A commentary on the practice of using the so-called typeless species

The fears expressed by Santos et al. (2016) that description of typeless species (new species described based on field photographs) can be fatal for the practice of taxonomy which will succumb to an uncontrollable stream of "species of questionable delimitation" are, in our opinion, exaggerated. The Code already protects taxonomic practice from subjectivity quite well by limiting opportunities for descriptions of new species based on field photos by rigid requirements, and only skilled taxonomists with extensive knowledge of a group are capable of fulfilling them. If a taxonomist has omitted to compare the new typeless species with the known species externally similar to it, the latter cannot be diagnosed and its name in that case becomes nomen nudum. Typeless species can coincide with species described earlier, but can represent a new species differing in internal features. To describe typeless species without infringement of Article 13.1 a taxonomist should compare this species to all related and similar species described earlier

Generic revision and species classification of the Microdontinae (Diptera, Syrphidae)

Peer reviewe

Fauna Europaea: Diptera -Brachycera

Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Pape, T., Beuk, P., Pont, A. C., Shatalkin, A. I., Ozerov, A. L., Woźnica, A. J., ... de Jong, Y. (2015). Fauna Europaea: 3, [e4187]. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.3.e4187 General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. Abstract Fauna Europaea provides a public web-service with an index of scientific names (including important synonyms) of all extant multicellular European terrestrial and freshwater animals and their geographical distribution at the level of countries and major islands (east of the Urals and excluding the Caucasus region). The Fauna Europaea project comprises about 230,000 taxonomic names, including 130,000 accepted species and 14,000 accepted subspecies, which is much more than the originally projected number of 100,000 species. Fauna Europaea represents a huge effort by more than 400 contributing taxonomic specialists throughout Europe and is a unique (standard) reference suitable for many user communities in science, government, industry, nature conservation and education. The Diptera-Brachycera is one of the 58 Fauna Europaea major taxonomic groups, and data have been compiled by a network of 55 specialists. Within the two-winged insects (Diptera), the Brachycera constitute a monophyletic group, which is generally given rank of suborder. The Brachycera may be classified into the probably paraphyletic 'lower brachyceran grade' and the monophyletic Eremoneura. The latter contains the Empidoidea, the Apystomyioidea with a single Nearctic species, and the Cyclorrhapha, which in turn is divided into the paraphyletic 'aschizan grade' and the monophyletic Schizophora. The latter is traditionally divided into the paraphyletic 'acalyptrate grade' and the monophyletic Calyptratae. Our knowledge of the European fauna of Diptera-Brachycera varies tremendously among families, from the reasonably well known hoverflies (Syrphidae) to the extremely poorly known scuttle flies (Phoridae). There has been a steady growth in our knowledge of European Diptera for the last two centuries, with no apparent slow down, but there is a shift towards a larger fraction of the new species being found among the families of the nematoceran grade (lower Diptera), which due to a larger number of small-sized species may be considered as taxonomically more challenging. Most of Europe is highly industrialised and has a high human population density, and the more fertile habitats are extensively cultivated. This has undoubtedly increased the extinction risk for numerous species of brachyceran flies, yet with the recent re-discovery of Thyreophora cynophila (Panzer), there are no known cases of extinction at a European level. However, few national Red Lists have extensive information on Diptera. For the Diptera-Brachycera, data from 96 families containing 11,751 species are included in this paper

The homologies in structure of male genitalia of Cyclorrhapha (Diptera)

Gonopods have merged with a sternite 9 in structure of cyclorrhaphous genitalia. In the proof of this thesis examples of disintegration of a hypandrium on a pair of dorso-lateral sclerites and a unpaired ventral sclerite are found. The most indicative example is the genital structure of flies of the genera Chamaepsila and Psila (Psilidae). The hypandrial lobes designated as pregonites and postgonites, usually are attributed to gonopods and parameres accordingly. Gonopods in the form of distinct appendages of a hypandrium are found at the limited number of groups of Aschiza, for example, at a part of representatives of families Platypezidae and Syrphidae, and in some Schizophora. Two pairs of hypandrial appendages in many groups of Schizophora correspond to parameres and so-called parameral arms, i.e. are not derivatives of gonopods. At last, in some cases hypandrial lobes are derivatives of a sternite 9, for example, the socalled lingula in family Syrphidae and a pair of ventral lobes in some Pseudopomyzidae. A comparative table on the nomenclature of epandrial and hypandrial appendages used by different authors is submitted