2006
DOI: 10.1002/mmnz.200600001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Types of Fanniidae and Muscidae (Diptera) in the Museum für Naturkunde, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany

Abstract: An account is given of the type-specimens (holotypes, lectotypes, neotypes, paratypes, paralectotypes, syntypes) of the Diptera families Fanniidae and Muscidae in the Museum fiir Naturkunde of the Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany. Detailed information is given on the specimens, their labelling and their condition, and reference is made to parts of type-series located in other museums and institutes. 50 species of Fanniidae and 686 species of Muscidae are enumerated. The species are listed alphabetically… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, a key feature for distinguishing the two taxa had lost importance with Emden 's definition, and a reliable assignment of specimens to one of the two taxa was no longer possible. Since one of the two female syntypes of D. ovata (PONT & WERNER 2006) and all five female types of D. rutila in the Budapest Museum were destroyed by fire in 1956 (PONT 2013), a detailed comparison of the two species was no longer possible. In addition, Stein 's descriptions of the two species did not provide sufficient evidence that they are different taxa, and neither Curran nor Emden indicated in the supplementary characterizations of D. ovata and D. rutila that these were based on investigations of the type material.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Thus, a key feature for distinguishing the two taxa had lost importance with Emden 's definition, and a reliable assignment of specimens to one of the two taxa was no longer possible. Since one of the two female syntypes of D. ovata (PONT & WERNER 2006) and all five female types of D. rutila in the Budapest Museum were destroyed by fire in 1956 (PONT 2013), a detailed comparison of the two species was no longer possible. In addition, Stein 's descriptions of the two species did not provide sufficient evidence that they are different taxa, and neither Curran nor Emden indicated in the supplementary characterizations of D. ovata and D. rutila that these were based on investigations of the type material.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Remarks. According to Pont & Werner (2006), this is one of the two syntypes on which Stein based his description. The female is in excellent condition.…”
Section: Common Characteristics Applicable To Each Of the Four Descri...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Couri & Pont [26] also characterized the species and agree with Stein's description regarding the body coloration, the body length of 2.5 mm and the clearly pronounced longitudinal median stripe on the mesonotum. Since the male paralectotype of C. exigua is largely destroyed, the characterization by Couri & Pont [26] is based on a male from Taiwan, which Pont & Werner [27] identified as C. exigua. This may be why the recent characterization by the authors…”
Section: Diagnosismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, Orthostylum Macquart, 1851b has priority over Atherigona Rondani, 1856 and acceptance of this priority would cause instability of the current usage of the name Atherigona for this common and economically important genus of flies. Orthostylum Macquart, 1851b has not been used as a valid taxon name since 1899 and Atherigona Rondani, 1856 has been used as a valid taxon name in at least 25 papers by 10 different authors within the last 50 years including the following: d 'Almeida (1988), Carvalho et al (2005), Deeming (1987Deeming ( , 2000, Dike (1989Dike ( , 1996Dike ( , 2003, Ebejer & Gatt (1999), El-Serwy (2000), Grzywacz et al (2013), Grzywacz & Pape (2014), He et al (2007), Oliveira et al (2007), Pont (1980Pont ( , 1986Pont ( , 1989bPont ( , 1991, Pont & Deeming (2001), Pont & Magpayo (1995), Pont & Werner (2006), Qin (1996), Ribeiro et al (2016), Sabrosky (1999), Shinonaga & Huang (2007), Shinonaga & Thinh (2004), Sileshi (1998), Srivastava (1985), Zongo et al (1993 Alexander & Alexander (1970: 17)]. FAMILY: TIPULIDAE.…”
Section: Imatismamentioning
confidence: 99%