Rangomaramidae, sensu AMORIM & RINDAL, 2007

Jaschhof, M, 2011, Phylogeny and classification of the Sciaroidea (Diptera: Bibionomorpha): Where do we stand after A & R (2007)?, Beiträge Zur Entomologie = Contributions to Entomology 20, pp. 455-463 : 460

The Rangomaramidae problem

Another purpose of the study under review was “to solve the problem of the genera of uncertain position” (p. 7). What has been achieved by AMORIM & RINDAL  s analysis, despite my opinion that any results are highly dubious if obtained on the basis of the crude data matrix reviewed above. The way AMORIM & RINDAL themselves see it (p. 44) “there is considerable advance” regarding “the question of the relationships of the genera around HeterotrichaHeterotricha and Ohakunea ”. I strongly disagree. The Rangomaramidae sensu AMORIM & RINDAL “include most of these genera of uncertain position” (p. 44), and this is exactly the problem. Latest CHANDLERCHANDLER (2002) made quite clear that the Sciaroidea incertae sedissedis are not a monophyletic group, and I do not know of any sciaroidologist, with the exception of AMORIM & RINDAL, who would not agree with CHANDLERCHANDLER on this point. Even HIPPA & VILKAMAA´s (2005, 2006) results suggest the Sciaroidea incertae sedissedis are a polyphyletic grouping. So, to lump the Sciaroidea incertae sedissedis together again under the name of a previously monophyletic family, Rangomaramidae , is clearly a setback (see also AMORIM & FALASCHI 2010). There are, in fact, no synapomorphies to provide any evidence of these taxa as a monophyletic group (their Rangomaramidae ). There are other setbacks. Within the “Mycetophiliformia“ incertae sedis ” sensu AMORIM & RINDAL (p. 48) one finds genera that have never before been questioned as belonging to the Mycetophilidae , such as Taxicnemis TONNOIR & EDWARDS and Loicia VOCKEROTH , side by side with true incertae sedis, such as Freemanomyia JASCHHOF and Starkomyia JASCHHOF. AMORIM & RINDAL have not seen specimens of any of these genera. A closer look at their preferred topology (p. 69, fig. 68) reveals the absence from that topology of these four genera and of the unplaced genera Afrotricha CHANDLER ,, Anisotricha CHANDLER ,, Nepaletricha CHANDLER ,, Sciarosoma CHANDLERCHANDLER and Sciaropota CHANDLER .. In other words, a considerable number of the unplaced genera which the study was initially attempting to reinterpret were excluded from the most critical analysis.

I leave it to future workers of Sciaroidea phylogeny to deal with the details of AMORIM & RINDAL´s concept of Rangomaramidae (p. 11 f.). I cannot see any purpose in a family description which employs words such as “usually” and “with exception of ” when trying to find common characters of the taxa included, and that does not refer to any synapomorphies. What is their concept of the family? In their discussion of Rangomaramidae AMORIM & RINDAL state (p. 12): “Even though there is still some instability, there is phylogenetic signal that allows familial assignment to all these genera that were orphans within the system. A number of other genera might fit in the clade, but because of missing data, we preferred to keep their inclusion in the family still pending.” This is one of many text passages in which the authors admit “instabilities” in their tree topologies, even “the position of the genus [ Rangomarama ] in the system should still be taken carefully” (p. 45). Nevertheless, on pages 47–48 readers of AMORIM & RINDAL´s paper find what is titled “A phylogenetic classification of the Mycetophiliformia”. These two pages are in my opinion a great disservice to the science, because they present a concise and ready-made account for all those who need a handy classification, no matter how this classification was generated.