here designated as lectotype and has been so
labelled.
13) subcoleoptrata Linnaeus 1767: 1006. Tachinidae, Phasia subcoleoptrata
(Linnaeus). A single CT is present and is clearly a syntype because it is on a
Linnaean pin. The specimen belongs to Phasia and appears to agree with the
currentconcept.
There are 2 additional specimensinbox23 thatare labelledasfromoldboxes
196 and 197.
TheLinnaeanspeciesofConopswerere-evaluatedasthereisaquestionofthe
status of the genus-group name Myopa (Camras 1994). Unfortunately, this
3Binarynomenclatureisthesystemofusingauninominalnameforthegenusemdapolynominal
nameforthespecies.
Vol. 108,No.4,September&October, 1997 269
proposal to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was
riddled with errors, many ofwhich have already been noted (Sabrosky 1994,
Wheeler 1994). Unfortunately, no one in theirrush to resolve an old problem
bothered tocarefully review what earlierworkers had done. Linnaeus always
attemptedtosynthesizeallpreviousworkinhisSystemaNaturae.Histreatment
(fig. 2) of Sicus, Sicusferrugineus Scopoli and Stomoxoides Schaeffer was
reasonable within the context ofhis times. Had subsequent workers followed
Linnaeus, this current work as well as the application (Camras 1994) to the
Commission would have been unnecessary.
Beyond the errors noted by Sabrosky and by Wheeler, the following should
also be corrected.
Camras and others want to interpret history to be convenient: Sicus
ferrugineus Scopoli is clearly an independent and new proposal, which has
nothing to do with the previously described species, Conopsferrugineus
Linnaeus. Like all systematists, Scopoli gave citations to earlieruse when he
cited available names (see forexample, underSicusbuccatus; fig. 1).
Camras (1994) stated that Fabricius included Sicus in the synonymy of
Myopa when he establishedMyopa, which is arathergenerous interpretation
ofthe facts. Fabricius gave no synonymy for genus-group names, but he did
equate, in his species synonymy, Conops ferruginea Linnaeus with Sicus
ferrugineus Scopoli. That is, in retrospect, a correct species synonymy, and,
thereby, the genus-group names [given the subsequent type-species designa-
tion of Sicus] are synonyms. However, as noted above, Linnaeus had previ-
ously considered h\sferruginea distinct from Scopoli's.
The statement (Camras 1994) that the genus-group name Stomoxoides
Schaeffer "was subsequently only" used by Schaeffer is clearly wrong as
Linnaeus and Coquillett treated the name as indicated above.
Unlesstheplenarypowersareinvoked,theinvaliddesignationofCoquillett
(1910: 605)ofanon-originally includedspecies(ConopsferrugineaLinnaeus
1761) as the type species ofSicus Scopoli 1763 remains invalid. As there has
never been a valid type designation for Sicus, I hereby designate the second
originally included species, Sicusferrugineus Scopoli 1763, as the type spe-
cies. This type species is currently recognized by the name Sicusferrugineus
(Linnaeus 1761).
Ifone considers Stomoxoides Schaeffertobe an available name (I do not
as it appears only in works that are notbinominal), then the question remains
astowhatisitstypespecies. Underthecurrentrulesofnomenclature,because
the genus name was published without any included species in the sense of
named species, the first subsequently included species become the original
included species (ICZN, Art. 69a(i)l). By including Stomoxoides in the spe-
cies synonymy of Conops testacea, Linnaeus was the first worker to define
Stomoxoides by subsequentmonotypy.As the Linnaean species testacea was
270 ENTOMOLOGICALNEWS
c u
S I s.
Os armatum roibro UTiifeto : vagina rigida,
potTidla, longa, e medio reft'a(fb & liiflexa,
ball palpijera.
1004. SicUS Femi^ineiu. —
long. Un. 3^.
Diagn. Antennae feta brevi laterali. Abdo-
men teres, incurvum, ferru^ineum.
Habiut in pratis, & euam in fylvis.
Antennae ferrugineaf. Frons aurea. Thorax
fufcorufus. Alje imniaculatae. Abdomen fpiraliter
incurvum. RolVi vai^ioa apice bmda.
1005. SicUS Buccatus. —
loni'. UxL 3.
Li:<N. SyfiNat.p.505.Conopsn.6.
F.un. Svcc. 2. 1905.
Diagn. Facies veiicuLaris, aibi. Abdomen in-
curvum pedesque run.
In pratis.
Antennae rnfae . fetiriae. OcuU fufci. A\x
puado medio fa;co. Abdcmia apice mjcuiis la-
teraiibus cineraicentibus uf.in^ue (>,3-4}. Pedes
Tufi. G«iica pslUdiora.
Cc TAB.V
1006 INSECTA DIPTERA. Afilui,
teftacei. 11. C. intennis fettriit tcfUcei, tbdomioe fubovttoha-
mofo, facie veiicultri alba, alls hyalinis.
Se»f. c*rH. 1004. Sicvu fcrnigineus.
Sth^ff- elem. t. iio. Stomoxoides.
