Lucilia viridifrons, Macquart, 1843

Pont, Adrian C., 2012, Muscoidea (Fanniidae, Anthomyiidae, Muscidae) described by P. J. M. Macquart (Insecta, Diptera), Zoosystema 34 (1), pp. 39-111 : 95-96

viridifrons Macquart, 1843 , Lucilia

Lucilia viridifrons Macquart, 1843:138 ( 1844: 295) , pl.19, fig. 6. Syntypes ♂ and ♀, “de l’île de France. M. Guérin.” ( Mauritius), not in MNHN, and presumed destroyed.

MATERIAL. — Macquart described this species from both sexes, collected by Guérin-Méneville on Mauritius. There has been considerable confusion over the type-material and interpretation of this name, which has appeared in the literature on Afrotropical Muscidae (e.g., Zielke 1971: 185) and on Oriental Muscidae (e.g., Hennig 1952: 90; Emden 1965: 126, 127).

Aubertin (1932: 141, 144) studied what she considered to be the syntype series, and all subsequent authors have based their discussion and conclusions on her results. She regarded L. viridifrons as a good species. On page 141, she stated that the ♀♀ syntypes belonged to Orthellia (now Neomyia ) indica (Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) , and on page 144, she stated that the ♂♂ syntypes were a distinct species and that L. viridifrons was an older name for Orthellia (now Neomyia ) trita (Walker, 1859) . In a slightly later paper ( Aubertin 1933: 431), she repeated that the ♀♀ syntypes were O. (now N.) indica and identified the ♂♂ syntypes as O. (now N.) trita .

The four specimens upon which Aubertin based her discussion are in the Macquart collection in MNHN, under no. 975:

1) a ♂ with a red “TYPE” label, and a green disc with the accession no. 879.37 on reverse. This refers to a collection from Mauritius sent to MNHN by Desjardins, and so this ♂ is not a syntype. It is labelled by Macquart “N°. 55. / Lucilia / viridifrons.”. It is in good condition, and is identical with Neomyia boersiana (Bigot, 1877) sensu Zielke (1971: 188) , which is the correct interpretation of N. boersiana according to Bigot’s type-series (in BMNH) ; 2) a ♂ with a red “COTYPE” label, and a green disc with the accession no. 134.38. This number refers to another collection from Mauritius made by Desjardins, and so this ♂ too is not a syntype. Other labels include a printed “956” and a hand-written tag “10”. Right mid leg missing. This is also a ♂ of Neomyia boersiana ; 3) a ♀ with a green disc with the accession no. 879.37 (see ♂ no. 1), an old hand-written tag “10”, and a printed “957”. It is in good condition. This is not a syntype too, and this is a ♀ of Neomyia boersiana ;

4) a ♀ with a printed tag “958”, and an old white disc with the data “Reynaud / 1829 / Cal Beng” on the reverse. This presumably means “Calcutta, Bengal”. It is in good condition. This is not a syntype too, and this is a ♀ of Neomyia indica (Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) sensu Emden (1965: 126) .

There is no other possible type-material in MNHN, nor in BMNH or OUMNH. In MHNL, in box G.21 of the Macquart collection, there is a pin with the label “ Senegal ” over the name L. viridifrons , but as the locality is not mentioned by Macquart this too cannot have been a syntype. The conclusion must be that the type-series has been lost.

In his revision of Afrotropical Muscini, Zielke (1971: 185) based his interpretation of this name on a specimen found in MNHN identified by Séguy as L. viridifrons , for the somewhat curious reason that, although the type was very probably lost (“sehr wahrscheinlich verloren”), it must have been seen by Séguy and used by him for his identification (“er […] mit Sicherheit die Type […] gesehen hat und mit seiner Bestimmung vergleichen konnte”). Zielke therefore identified L. viridifrons with a widespread and common mainland African species of Neomyia Walker, 1859 , N. splendida (Adams, 1903) , and replaced Adams’ well-known name with N. viridifrons .

CURRENT IDENTITY. — As the syntypes are lost, any interpretation of the name must be based on the species that actually occur on the island of Mauritius, the type-locality. In collections that I have studied, there have been only two species of Neomyia from Mauritius: N. boersiana (Bigot, 1877) and N. albigena (Stein, 1913) ; N. splendida (Adams, 1903) does not occur there and probably never has done. Macquart’s description of L. viridifrons accords more with N. boersiana than with N. albigena . Most importantly, however, Macquart does not mention the presence of an elongate face and projecting mouth-edge in his L. viridifrons . Had it been present, he would have mentioned it: it is a striking feature of N.albigena and of N. cyanea (Fabricius, 1781) (now known as Neomyia peronii (Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830)) of which Macquart (1843: 145 [ 1844: 302]) wrote: “dans cette espèce, l’épistome est plus saillant que dans les autres”.

In conclusion, I have identified Neomyia viridifrons ( Macquart, 1843) with N. boersiana (Bigot, 1877) , and have previously recorded this synonymy ( Pont 1980: 729). In Zielke’s (1971) work, N. boersiana is correctly identified but should now be called N. viridifrons , whilst his N. viridifrons should be called N. splendida (Adams, 1903) .