Neosilba, McAlpine, 1962

Genus Neosilba View in CoL

Note 61. This genus was first proposed in J.F. McAlpine’s PhD thesis ( McAlpine, 1962). As such it does not meet the criteria of the I.C.Z.N. for publication of a genus name. Morge (1967: 173) used the name Neosilba but only as part of a general text on genera within the Lonchaeini . Korytkowski & Ojeda (1971) in their revision of the Peruvian Lonchaeidae were apparently unaware of McAlpine’s thesis and did not use the genus name Neosilba or cite McAlpine, 1962 as a reference. Romero & Ruppel (1973) described Silba perezi in 1973, but despite the description clearly indicating that this was a Neosilba species as indicated by the keys in McAlpine (1962) they did not use this genus name, and again McAlpine (1962) was not cited. In the USA Boza (1977) did use the name Neosilba perezi and provided notes on its biology in his M.S. thesis for the University of Florida, but again this thesis publication does not meet the criteria for establishment of a genus name. It was not until Waddill & Weems (1978: 1) used the name Neosilba perezi (Romero & Ruppel) in a February 1978 Entomology Circular that the genus name was formally made available. The I.C.Z.N. stated that it does not require inclusion in a taxonomic paper to make the genus name available. All that is necessary (pre-2000) is that characters (whether biological, behavioural or morphological) and a single valid species are provided, criteria which are met by Waddill & Weems (1978).

Note 62. Combinations which were published before the genus name Neosilba was made formally available by Waddill & Weems in 1978.

Note 63. The name Neosilba certa was first published by Walker in Insecta Saundersiana. Volume 1 which has a publication date for the completed volume of 1856. However, the book was published in 5 parts between 1850 and 1856. Page 364, with the description of Anthomyia certa , falls within part 4 (pages 252–414), which was published in 1853. As a result, the publication date of the description for N. certa given by McAlpine & Steyskal

(1982: 109) of 1852, McAlpine & Steyskal (1982: 112) of 1850–1856, Urrutia (2004: 19 & 20) of 1852 and Fernandez & Couri (2016: 569) of 1850 can be refined and corrected.

Note 64. Neosilba delvechioi . Strikis (2011: 77) stated “Unfortunately, there is no type specimen of this species, only the drawings of the male genitalia made by Prado and Del Vechio, which is considered by the author (Strikis) to be enough, once Dr. Angelo Pires do Prado, a renowned entomologist, was assured that the drawings belong to a male of genus Neosilba , moreover the most important structure in identifying a species, in this particular genus, is the male genitalia”. In this case a neotype requires to be designated.

Note 65. Neosilba glaberrima . Described from a holotype female, a male was associated and described by McAlpine & Steyskal (1982: 115). It was listed by McAlpine (1965) from Florida but it is considered here to occur in the Neotropical part of the state.