H*bttat in Europt sufirali. A^cmmiKt.
Q,or^% ftrrug'tmium. Abdomen »«* fjUnirUmm^ in^
flfxmm. A\s kyaliri^ vtMtJJtrmiimeis. StsttraC-
boccMa. x». C. antennii fctariis, abdomine hairofo grifco, facie
veliculari alba, alii ncbulofii. Fn jvtc. 190J. •
Sc9f. tarn. icof. Sicus buccatui.
H'itt^t tH Europa.
fubcoleo- >3- C. antennis fetariis,abdomine fubfrrrugineo, alls prr-
ptrata. mor(i$ externe craffioribus.
H»ytt4t UpCalil. Cartl. ChriJlieri$iH^p m.juvtnii.
Rtfert tMftilHm t»lt»ptrttum. Antenna fttarin^ mti
nCuatpgimtlyfTthmomrda^xuuymP,idfeetrrmmugfi(i^tmdm«mtfsipti<t/et.nigArtb.domAelsn
t/trj*j<i?m4ift,.,a(brdafofmittmreei-aviuxmlmoMgmiorsfltt,is^fus^/ufafpirtvtjmionrfiisttf*Ue.x
fitjf Isf <•/*«i f""^* ftrtgrind fades.
Figs. 1-2.Taxonomicdescriptions. L PagefromScopoli (1763) treatingSicusand its included
species.2. PagefromLinnaeus(1767)treatingConopstestaceaLinnaeus.
Vol. 108.No.4,September&October, 1997 271
clearly a composite ofat least two species, which was not resolved until the
present lectotype designation, the appropriate type speciesofStomo.xoidesre-
mains unresolved. As the illustration provided by Schaeffer is clearly of
ferrugineus Linnaeus 1761 and the first included species is here restricted to
testaceaLinnaeus{sensuitslectotype),thereistheproblemofmisidentification
ofthe type species. The International Commission on Zoological Nomencla-
tureneeds(underArt.70b)torulewhetherthetypeisSicusferrugineusLinnaeus
or Conops testacea Linnaeus, ofwhich I would recommend the former.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thankBrian Pitkin, the Natural History Museum (formerly the British Museum [Natural
History]), London (BMNH) and Michael Fitton, the Linnaean Collection, London (LSL); for
permissiontostudymaterial intheircare.
Withoutthe adviceofvariousspecialists on conopid flies, thispaperwouldnothavebeen
possible,soIamindebtedto;SidneyCamras,FieldMuseumofNaturalHistory,Chicago;David
Clements,Cardiff, Wales; MilanChvala,CharlesUniversity,Prague; andKennethG.V. Smith,
retiredfromthe BritishMuseum(Natural History) [=TheNatural History Museum],London.
\alsothankNealL.Evenhuis,BishopMuseum,Honolulu;JamesPakaluk,RichardE.White,
CurtisW. Sabrosky,andManya B. Stoetzelofthe SystematicEntomology Laboratory, USDA,
Washington; and Wayne N. Mathis of the Smithsonian Institution (USNM), Washington, for
theircriticalreviewofthemanuscript.
LITERATURECITED^
Camras,S. 1994.Case2881.5/cMjScopoli, 1763andA/yc^pctFabricius, 1775(Insecta,Diptera):
proposed conservation by the designation ofConops buccata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type
speciesofMyopa. Bull.Zool. Nomencl. 51: 31-34.
Chvala,M. 1961.CzechoslovakspeciesofthesubfamilyConopidae(Diptera:Conopidae).Acta
Univ.Carol. Biol. 1961: 103-145.
Chvala,M. 1963.AreviewoftheconopidfliesofthegenusSicusScop.(Diptera,Conopidae).
ActaUniv.Carol. Biol. 1963: 275-282.
Chvala,N. 1965.CzechoslovakspeciesofthesubfamiliesMyopinaeandDalmanniinae(Diptera,
Conopidae).ActaUniv.Carol. Biol. 1965: 93-149.
Chvala,M.andK.G.V.Smith. 1988.FamilyConopidae.Pp.245-272.InSoos,A.(ed.).Cata-
logue of Palearctic Diptera. Vol. 8, Syrphidae - Conopidae. 363 pp. Akademiai Kiado,
Budapest. [1988.09.20].
Collin,J.E. 1946. 'Rhinaiamacrocephala notavalidnameinDiptera(Syrphidae).Ent.Rec.J.
Var.58: 136-137.
Collin,J. E. 1947.On suggestedproposals foraltering thenamesoftwospeciesofSyrphidae
(Diptera),andonalterationsinentomologicalnamesgenerally.Ent.mon.Mag.83: 274-276.
[1947.11.28]
Collin,J. B. 1948.On the interpretationofArticle 31 ofthe InternationalRulesofNomencla-
ture.Ent.mon. Mag. 84: 235 236. [1948.10.11].
Collin,J.E. 1959.The British speciesofMyopa (Dipt.,Conopidae). Ent. mon. Mag. 95: 145-
151. [after 1959.09.10].
