Lonchaea (McAlpine, 1981)

Genus Lonchaea View in CoL

Note 27. Species belonging to the tribe Lonchaeini , in the genera Lonchaea , Silba and Neosilba , which are described from a holotype female with no associated male specimens. In almost all cases confirmation of the identity of species in this tribe depends on examination of the male terminalia. Where a species is described only from a female holotype without any associated allotype or paratype males it can be difficult to identify conspecific males. Males of the same species can potentially be identified as separate species resulting in considerable taxonomic confusion.

Note 28. Last abdominal segments of these holotype male specimens dissected & presumed destroyed ( Ozerov, 2010).

Note 29. These six nominal species were described by Luna (1988) within the context of a key to the Neotropical Lonchaea . As this was a pre-1999 publication, the characters given in the key meet the criteria set out by the ICZN Code ( International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999) for an available name. Luna stated that full descriptions would be made in subsequent papers, but this apparently did not happen.

With regard to the location of the Luna type material, Professor J.R. Loaiza, University of Panama, has informed me that “Professor Ivan Luna died in 2010, and we believe that family members withdrew all of his items, including entomological boxes, from the university entomological collection at that time” Professor Roberto Cambra, Director, Museo de Invertebrados G.B. Fairchild, Universidad de Panamá, additionally informed me that “A few years ago the air conditioners in the university museum were broken, and the lack of dehumidifiers caused many specimens to be destroyed by fungus”.

In his Master’s thesis Luna (1987) stated that the type material of four species, Lonchaea curvicaudata , L papaveroi , L. plumoaristata and L. zamorana was to be deposited in the Museu de Zoologia, USP, S„o Paulo, Brazil However, Professor Carlos Lamas of that institution has informed me that “Luna had the specimens that Dr. Nelson Papavero loaned him in the 1980s, but these were never returned. In the MZUSP collection, we have only unidentified material of Lonchaea , which includes 33 specimens from Nova Teutônia ( Santa Catarina, Brazil); 9 from Eug. Lefreve, Campos do Jord„o (S„o Paulo, Brazil) and one from Boca do Cuminá-Miri ( Pará, Brazil). These are type localities of the “new species” proposed by Luna, but there are no identifications or type labels on them”.

Luna (1987) also stated that the holotypes of L. chinchinaia and L. pseudoaculeata were to be deposited in the Museum of Entomology, La Molina National Agrarian University, Lima, Peru (MEKRB). I have contacted Professor Clorinda Vergara, curator of entomology at this institution, who has not been able to locate these specimens in the collection.

The conclusion at this stage must be that the holotype material of all these species described by Luna is lost. Paratypes of two species, Lonchaea curvicauda (unfortunately both females) and L. pseudoaculeata , are in the MUIP collections

Note 30. Lonchaea aenea . Treated as doubtful species by Kovalev & Morge (1984: 252) who also stated that it is “probably a senior synonym of Earomyia lonchaeoides Zetterstedt ”. Morge 1975 Plate 135 Figure 7 View FIGURE 7 illustrates this specimen in Meigen’s book of plates. The figure shows a female specimen in dorsal view. It has entirely black legs, the eye width is 0.75x the width of the frons, the apical section of the anal vein is distinctly curved towards the wing margin, and the veins surrounding the costal cell are shown in black unlike those in the other lonchaeids illustrated, an extended oviscape is evident. However, the wing does not show the shading of the wing veins which is characteristic of E. lonchaeoides females. Morge (1959a: 3) stated the type should be in the Natural History Museum in Vienna but it does not appear in their online catalogue.

Note 31. Lonchaea andina . McAlpine (1974: 778) noted that this species “is very similar if not identical with Lonchaea pilifrons Hennig, 1949 . [...] Unfortunately, andina is known only from the single female holotype and pilifrons from the single male holotype. Until associated sexes are discovered it will be difficult to ascertain whether these two holotypes represent the same or different species”.

