The Synonymy and Distribution ofChrysomyia rufifacies(Macq.), an Australian Sheep Blowfly

Abstract

The Australian sheep “ blowfly ” Chrysomyia rufifacies, Macq., is shown by a study of chaetotaxy and the genitalia to be distinct from C. albiceps with which it has been considered identical. A discussion is given of the composite genus Chrysomyia and the genera into which Séguy has recently divided it. The synonymy of C. rufifacies is given and also the distribution of C. rufifacies, C. albiceps and C. putoria, the three species which Patton has considered synonymous.

Phenotypic polymorphism of Chrysomya albiceps (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) may lead to species misidentification

“…After examination of our specimens, we corroborate the original descriptions of Holdaway (1933), wherein C. albiceps and C. putoria present a dark brown colour on flagellomere I, and C. rufifacies presents a pale brown colour on the inner side of the dorsal part of the antenna. Although the colours of the anatomical structures of insects may present a high level of variation depending on their preservation conditions, we are confident in highlighting this character to aid in the diagnosis of C. rufifacies due to the varying conditions of preservation exhibited by the specimens we examined.…”

“…All collected flies were taken to the lab for identification by taxonomic keys (Holdaway, 1933;Guimarães et al, 1978;Dear, 1985;Guimarães and Papavero, 1999) and comparison with identified vouchers.…”

“…This was one of the first characteristics proposed to identify C. rufifacies, when it was accepted as a valid species. Holdaway (1933) suggested that the colour of the antenna and the difference of the wing venation M1 + 2 are two characteristics that may be used in the original description to distinguish C. albiceps from C. rufifacies. Although the author observed different colour patterns regarding the antenna, he did not include the results of his analysis in the identification key drawn in his work.…”

“…Adults of C. albiceps and C. rufifacies are usually separated by a few diagnostic characters (Holdaway, 1933;Guimarães and Papavero, 1999;Whitworth, 2010). The presence of the proepimeral seta in C. rufifacies, and the shape of male terminalia are the most commonly used structures (Bezzi, 1927;Holdaway, 1933;Guimarães et al, 1978;Carvalho and de Ribeiro, 2000;Mello, 2003).…”

“…The presence of the proepimeral seta in C. rufifacies, and the shape of male terminalia are the most commonly used structures (Bezzi, 1927;Holdaway, 1933;Guimarães et al, 1978;Carvalho and de Ribeiro, 2000;Mello, 2003). Nevertheless, proepimeral seta may be present in a small percentage of C. albiceps individuals, making this character doubtful and questionable (Zumpt, 1965;Tantawi and Greenberg, 1993).…”