Coquillett,D.W. 1910.Thetype-speciesoftheNorthAmericangeneraofDiptera.Proc. U.S.
natn.Mus.37: 499-647. [1910.08.04].
Day, M.C.andN.G.Fitton. 1978.Re-curationoftheLinnaeanHymenoptera(Insecta),with
a reassessment ofthe taxonomic importance ofthe collection. Biol. J. Linnaean Soc. 10:
181-198.
4Titles and otherdetails forolder works are abbreviated; full titles and information on these
workscanbefoundinThompson&Pont.
272 ENTOMOLOGICALNEWS
Donovan, E. 1808. The natural history ofBritish insects ... vol. 13, 74 + 4 pp., pis. 433-468.
Rivington, London.
Gmelin,J.F. 1790.CaroliaLinne,Systemanaturae... 13thea.,vol. 1 (5): 225-3020.G.E.Beer,
Lipsiae [=Leipzig].
Goffe, E.R. 1946.The Syrphidae(Diptera)ofMoses Harris, 1776. Ent. mon. Mag. 82: 67-86.
[1946.03.30].
Goffe,E.R. 1947.SomenotesonSyrphidae(Diptera).Ent.mon.Mag.83: 195-197.[1947.08.28].
Goffo,E.R. 1948.MiiscamacrocephalaHarris, 1776,andScaevaarcuataFallen, 1817 (Dipt.,
Syrphidae). Ent.mon. Mag. 84: 53-55. [1948.04.01].
Goffe,E.R. 1949.ThepositionoiMuscamacrocephalaHarris, 1776,andofcertainothernames
ofSyrphidae(Diptera)underArticle31 oftheRules.Ent.mon.Mag.85: 35-37.[1949.03.11].
Harris, M. 1776.Anexposition ofEnglish insects ... Decad IH,pp.73-99, pis. 21-30. Robson
Co.,London.
Linnaeus,C. 1758.Systemanaturae...Ed. 10,Vol. 1.824pp. L.Salvii,Holmiae[=Stockholm].
[1758.01.01].
Linnaeus, C. 1761. Fauna Svecica ... Editio altera, auctior [49] + 578 pp., 2 pis. L. Salvii,
Stockholmiae [=Stockholm],(after 1761.07.28,dateofpreface).
Linnaeus,C. 1767. Systemanaturae ... Ed. 12(revised.).Vol. 1,Pt.2, pp.533-1327. L. Salvii,
Holmiae [=Stockholm]. [1767.06.14].
Mikhola, R. 1983. Diagnostic insect pins: Some problems ofthe Linnaean insect collection
solved.Antenna7: 16-17.
Panzer, G. W. F. 1804. D. Jacobi Christiani SchaefTeri Iconum Insectorum circa Ratisbonam
indigenorumEnumeratioSystematica, xvi +260pp. Palmii,Erlangae [=Eriangen].
Poda[vonNeuhaus], N. 1761.InsectamusedGraecensis... 127+[xii]pp.,2pls.Widmanstadii,
Graecii [=Graz] [1761.09.03] .
Pont,A.C. 1981.The Linnaean speciesofthefamiliesFannidae,Anthomyiidaeand Muscidae
(Insecta: Diptera). Biol.J. LinnaeanSoc. 15: 165-175. [1981.02.23].
Rozkosny,R. 1984.TheSciomyzidae(Diptera)ofFennoscandiaandDenmark.FaunaEnt.Scand.
14,224pp.
Sabrosky, C. W. 1994. Comments on the proposed conservation of Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and
Myopa Fabricius, 1775 by the designation ofConops buccata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type
speciesofMyopa(Insecta, Diptera),andonthe proposedrejectionofCoenomyia Latreille,
1796. Bull.Zool. Nomencl.51: 259-260.
Schaeffer, J. C. 1766a. Icones Insectorum ... 3 vole., xx + 280 -i- xiv pp., 280 pis. Breitfeld,
Regensburg.
Schaeffer, J. C. 1766b. Elementa Entomologica. [7 + 8 + 17 pp.,] + 135 plates with facing
legends.Weissianis,Regensburg.
Scopoli,J.A. 1763.Entomologiacamiolica... 421 pp.Trattner,Vindobonae[=Vienna] [before
1763.06.23].
Smith,K.G.V. 1969.Diptera.Conopidae.Handbkidem.Brit.Ins. 10(3a), 19pp.[1969.03.04].
Thompson, F. C. and A. Pont. 1994. Systematic database oiMusca names (Diptera). Theses
Zool. 20,221 pp.
Thompson,F.C,J.R.VockerothandM.C.D.Speight. 1982.TheLinnaeanspeciesofflower
flies(Diptera: Syrphidae). Mem.ent. Soc.Washington 10: 150-165 [1982.09.30].
Wheeler,T.A. 1994.CommentsontheproposedconservationofSicusScopoli, 1763andMyopa
Fabricius, 1775bythedesignationofConopsbuccataLinnaeus, 1758asthetypespeciesof
Myopa(Insecta,Diptera),andontheproposedrejectionofCoenomyiaLatreille, 1796. Bull.
Zool. Nomencl.51: 260-261.