Note 32. Lonchaea angustitarsis . In his unpublished key to the Nearctic species of Lonchaea McAlpine (1981) regarded L. angustitarsis (described from the holotype female without any associated type material) as a junior synonym of Lonchaea deutschi Zetterstedt, 1838 - this status is accepted in this catalogue.

Note 33. Lonchaea aucklandica . According to Harrison (1959: 213) “the holotype has not been examined and cannot be found in the collections of the Canterbury Museum or Cawthron Institute in New Zealand. No other specimens referable to the genus Lonchaea are in collections and no information beyond Hutton’s original description is available. The description needs elaboration before the species can be recognised and there must be some doubt as to the correct generic placing of Hutton’s species until specimens are available”.

Note 34. Lonchaea brasiliensis . Walker (1853: 378) described this species as having “poisers [=halteres] yellow” so it is almost certainly not a species of Lonchaeidae . It is not included in the key to Neotropical Lonchaea ( Luna 1988) or the list of Neotropical Lonchaea species (Korytowsi & Ojeda 1988: 100). It was (as of January 2023) listed by Evenhuis & Pape 2022 as being a valid name in the Lonchaeidae . See also second paragraph of Note 42.

Note 35. Lonchaea bukowskii . The species is described from a male from Crimea and a female from St. Petersburg, but the holotype was not indicated in the description. According to Nartshuk et al. (2021: 928) Morge attached a “ lectotype ” label to the St. Petersburg female in the ZIN collection but no publication with the lectotype designation could be found. However, Morge (1963a: 287: Figure 115) does illustrate the antenna of the female lectotype. The male was associated and terminalia figured by MacGowan (2012).

Note 36. Lonchaea chalybea . The male was described and figured by Korytkowski & Ojeda (1988: 104 Figures 26a & 26b.)

Note 37. Lonchaea contraria . According to Hackman (1956: 90) syntypes from Finland belong to several different species and a holotype is not clearly identified.

Note 38. Lonchaea corusca . Originally described from female specimens.Associated males were described by later authors under the various junior synonyms. Czerny (1934: 14) stated that Stackelberg caught a female of this species in “Gouv. Leningrad” [= St. Petersburg area]; and also listed a further female bred from alder ( Alnus ) in Lithuania, which was originally determined by Loew as L. hyalipennis Zetterstedt, 1847 which is presumably in Loew’s collection in Berlin.

Kovalev & Morge 1984: 254 gave the type localities as Lithuania and Leningrad implying that the type material consists of syntypes. According to Morge (1963a: 226) a syntype of L. corusca from Jukki, Leningrad (= St. Petersburg) is actually a specimen of L. chorea Fabricius. It is unclear if this is the specimen referred to by Czerny (1934: 14) from the Leningrad area or if it relates to another specimen.

Note 39. Lonchaea cyaneonitens . McAlpine (1977: 226) included this species in the Catalog of Diptera of the Oriental Region. However, the only record provided is from Papua New Guinea in the Australasian-Oceanian Region. Records of this species from Fiji were removed by MacGowan (2014c: 549).

Note 40. Lonchaea desantisi . The illustration of the male terminalia for this species provided by Luna 1987: 312 is most probably refers to Lonchaea choreoides Bezzi, 1923 . Luna (1987) gave details of the specimens he examined but none of these were collected either by Blanchard or at the type locality. The status of this species may remain in doubt until the holotype is located and examined.

Note 41. Lonchaea . deutschi . McAlpine (1958: 406) stated that the L. deutschi of Coquillett (1900: 459) from Alaska is not referable to Lonchaea sens. str.

Note 42. Lonchaea discrepans . Walker (1861: 322) described this species as having “halteres white” and thus it cannot be a Lonchaeid. Although this species is listed by Melander 1913: 79 it is not listed as a Lonchaeid by subsequent authors. It was (as of December 2022) listed by Evenhuis & Pape (2022) as being a valid name in the Lonchaeidae but the reference given for this (Guimar„es, 1971) is a paper dealing with the Tachinidae of South America. I cannot find discrepans Walker, 1861 in the index to this paper although there is a Distichona discrepans Wulp, 1890 . It is removed from the Lonchaeidae in this catalogue.

Lonchaea albimanus View in CoL . This is another Walker species from South America described as having white halteres ( Walker, 1858: 222). As far as I can ascertain it is not listed as a lonchaeid by any other authors. Evenhuis & Pape (2022) give the status as “(Available, Valid) Unplaced or Nomen Dubium ” but with white halteres it is clearly not a lonchaeid and is removed from the family.

The Walker collection, which would contain these species, is in the BMNH. Duncan Sivell, Curator of Diptera View in CoL has informed me “the collection has been checked but specimens of Lonchaea brasiliensis View in CoL or L. discrepans View in CoL could not be located. These species are not on the BMNH database either which inclines me to believe they are not in BMNH. Some of Walker’s British material has been kept together, but his non-British material was incorporated into the main collection, so if these specimens existed, they should be among the Lonchaeidae View in CoL ” (Duncan Sivell, March 2023, personal communication).

Note 43. Lonchaea foxleei . In his manuscript key McAlpine (1981) stated that this species “seems undistinguishable” from Lonchaea subneatosa Kovalev, 1974 . If this proves to be the case, L. subneatosa would be regarded as a junior synonym.

Note 44. Lonchaea freyi . Described from a single female, but Hackman (1956: 105) described an associated male and illustrated the terminalia. Hackman also noted that “the ovipositor of the female holotype of L. freyi is unfortunately lost”

Note 45. Lonchaea fulvicornis . Kovalev & Morge (1984: 259) stated “probably not a lonchaeid”.

Note 46. Lonchaea impressifrons . Described from the female holotype from Ghana. A male from the Democratic Republic of Congo was associated with this species by McAlpine (1960: 361). However , given the large number species now known in the L. impressifrons species-group in the Afrotropical Region, there must be some doubt regarding this association.

Note 47. Lonchaea indistincta . Listed in Systema Dipterorum ( Evenhuis & Pape, 2022) as a junior synonym of Lonchaea rufitarsis Macquart , which itself is a junior synonym of L. polita Say. The original description is of a female specimen with “tawny halteres” and as a result its placement as a junior synonym of L. polita , or even as a lonchaeid may be doubtful.

Note 48. Lonchaea laticornis . What was originally considered as a single species is now recognised as representing a larger species-group with species distinguishable only by examination of the male terminalia. At present it is not possible to allocate the holotype female of L. laticornis to any of these more recently named species and the name Lonchaea laticornis is at the present time applied only to the holotype pending further taxonomic evidence becoming available.

Note 49. Lonchaea leucostoma . Kovalev & Morge (1984) listed L. leucostoma as a doubtful species but did not actually state that it is not a lonchaeid. Morge (1959a: 3) stated the type should be in the von R̂der collection in the University of Halle but also stated that he could not find the types there. He suggested that “the type may not have been lost at all, but the labels may have been removed or lost during rearrangements to the collection”. Enquiries made for the preparation of this catalogue to Karla Schneider, curator of the R̂der collection, confirm that this specimen could not be located.

Note 50. Lonchaea megacera . According to McAlpine (1970: 443) “this species is extremely similar to, and perhaps is identical with, L. dasyscutella McAlpine,1964b from Northern Queensland. Unfortunately, L. megacera is only known from a single female and L. dasyscutella only from males. Until the sexes are properly associated it seems best to treat them as separate entities”.

Note 51. Lonchaea melanaria . Morge (1963: 229) identified this species as a junior synonym of Lonchaea sylvatica Belling, 1873 , but this cannot be the case as the description of L. melanaria predates that of L. sylvatica . In a footnote Morge explained that he considered this is a questionable synonymy with L. sylvatica as the type of Aricia melanaria is damaged, but confirms that A. melanaria belongs to the genus Lonchaea . Kovalev & Morge (1984: 257) repeated this synonymy without explanation and it is further repeated in more modern databases As Morge considered this synonymy questionable and as the specific identity of the holotype of Arcia melanaria has not been established the species is regarded as doubtful in this catalogue.

Note 52. Lonchaea pumila . Kovalev & Morge (1984) listed L. pumila as a doubtful species but do not actually state that it is not a lonchaeid. Morge (1959a: 3) stated the type should be in the von R̂der collection in the University of Halle but he could not find the types there. He suggested that “the type may not have been lost at all, but the labels may have been removed or lost during rearrangements to the collection”. Enquiries made to Karla Schneider, curator of the R̂der collection, for the preparation of this catalogue, confirm that this specimen could not be located.

Note 53. When the genus Setisquamalonchaea was synonymised, S. intermedia MacGowan, 2007 was placed in the genus Lonchaea . However, t he name Lonchaea intermedia was preoccupied by L. intermedia ( Hennig, 1949) resulting in the need for a replacement name - Lonchaea orientalis MacGowan, 2013 . The species authority Lonchaea orientalis MacGowan, 2007 in MacGowan & Okamoto 2013: 201 is incorrect.

Note 54. Lonchaea peregrina . Becker (1895: 336) stated in the original description [in translation] “a male in Loew’s collection”. The Loew collection is in NHMB but on making enquiries regarding this specimen Jenny Pohl of NHMB stated “According to our Diptera general catalogue, a specimen Lonchaea peregrina Becker, 1895 , from the Loew collection is registered under the number “11674”. Unfortunately, neither my colleague nor I could find the specimen after an intensive search in our main collection and in the supplements. It seems lost” The last published reference is by Kovalev (1981) who examined the holotype male which was sent to him by Gunter Morge, Eberswalde, Germany.

Note 55. Lonchaea palpata . Morge (1963a: 229, 287, 288) considered L. palpata to be a junior synonym of Lonchaea peregrina . However, Kovalev (1981) subsequently described five males from the Moscow region which he attributed to this species. Subsequently Kovalev & Morge (1984: 256) included L. palpata Palearctic Diptera checklist. Based on the examination of modern material, I would agree with Morge that L. palpata is a junior synonym of L. peregrina as the characters provided by both Czerny (1934) and Kovalev (1981) for L. palpata fall within the variation encountered in L. peregrina .

Note 56. Lonchaea sibirica . According to Nartshuk et al. (2021: 941) the end of the abdomen (and presumably the genitalia) is missing in the holotype. A paratype male is in the collections of ZMUM, it is not known whether genitalia are present with the paratype.

Note 57. Lonchaea stigmatica . Described from the holotype female from eastern Russia, this name was subsequently applied to species in the European fauna by several authors. However, what was originally considered as one species is now recognised as a larger species-group with many cryptic species distinguishable only by the male terminalia.At present it is not possible to allocate the holotype female to any of these more recently named species and the name now is applied only to the holotype until further taxonomic evidence is available.

Note 58. Lonchaea subneatosa . According to Nartshuk et al. (2021: 942) the tip of the abdomen (and presumably the genitalia) is missing in the holotype.

Note 59. Luna (1987: 250) stated (in translation) that “the types of L. chalybea Wiedemann , L. orchidearum Townsend , L. wiedemanni Townsend and L. ecuatoriana = L. metatarsata Becker require to be redescribed as the existing descriptions do not allow for their adequate identification or taxonomic placement. In addition, some names may have been improperly assigned to these species. Lonchaea chalybea was re-described by Korytkowski & Ojeda (1988: 104) but the others still require attention”.

Note 60. There was primary homonymy between Lonchaea metatarsata Kertész, 1901 and Lonchaea metatarsata Becker, 1919 and as a result Becker’s 1919 name required to be replaced. The fact that Kertész’s name was subsequently moved to Lamprolonchaea is irrelevant, the primary homonymy still exists. As there are no junior synonyms of Becker’s name from which to choose, a new name was required. Luna (1987:186) proposed L. ecuatoriana , a name which is unavailable as under ICZN rules the thesis is not considered a publication. However, Luna (1988: 20) published this name again in his key to the Neotropical Lonchaea species thus making it available.